Eugene Coyle wrote: > Jim, growing income moves people into consuming new things. They start > eating more meat, and better cuts of meat at that. And they start eating > better fish, for example tuna. Tuna are disappearing. But growing income > means more demand for fish, even as the tuna are being wiped out in response > to the higher price people are willing to pay for tuna. ...
In a capitalist system where the opposition is totally atomized (such as what prevails at present in the US), that's true. In a situation where most people don't have control over their lives which on the job (or preparing for it or recovering from it), they seek some sort of compensation in fast cars, large screen TVs, eating meat, and the like. (BTW, I eat meat, though I try to keep my diet diversified, eating fish and fowl a lot.) Also, people don't have enough control over the state to force a truly environmentalist use of rising income. Of course, in a capitalist system where the opposition is totally atomized, the alternative to "economic growth" and "growing income" is not a ecological state, but a depression. Rising income is needed these days so that people can avoid bankruptcy and/or foreclosure, while covering rising medical costs and the like. He had written: >>> ... the idea of dematerializing >>> consumption >>> as a way to save both the economy and the environment at the same time is >>> utopian. Utopian as in unattainable. I answered: >> technically unattainable? politically unattainable?? now he writes: > Yes, both. but I thought you were in favor of "dematerialization" of consumption. I guess I was wrong. me: >> isn't shorter working time an aspect of "dematerializing consumption"? >> I thought you said that was unattainable. Gene: > Shorter working time possibly could contribute to dematerializing > consumption, but not enough to save the environment. Shorter working time, > give a cultural shift, could cut consumption, rather than dematerialize it. what, then, is dematerialization of consumption? I guess I just don't understand. Is it like a monastic style of life? Ommm... me: >> It is a good idea to cut working time/year. Getting there would likely >> involve a big struggle. If people in China are willing to work 60 >> hours/week, that makes it hard to cut the work-week here in the US. Gene: > It is better to see this the other way around. If we cut the work week in > the US, it would be easier for people in China to reduce hours of work. If > we cut the work week in the US, the French will be able to reduce hours of > work. The French are working too much but we keep the pressure on them to > do so. The focus on cutting must be here in the US Yes, that's where the focus should be, but we should remember that capital flows (or makes a credible threat to flow) to those places where people are overworked and underpaid. More and more, the incentive system has been set up to get us all (the Earth's population) to compete our ways to the bottom. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
