It's no news to anyone that the economy is a bit dodgy in most corners of the world. For some years, economists and commentators talked about the danger of the "real estate bubble," and aired their fears that a collapse had to come. Which, of course, it did.
TL;DR Version:
Economic systems are we know them are likely to collapse-- maybe sooner, maybe later-- because what they need to sell is increasingly based on "nothing" rather than "something." Our addiction to "growth" and "more" will eventually cause the downfall. Maybe our best chance to have a "soft landing" (economically speaking) is to embrace "enough" and stop our addiction to accumulating "more."
Selling AIR? Whatcha tawkin' about, Willis?
A beach view... but will the cliff collapse?
"Bubble."
"Air."
Whereas these airy phrases have mostly been used in the context of real property or stock markets, it strikes me that almost everybody seems to be selling air in some way, or at least trying to.
And frankly, it annoys me... and, as fate would have it, I end up surprised at how often it annoys other people that it annoys me.
I get called a "communist" and "un-American;" sometimes people insist that I am part of what is "wrong with the system" because I actually question the system.
I've questioned the so-called "system" for a really long time.
College Daze Predictions
Back in the early 1980's-- as a young college student at the University of Texas-- I used to get into long heated debates with my Finance professor (yes, I went to business school!) over what I perceived to be the inevitable collapses of the world's primary economic systems.
Washington's Olympic Peninsula at sunset
I made no bones about sharing my belief that both Iron-Curtain communism and US style capitalism were doomed to collapse, because both seemed unsustainable to me... albeit for very different reasons.
Professor Olm often ended up calling me a "closet Red" and a "socialist," and would get quite fired up during our discussions.
The man was quite brilliant, but what always struck me as odd-- even at age 22-- was his relative inability to think in the long term. He never quite could wrap himself around my assertions that long term economics were more psychologically driven than monetarily driven... along the lines of which I argued that communism was doomed because it worshipped "the collective good" at the expense of individual recognition, while capitalism was doomed because it worshipped "the individual" at the expense of the collective good.
He bought into the communist demise end of the equation more readily (because he was conservative and "hated commies"), but defended capitalism as this "great thing" that could never die.
And he would get deeply offended when I insisted that-- in the very long term (100+ years) capitalism was little more than a Ponzi Scheme doomed to collapse.
History reveals that communism-- as it once existed-- only lasted another seven years, on a large scale. Capitalism, meanwhile, teeters at the edge of its life as it grows increasingly supported by nothing but AIR.
So What is "AIR," Anyway?
"Air" is many things. I'll offer up some random examples.
"Get the secret to long life, only $19.95!"
White Lavender
Well, actually....
For $19.95, you actually get a link to a web site that talks about how to find the secret of long life, and if you enroll in their $5,000 program you might get longer life. The $19.95 is just "air," with no value of its own.
It's like those crafts shows where they charge $6.00 admission so you can get into a building where you can spend more money. More air.
"Get rich on the Internet-- secret plan just $49.95!"
Of course, the "secret plan" isn't actually a plan, it's the process of talking others in to plopping down $49.95 of their hard earned cash for the right to persuade yet others that they can have "the plan" for just $49.95. There actually is no real thing there, just a circle jerk promise.
Many airlines charge for checked bags, now... even though luggage on airplanes is not a new concept.
Banks charge for bank statements, and for even having bank accounts. Some banks even charge customers for counting cash.
Stock brokers charge inactivity fees AND activity fees.
Ridiculous Air
Peaceful creekside view
One of the most offensive cases of charging for air I have encountered in recent times was a bill from my propane provider, Ferrellgas. It was a $299.00 charge assessed because I didn't get the tank filled, during the previous year.
WTF, over?
The world is all concerned about rising energy costs, conserving resources, green energy, low consumption appliances and zero emissions... and you want to charge me for not using the gas you're actively encouraging me to not use?
Needless to say, an "unpleasant" conversation with customer service followed, in which I hinted that the local ABC TV affiliate's "troubleshooters" team would have a field day with this charge.
The charge mysteriously vanished from my subsequent statement.
Repackaging normal business practices and reselling them as bullshit?
So I got to thinking: Somehow, it has become de rigueur for businesses to charge for what once was simply considered part of "the cost of doing business." And it is just another layer of "air."
Honeysuckle
Some would argue that "air" is simply a sign of the times, and simply a matter of "repackaging" something that has always been there. United Airlines charges $50 to handle my suitcase, so I can fly to Los Angeles for "$179" instead of "$210."
The Universal Bank of Asshats charges me $5.00 a month to send me a statement, so they can offer "interest bearing checking."
My $19.95 garden clippers (As Seen On TV) in reality cost $4.85 to ship to me, but the "shipping and handling" charge is $11.95.
People get all whiny and cry about "The Economy." I find that if you truly poke around in the history of the economic trends that lead us to the current recession/depression, you'll find a lot of AIR.
AIR as a hidden upcharge
Sometimes air is hidden and added to the cost of things, to make us believe it doesn't actually exist.
Winter sunset sky
Investment brokers who charge a $200 fee to simply move your money from one account to another-- done with a couple of keystrokes in a fraction of a second... no actual WORK involved.
Real estate is a particularly good place to "bury" some air. If you take a moment, you can calculate that the land+building has an intrinsic value of $200,000, and we can give the builder and realtor a "fair profit" to make it $300,000 and yet the selling price is $500,000. There's $200,000 worth of fresh air, right there!
Medical devices and procedures are another good source of air.
I remember once talking to a sales rep for a medical supply company about the rising cost of healthcare, and he "sort of" confessed that hospitals were being charged $2000 for equipment that cost $80 to make. When I asked why such a high markup the answer was "because we CAN," with the follow up that if a patient has a choice between a permanent disability and paying $10000 for a procedure (that actually COST $1000) what do we think they'll choose?
Celebrity Air, and More...
Then there's "Celebrity Air." You know sneakers that cost $25 to make, but mysteriously get to be sold for $200 because Michael Jordan once said "these are cool." A $5 t-shirt that-- because some famous person put their name on it-- suddenly sells for $40.
Waterview at night
"Investment Air" is perhaps a more serious problem
It seems to me that the idea behind "investment" is basically a pretty good one.
If you have some capital, you let someone with an idea use it, and you get a bit extra back in the form of "interest" when you're done. I dig that.
But we can end up with a bit of a problem.
The Rise of the "Investor Class"
The "investor class" is very attached to getting high returns on their investments... which is how so many public corporations end up being far more concerned with "pleasing shareholders" than "pleasing customers."
So we have this thing called "the economy," and maybe it grows at 2-3% a year, when things are going "well." But then we have these investors who expect to get a 6-7% return on their investment in these companies that operate within this thing called "the economy."
Bit of a problem there... more AIR... the gap between the actual 3% growth rate, and the 6% cost of money. It has to come from somewhere, because it sure as $hit isn't just gonna fall out of the sky. This is part of where I ended up starting to think of the capitalist economy as a potential Ponzi Scheme... in the very long run.
Understanding this thing called "The Economy"
White Rhododendron
The talking heads (the so-called "experts" on TV and in the news) go on and on and ON about how we must "sacrifice," so we can stimulate the economy to make things go back to how they were before. Time and time again, I hear commentators here in the US say things like "Well, we don't want to become EUROPE," and "We don't want to become SWEDEN."
Having grown up in somewhat of a post-consumer society (Denmark) I find myself asking "WHY?"
And I find myself pondering why a society in which the pursuit of "enough" and "sustainability" (as representations of "happiness") is somehow less desirable than-- and seen as inferior to-- one centered around the eternal pursuit of "more."
Well, isn't MORE also BETTER? Our toxic love affair with MORE.
The only two concepts that come to my mind are "greed" and "a sense of entitlement."
Somehow, we have been "trained" (in the US of A) that "enough" isn't "good enough." And even though we're a childless couple in our 40's, we "should" have a six-bedroom, 5,000 square foot house, and three cars. It doesn't matter whether we "need" them, we "must have" them, or we're failing at living "the good life."
The problem with perpetual growth and "more" is that we're going to eventually run out of steam (no pun intended).
The Unsustainable World
If we project 5% growth in "stuff" out 100 years, the problem is that I am not going to suddenly have a need to own 7 cars. Or 11 toaster ovens. Or whatever else I would need to acquire in order to support the "required growth rate."
What will we leave behind?
Sure, we can point to a growing population... but there's a problem. In highly industrialized nations, population growth is becoming stagnant, or even reversing. The population of Spain started declining in 2012 and other European nations are expected to follow. Japan is expected to shrink by 20 million people, by 2050.
From where I am sitting-- and I grant you I am not an economist, nor an economic historian-- I see a very distinct parallel between the current economic issues in the US, Europe and elsewhere, and a very different historic event of only some 25 years ago. In the late 1980's, Communism got its comeuppance, as the Berlin Wall fell and a system of forced egalitarianism collapsed.
And now? I fear rampant uncontrolled Capitalism is getting very close to having its own moment of reckoning... in part fueled by an "old guard" of asset-oriented leaders dying off and increasingly being replaced by generations of experience-oriented Millennials and beyond.
Whereas I certainly have compassion for those who have lost their jobs and their houses in foreclosure, along with their healthcare, I am very hopeful that the world-- and the US of A, in particular-- is (crossing my fingers, here) moving towards a more moderate approach to living.
I'm not suggesting anyone needs to give up the quest for a "good life." I'm just suggesting the time has come where we embrace the notion of "enough" and don't relentlessly pursue an 11th million, once we already have ten million.
I'm also talk talking about government interference and legislation-- I'm talking about people having a voluntary epiphany and setting aside their fears of never having "enough," and embracing that we really have it pretty good.
What do YOU think? Is our desire to always "grow" (especially in the US) eventually going to cause our demise? Of you already have a good life, would you want to keep making it BIGGER? If so, why? Steemit-- in a sense-- is a "gift economy" where our actions benefit others-- do you think there are elements of that structure that can be applied in the outside world? If you were already "rich," would you be happy... or would you keep trying to get "richer?" Why? Or why not? Leave a comment-- share your experiences and feedback-- start the conversation!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Published 20170630 17:55 PDT
Honesty and the care for truth has died in many heart and minds. Money drives behavior, often in support of what's wrong.
I had a biennial lifetime web host at $48.00 for two years. They updated their ToS and forced me to accept it before logging in, or else I couldn't log in. Then I log in and my lifetime service has gone from 48 to 120 per two years.
Mattress manufacturers can sell things as 100% latex yet only have a small % of latex actually in it.
There is so much dishonesty in this world because of people putting money as the #1 top priority. Anything is valid, lying, dishonesty, as long as it can pump more money towards you. Truth? Morality? How cares! And yet in this immense stupor of ignorance, people wonder why things are the way they are, unfair, unjust, etc. and how things don't change.
All of the "market" and trading is not producing anything. It's just money games. Imagine if everyone just did trading of various companies that actually do things. Nothing would get produced anymore. Using money to make more money is usury, not actually doing something really. Whether its interest or trading, you don't do anything but play money games.
Argh! Yeah lets do whatever just because we can! LOL. Right? Wrong? Bah! Those are childish notions!
"You can do anything you want as long as you get away with it."
And so, people try to do whatever they can to make money, cut corners, dump toxic waste, and other scammy thinking where the $ is put above concerns about doing the right thing. "Why use pay-to-play?" "Because I can get more rewards on my post." "What does it do to the image and long-term success of Steemit?" "I don't know... I get more rewards, wo0ot!" LOL.
I live with enough, I take a minimalist approach. "Poor" would be the social-economic bracket I belong to lol, but I don't need more. Car? So I am coerced to pay insurance, upkeep, having to move it around the street for no parking times, etc. What trouble, when I would hardly even use it. A house would be good, but I only need a shack to live in LOL if I had my own land. But I still wouldn't own my own land, as their is coercion to pay taxes on that. We can't really "own" the basic starting point for freedom from being extorted for money or more AIR: land.
We definitely have a scarcity mindset that makes us go for more. If the world was different, more abundant less survival-focus, then maybe the mindset would shift away from trying to get things to ensure we have enough fro that rainy day. Maybe we need the shit to hit the fan and get over that fear of the rainy day with all this falsity around us. Once it falls, we fall, and then we can rise properly. Governments and the market manipulators keep inflating bubbles of illusion and money games, and never let us fall down to reality for us to rebuild properly. We just keep launching into more fantasy after the previous round of fantasy blew up in our faces. lol.
If we use logic, the Earth is finite, not infinite, and so too are the resources, wild growth can't continue unfettered without limits. It's not sustainable to make an economic model that is expected to always climb. When the population reduces, and the economy shrinks, people will be in for a hard time, and maybe that will be the catalyst to pop the other bubbles and finally get us to rock bottom to restart properly -- or restart the same mistakes all over again...
response to TL;DR version in which you said.
Our addiction to "growth" and "more" will eventually cause the downfall. Maybe our best chance to have a "soft landing" (economically speaking) is to embrace "enough" and stop our addiction to accumulating "more."
I say NOPE
that's exactly what we do NOT need to do. Rather we need to do the exact opposite.
We are in somewhat of a similar position to a man wearing nothing but a speedo, and running shoes, who is running across a track full of broken glass...and he stumbles.
He can do one of two things...he can try to break his fall with his hands and roll..and get cut to shreds...
OR.
He can power UP..and run harder...run OUT of the stumble...across the track of glass...and not get cut.
what we need to do YESTERDAY is fire about 90% of the regulators...get rid of a bout 99% of all the rules, laws and regulations that are holding us back.
Set the economy FREE...
Note: according to some estimates the GNP of the US is 1/10th what it would be if not for gubment regulations....that means each and every person in the US would have ten times the money they do now...
Hmm...it sounds like you both are saying the same thing...only you believe the problem lies with the people that make the rules that set the foundation of how we conduct business in a sense...He's saying screw it all...it's all BS. In regards to us wanting more..Unfortunately thanks to capitalism...our "more" is predefined by the "regulators" that you've mentioned. I agree with both of you.
the free market works best when its free.
when it's less free it works less well
why is that so hard to understand?
Bears me...But I definitely get it Everitt.
A truly FREE market economy might work... although I suspect the eventual outcome would be that the world's 10 most ruthless and cunning people would end up running the planet, with the rest of us living as grunts in a labor camp.
As for limitless production without legislation, that would be absolutely true! But who needs that? That was part of my point. Even if we can up production by 900%, I still just need one car, and I already have one car. I also just need onehouse, of about the size I already have. I'm not going to start eating 11 meals a day. I'm still going to have one TV.
You're a sci-fi writer, so I expect you might have read Frederick Pohl's "The Midas Plague?" In a world of limitless production, the highest status in society becomes to "live simply and NOT consume." Interesting read.
This was excellent, you managed to take all of the thoughts I've been having and put them in an easy to follow, coherent form that often eludes me when it comes to writing it down myself. I can write the hell out of a fiction piece, but this type of thing is my husband's forte.
I definitely do not need bigger, more, or riches, I've long ago quit being possessed by my possessions. I am in love with the concept of the rewards based economy. Remittance and payment, the old ledger based sysem has to die I believe.
steemit could become an unstoppable force by two things: having it's own visa without needing to transfer to bitcoin first, and creating a marketplace with all of us supplying it with our unique talents and gifts from all over the globe. Perhaps that's the future of it.
Thank you... I also realize-- in reading this-- that not all people are interested in my more non-material, minimalistic perception of life.
I remember answering-- as a thought/writing exercise-- what I would do with $10 million handed to me, tax free, tomorrow... and-- aside from paying off our very modest debts and installing solar and wind generators-- what I would do is invest every cent prudently in modestly income producing ventures that would help ensure living expenses covered in perpetuum.
I have no need of "things" and power boats and fancy trips and "adult toys." But I would definitely invest in learning and study.
Enjoyed the article, very thorough and nuanced!
But I have a question -- would imposing one particular type of money on an economy, and then removing any ability for the society to avoid using that money, and then steadily devaluing that money to almost zero -- really count as "economic freedom?"
Imagine if, instead of steadily changing the amount of money units in circulation, the government steadily changed the definition of a unit of measurement like a foot or the minute. This year -- a foot is 12 inches and a minute is 60 seconds. But next year? A foot is 11 inches and a minute is 55 seconds.
And these changing definitions steadily went on and on. And when feedback loops came back to try to bring balance back to the system, because contracts are getting screwed up, surveys are incorrect, and all of us live in larger and larger houses and are working longer and longer hours every year without changing a thing -- the government steps in, and imposed an iron economic hand to keep the whole thing floating. To me, that's not even close to economic freedom.
I think that economic freedom works great as long as the system is allowed to balance itself, which means using a resource based money and allowing the system the freedom to choose whatever money it wants.
Gresham's law, that bad money drives out good, is certainly a problem. But few recognize that Gresham's law only runs in this direction when the market is broken because a monopoly on money has been imposed on it. In the absence of a money monopoly, the absence of legal tender laws, then good money drives out bad. It's like a chemical reaction -- it can run in either direction depending on the circumstances.
Again -- great article, I enjoyed it!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
I'm not claiming to have workable answers... at best, I can point at some of the things I see as potential pitfalls.
Economic freedom is an interesting idea... I tend to get blocked by exploring "whose" freedom. One person's freedom might be the next person's idea of "repression." Sure, we can say "everyones" but how do we reach consensus on that? Or DO we reach consensus? Again, not saying I have the answer...
I'm not claiming to have workable answers either ;-)
I think the idea would be to not allow repression. But we have to be very careful about our definition of repression, because responding to claims of "repression" is usually how freedom is smothered.
Our concept of freedom has been diluted down to nearly non-functional by what I would consider to be goal seeking logic and philosophy. Usually trotted out to justify buying one person's vote with someone else's money or freedom.
I actually agree with probably all of the problems you see. It's just that, to my way of thinking, their roots go back to things other than economic freedom.
Consensus is difficult. At best, I think we should hope for a sort of oscillating or revolving consensus that steadily tries (and fails) to reach equilibrium -- fails because equilibrium is always moving, especially for a restless, inventive creature like Man, but if we want a stable system, then we have to allow it the freedom of movement to never stop falling back towards equilibrium.
But -- I have concluded that the only way this can occur is if we allow groups that have incompatible demands to peacefully withdraw from interaction with each other. The right to peacefully withdraw is what brings balance to society. If we forbid this, if we lock two groups in a room and only let them out once they reach an agreement, then the team that "wins" is the team that proposes the most extreme demands and is the most militantly resistant to compromise, because by refusing to compromise they can force their opponents to give more ground.
And that's what's behind our politics of extremism today. So what options does that leave us?
Like I said -- not like I have the answers either.....
All good with a slight twist... Young families naturally need more growth, where age brings stability. A young person grows out of last years shoes. I have shoes from 20 years ago that still fit.
Enough therefore is relative.
@doctorjohn, indeed! Enough is definitely relative, and very true about young families... we see that firsthand with our oldest (30) who has now bestowed 3 grandkids on us.
In the end, I think that boils down to "needs based consumerism" vs. "ego-based consumerism." I have several pairs of good shoes. Suddenly having a dozen pairs of Ferragamo shoes would in no way affect how I feel about myself or my life.
@denmarkguy , "rampant uncontrolled capitalism?" What we have here in the US is far from capitalism or free markets. Not even close. I don't believe we have had anything of the sort since the early 20th Century and it's getting geometrically worse. Government intervention (including the Fed) in the economy is the root of just about all of what's wrong with the US. They distort capital markets, the prevent true price discovery and have no control on their spending of our money.
By the way congrats with your success on Steemit, you've worked very hard at it and I'm very impressed!
@rocketbeee, you're absolutely right... seen in isolation, there's nothing "rampant" about it, although compared to other places, less so.
So where do we go? "Freedom" always sounds great on paper... but doesn't there need to be a "defined" playing field and some "defined" rules? Absent those... imagine one of the players bringing a Howitzer to a football game in order to make sure his side won. Just playing devil's advocate... concepts like "integrity" and "morals" tend to be the domain of an elite few....
It's like a never ending diatribe with me. Starve the government, cut off its tentacles in the economy one by one. Then and only then will we see true price discovery, REAL capitalism and proper capital formation around true value. Let the market decide. Reputations will matter more. It will cause people to think for a change rather than assume that the government is "handling it." Government is almost never a solution, but almost always is the problem.
A truly free market solves many of its own problems. Price discovery is genuine (not close to what we are experiencing now) and if someone famous wants to put their face on a product and sell it for a gillion dollars, then the market will determine if he or she is able to achieve this. Get the corrupt banksters out of the way and let's see where we can go from here.
truly free market would probably work pretty well... way back in the when during Economics, the theory of Perfect Competition always made far more sense to me than much of the other mumbo-jumbo.@makecents, a
That said, I always end up asking whether there needs to be a "playing field" and some "basic rules." If someone shows up to a FOOTBALL game with a bazooka, in order to win... that seems... not right But unless it is somehow "made known" that a bazooka is inappropriate game equipment... what stops that person? And what keeps the game from escalating into WWIII?
the downsides of being woke -- being greedy and taking both the blue and the red pill, side stepping systems like a ninja over here. . . ;)
As long as I can still have the freedom to say no thank you, we can step outside the system. Sadly, I'm reminded of a guy in Oregon who was prosecuted by the state for collecting rainwater... he wasn't "allowed" to not use the "public" water...
i find it odd that the world can discount logic so easily. that frustrates me. one of many things but i try and not to process these things so much.
Well written and a thought provoker to how I'm both contributing to this failure in economics and abiding by it. Upvoted
Thank you!
I see Capitalism everywhere, one just needs to grow or they will die @denmarkguy
Or just say "no thank you" and step OUTSIDE the system.
I enjoyed your article...It's funny cause you kind of view things the way I do...I can get into the similarities but it would be a long day...I once told someone that until we change the way business is done, everyone is essentially pushing to buy for as little as possible to sell for as high as possible. That is not a stretegy in which a society grows in a way to better the people with that society's life...Everything in a sense these days seem like a con...because well...quite frankly...it is.
Maybe it's a good thing that the younger generations are moving towards "experience-based" lifestyles - after all, experiences are renewable. If you pay me $200 for an all-day tour around NYC, then you want another one next time you come into the city - that justifies another $200 without anything being thrown away. In contrast, if I sell you a $200 TV, you need to trash that TV to get a new one.
Experiences have a higher economic ceiling without wastefulness, I think.
The fee market is insane, though, I'm with you there. I've tried to be way more strict about not accruing fees - bank fees, ATM fees, late fees, whatever - and it's surprisingly hard. Even just monthly payments for shit I don't use, like if I have Amazon Prime and didn't use it that month it's basically a stupid fee.
Great, in-depth post!