>charles mueller wrote:
>
> I don't recall that anyone here has addressed the question of what a
> successful program of 'voluntary simplicity'--.... Is there a plan for protecting
>>the non-volunteers, to prevent their jobs and incomes--and thus their
>>consumption--from being involuntarily taken from them by this 'voluntary
> simplicity' program?
Tom's example of his three economics courses just makes fun of you idea.
Really his application of the micro to the macro is funny.
The downward spiral of demand you describe is real and Jay Hanson is
right that, "Simplicity WILL BE mandatory -- either enforced by
government, or by nature. There are NO other alternatives."
There are ways to have sustainable luxury, but they require breaking the
dilemma between growth and conservation. That's why we need deeper
changes, going down to the false assumption that labor is limiting our
wealth.
My answer is that we should use simplicity, durability, efficiency, and
population control to maximize both personal security and group
sustainability. We should not try to stop the loss of jobs and income.
When we no longer need much human labor in production, income can't be
based on wages. Dividends could serve to distribute income if we had
capitalism for more than the few.
For a more detailed treatment see my web page, and please comment. I
change it in response to most suggestions, one way or the other.
Barry
http://home.earthlink.net/~durable/
