The Decline of Pleasure is an excellent book on the problems of Utilitarian economics by the theater critic Walter Kerr. If you can find a copy of it I would highly recommend it. It is, however, as out of date as is Milton Friedman. Both have been put in the ashcan of history by Piaget and current brain research on the purpose of Aesthetics in the development of societies and the sustenance through the children. Some 90 year olds should be left to their sand dabs.
Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:38 AM Subject: Re: No significant products (was Re: [Futurework] Fed running out of ammonition) > Keith: > > > Just think of what the all middle-class and most working class consumers > > have been able to achieve during the last century. They have been able to > > buy or rent a satisfactory home, they have bought one or more family cars > > (and don't have enough family members to need to buy any more now), they > > have been able to fill their homes with gadgets, and they have more than > > enough entertainments, both at home or at local events. Just what is > > supposed to come along which is going to fill our lives with extra > > excitement and joy? > > > There may be something else at play here. In "The Overworked American: The > Unexpected Decline of Leisure", 1993, Juliet B. Schor noted : > > "In the last twenty years the amount of time Americans have spent at their > jobs has risen steadily. Each year the change is small, amounting to about > nine hours, or slightly more than one additional day of work. In any given > year, such a small increment has probably been imperceptible. But the > accumulated increase over two decades is substantial. When surveyed, > Americans report that they have only sixteen and a half hours of leisure a > week, after the obligations of job and household are taken care of. Working > hours are already longer than they were forty years ago. If present trends > continue, by the end of the century Americans will be spending as much time > at their jobs as they did back in the nineteen twenties." > > It's now ten years later, and I'm not sure that the trend Schor noted has > continued, but I would be surprised if it hasn't. As leisure time has > decreased it has become more valuable. Because of its value, its uses have > to be maximized. How might that be done? One way would be by stuffing it > with things that give you pleasure quickly and with minumum friction - the > cell phone, the portable CD player, the portable game, even the old > fashioned pocket book. Even kids can't escape it. Ride a city bus and take > a look at the kids going off to school or college. Many will be plugged > into a headset or talking on their cell phones. > > And I would suggest that it's not a thing of excitement or joy. It's more a > case a harried grabbing what you can when you can. > > Ed Weick > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:51 AM > Subject: No significant products (was Re: [Futurework] Fed running out of > ammonition) > > > > Hi Karen, > > > > You made a spelling mistake in your subject heading. Did you mean > > "admonition" or "ammunition"? > > > > Either way, I think Greenspan has run out of both! It is clear to me that > > he has absolutely no idea of what is going on -- and probably, in truth, > > never did have -- neither has any other economist who holds forth in > public > > at the present time. > > > > I've recently become fascinated by one simple problem. There is a limited > > amount of time in the day that's available to the average middle-class > > person (that is, the person with spare spending power) to use any more > > significant consumer products. By "significant" I mean (a) something that > > is novel and exciting enough to displace the time that is already spent on > > existing products, and (b) carry a big enough profit margin which will > > stimulate spending power and investment and thus the economy. > > > > Where is this product? The irony of the IT bubble of 1990-2000 was that > > although it absorbed massive spending power by way of "investments", its > > typical products were pretty minor -- PCs. MP3s, Playstations and mobile > > phones -- relatively lowly priced and, at present, with vanishingly small > > profit margins. > > > > Just think of what the all middle-class and most working class consumers > > have been able to achieve during the last century. They have been able to > > buy or rent a satisfactory home, they have bought one or more family cars > > (and don't have enough family members to need to buy any more now), they > > have been able to fill their homes with gadgets, and they have more than > > enough entertainments, both at home or at local events. Just what is > > supposed to come along which is going to fill our lives with extra > > excitement and joy? > > > > I think we're seeing the end of rampant consumerism. And the sooner that > > economists (and politicians) put that into their pipe and smoke it, the > > quicker we'll have a better idea of where we're going. > > > > Keith Hudson > > > > > > At 08:01 23/06/2003 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > > >Ammo low, Fed eyes last bullet to lift economy > > > > > > > > > > > >Federal Reserve's expected interest-rate cut this week may add modest > > >stimulus but is not without risks. > > > > > >By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, June 23, > > >2003 edition > > > > > > > > > > > >NEW YORK - For the past 2-1/2 years, the Federal Reserve has lowered > > >interest rates to stimulate the economy. The result has been a virtual > > >gully washer of money in the economy. But now, as the Fed contemplates > yet > > >a 13h cut, it has become much more difficult and complicated to pump up > > >the economy by lowering short-term interest rates. > > > > > > > > >So, when the Fed meets Tuesday and Wednesday to review the economy and > > >make a decision on interest-rate policy, it will have to consider why > this > > >rainstorm of cash hasn't done the job. > > > > > > > > >If business won't build new factories at these low interest rates, will > > >even lower rates make any difference? And, as interest rates get closer > to > > >zero, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan will have to ponder if he needs to keep > > >some ammo in his pouch in case he needs it later this summer. > > > > > > > > >"The Fed's decisions are becoming increasingly difficult," says Jon > > >Blumenfeld, US Interest Rate Strategist at Commerzbank Securities in New > York. > > > > > > > > >Despite the difficulties, Fed-watchers expect Alan Greenspan and his > > >fellow bankers will reduce rates yet again - probably by a quarter of a > > >percent. But, a half a point is not out of the question. > > > > > > ><http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0623/p02s01-usec.html>http://www.csmonitor.c > om/2003/0623/p02s01-usec.<http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0623/p02s01-usec.htm > l>html > > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
