Just curious... what is the alternative to an economy based on consumerism?

[Robin in Tx]

I see it mentioned on these boards quite often the disdain that is held for a consumerism-based economy. I've been thinking about it, and I've tried to do some reading/websearches, etc., and I can't for the life of me figure out what the preferred alternative would be. Some articles I found said that the alternative is basically some degree of marxism/central contol/nationalism... surely people here aren't advocating that!

So really, what is the alternative? If consumerism is the problem, then what is the answer?


Robin

[Kelli in TN]

I think it is more a personal attitude of consumerism that people are speaking out against. Surely they do not mean governmental control! :eek:

I would like to be less of a consumer for reasons that have to do with my personal faith and the way I think Christ called us to live. (she says as her husbands surround sound system blares American Idol which is playing on the ginormous plasma TV that now has a permanent home over the fireplace:rolleyes:) I am trying to change the way the money that is in my control is spent and I am trying to influence my children not to be spartans, but not to be crass materialists either.

[mcconnellboys]

No, I'm certainly not advocating any of those! But we are consumerism gone wild in this country. Controlled spending, more thoughtful spending, more thoughtful repurposing, bartering, trading, reusing, recycling - all those are ways to help control our rampant spending.

It's only been a few years ago that folks started leasing cars, for instance, instead of buying them. At that time, you generally saw 5 year leases, sometimes only 3. Now, one year leases seem to be becoming the norm. We constantly want newer, bigger, better gadgets and the minute the shine wears off, we have to have another new one....

I'm sure you know all about planned obsolescence. So, for instance, washers that are perfectly capable of lasting 30-35 years began to be built to only last 15 years, so that folks would have to invest in new ones, rather than just parts. Now that amount of time is lessening even more. A repairman the other day told me 10-12. How long will it be before washers only last a year before you have to get a new one? And if everything is short term and disposable, shouldn't it cost less? not the same, or more?

When I talk about this subject, I'm just trying to say that there has to be an end to this game somewhere. How long can we continue to endlessly buy and throw away? It just seems crazy to me....

Regena

[jail warden]

as much as people buy so many disposable things and cheaper things that don't last long, what's going to happen to the landfills? Everyone has a cow about global warming, but I think our landfills will fill up long before we need to worry about other environmental factors. I never thought about landfills much, but I now have 3 children and our little family produces a lot of trash, so I have stopped buying so many disposable things and I have started reusing things as much as possible.

I also think the problem with comsumerism is the attitude of bigger, better and being so wasteful of our resources. "I don't care if it breaks because then I get to buy a new one." (I used to be guilty of this before $ became tight, but now I'm realzing it's just wasteful and truely bad management of the resources God gave to me.)

I'll come off my soapbox.:p This is an area that annoys me: being wasteful.

Lori

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, you've said it exactly! I never saw my grandparents OR my parents live this way (my mom washes out Ziploc bags, and reuses them, for heaven's sake!). And I wasn't taught to live this way. How has our world gotten to BE this way?

I visited our landfills here several years ago, with my older son. They've been closed for some time. They are full. Our waste here is now shipped out to another state. And what does that state do with it? Land fill it until theirs are full? Incinerate it, which is worse? Dump it into some body of water somewhere (places near the sea dump into the sea)? And what happens when we can't make more landfills? What happens when we've poisoned our water supply? There's only one and it's been renewing itself since the beginning of time - but how can that continue once it becomes contaminated?

Regena

[Kelli in TN]

as much as people buy so many disposable things and cheaper things that don't last long, what's going to happen to the landfills? Everyone has a cow about global warming, but I think our landfills will fill up long before we need to worry about other environmental factors.



Dang! I foolishly disposed of my allotment of rep and you so deserve some. Someone give this woman some rep!!

Yes, the landfills are the big problem, in my opinion. I tell my kids "Everything came from somewhere and when you are done with it, it will go somewhere."

I want them to think about how something was produced and how (and how soon) something will be disposed of.

[WTMindy]

Yes, you've said it exactly! I never saw my grandparents OR my parents live this way (my mom washes out Ziploc bags, and reuses them, for heaven's sake!).

I always tell my dh that when we make our first million I'm not going to wash out my Ziploc bags, but I guess I'm saving the environment as well as the pennies! :-)

[umarider]

I think it's a combination of problems that stem from consumerism. Of course there are the environmental issues, but there's also the vulnerable state our national economy has been left in because too many people in the U.S. (our government included) spend more than they earn in order to have all the "stuff" we've been trained to want. Add to that the growing feelings of worry, stress and dissatisfaction that many people struggle with, and you have some idea of the problems that rampant consumerism has brought about.

I, too, have been thinking about these things a lot recently. I've been doing a fair amount of reading (when I can find time from HSing!). Some of the books are pretty heavy-weight econ. books (have to make sure I'm not at all drowsy prior to reading!), but one useful book has been Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez & Vicki Robin. He talks about finding the level of "enough" in your life. And how people have more and more but are less satisfied.

[Tammy in Germany]

I want to chime in here because by living in Europe this has taught be how wasteful our family was. They (europeans) recycle everything...it's wonderful. I have learned so much by living here...it's taught me to be more respectful of our environment and bigger is definitely not better. I also buy way less by living here and make due more with what we have and I don't have the "I'll run to WalMart for cheap stuff mentality" anymore. Waste not want not is my motto now...I hope that makes sense. :)

[CindyPTN]

the disdain that is held for a consumerism-based economy. I've been thinking about it, and I've tried to do some reading/websearches, etc., and I can't for the life of me figure out what the preferred alternative would be.

I think of consumerism as a personal behavior rather than a national system. Capitalism is our economic system and I don't know if there is a better method to promote a healthy economy. The other "economies" you discovered are greater degrees of governmental control.

Now, the behavior patterns of our society are stemming from the desire to get everything we want and the ease to put it on credit. I'm generalizing as a nation, and this is where I see consumerism coming into play. I think the alternative would be to remove credit/debt from the economy.

Credit/Debt for consumers didn't exist before the late 1940s/50s. Neat fact I just learned from Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University (online). The alternative would be a Cash-Flow System, right?

[BizyPenguin]

I did not read all of the replies, but I noticed someone mentioned the book Your Money or Your Life (http://www.yourmoneyoryourlife.org/). It is excellent. Read it. It may change your life. I've linked to the web site. Many mentioned landfills and how they are over filled and using less disposable things. YES! Everything you use goes somewhere. Recycle! Reuse! Reduce! This is a big reason why I cloth diaper. Disposable diapers are a HUGE waste!! I'm using fewer paper napkins for this same reason. Cloth napkins are just as easy to use. I'm ranting. Sorry. HTH!

[AmyinPA]

I think it is more a personal attitude of consumerism that people are speaking out against. Surely they do not mean governmental control! :eek:

I would like to be less of a consumer for reasons that have to do with my personal faith and the way I think Christ called us to live. (she says as her husbands surround sound system blares American Idol which is playing on the ginormous plasma TV that now has a permanent home over the fireplace:rolleyes:) I am trying to change the way the money that is in my control is spent and I am trying to influence my children not to be spartans, but not to be crass materialists either.

I agree with Kelli. (as usual:) I think consumerism of which you speak has a very "me first" dynamic to it. I'm all for buying goods, capitalism, etc. But when those things trump my desire to help my fellow neighbor, that's when I think it becomes evil.

[PariSarah]

(I've got a list of about seven degrees that I'm *not* getting that I wish I could. Nursing, law, and economics top the list.)

Anyhoo, consumption-based economics allows for an enormous percentage of the population to avoid farming and basic manufacturing, but as many as get to do "easy" jobs like mine, dozens more get forced into low-wage service jobs. The only real alternative seems to be a more agrarian economy, with a majority of people involved in the production of their own basic needs. C

But there are no economies like that out there. The only really agrarian societies are functioning at the level of subsistence farming, not self-sufficiency.

And I'm becoming more and more convinced that what is valued about education these days is the way it "qualifies" us to do something other than provide for our own basic needs. The farther away one is from the basic necessities of life, the more wealthy and respected one is.

[Plaid Dad]

I see it mentioned on these boards quite often the disdain that is held for a consumerism-based economy. I've been thinking about it, and I've tried to do some reading/websearches, etc., and I can't for the life of me figure out what the preferred alternative would be.

A primarily agricultural (as opposed to industrial) economy, for one. I'm fond of the distributist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism) alternative myself, in part because it jibes well with other values I hold dear. We don't live in a distributist paradise, by any means, but our area has a lot of small family farms and an amazing mutual aid infrastructure. It's "small and local are beautiful (http://www.amazon.com/Small-Still-Beautiful-Economics-Families/dp/1933859059/)" all around. That's part of why we chose to live here. :) The area also supports a surprising number of artists, small-scale technology businesses (like my wife's), and at-large "intellectual workers" (like me, with my writing and tutoring businesses). It's a humane economy (http://www.amazon.com/Humane-Economy-Social-Framework-Market/dp/1882926242/).

[Tracey in TX]

Credit/Debt for consumers didn't exist before the late 1940s/50s. Neat fact I just learned from Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University (online). The alternative would be a Cash-Flow System, right?[/quote]

This isn't entirely factual. Merchants offered credit to customers, but did expect payment upon crop harvest, DH returning from work, etc. Not nearly as prevalent as today, but there has always been some form of credit.

[Tracey in TX]

[quote=Robin in Tx;41246]I see it mentioned on these boards quite often the disdain that is held for a consumerism-based economy. I've been thinking about it, and I've tried to do some reading/websearches, etc., and I can't for the life of me figure out what the preferred alternative would be. Some articles I found said that the alternative is basically some degree of marxism/central contol/nationalism... surely people here aren't advocating that!

This is a multi-faceted question. I think most people would agree that Americans are facinated by 'stuff'. It almost defines who we are, and what we are becoming by ownership of this momentarily needed 'stuff'. We buy the trendiest, coolest, most high-tech item just to dispose of it when another fab replaces it. Quality is not necessary b/c we expect to throw it away soon. (Can you imagine your kids toys being passed down to their children?)

Everything is allegedly replaceable. I've often wondered if this consumerism has lead to devalued human life and decline of marriage. It might seem like a stretch, but so much emphasis is put on stuff and less energy on what really matters. Besides, can't you just buy another...?

Maybe it's too cynical?

[strider]

with the poor stewardship people exercise over resources.

Easy credit is ruining individuals, families, and ultimately, our economy.

I am vehemently against socialism and fear for that trend in this country. I do, however, wish there were laws in place to protect people from borrowing unwisely.

[Virginia Dawn]

Credit on expectations (crops, inheritance, etc. ) has been around for centuries. What's different now is the ability to get credit with no expectations. The rules have changed. Today, very few people go to debtor's prison or become indentured for payment of debt. The too easy availability of credit and a too lenient credit system is a very big temptation to the modern consumer.

[Virginia Dawn]

But it doesn't seem to take human nature and greed into account.

Centralization means more wealth for some people, and those people are not likely to give up thier privileges without a dirty fight.

I agree that rural communities seem to come closest to the ideal. We live in a rural community and the level of cooperation is truly wonderful. However, many of us still must rely on the city for work and supplies, while constantly trying to fight off encroachment.

It's one of those paradoxes. :)

[Virginia Dawn]

I don't think a change in the type of government is necessary, but a change in the type of politician.
Politicians who promote virtues like moderation, civic and personal responsibility, honesty, and stewardship of resources are not easy to find.

[Friederike in Persia]

I would say so as a German!:)
But seriously I believe there is hope! Things changed drastically within one generation in Germany. I remember my sister and I coming home from school, demanding of our (poor) mother, that we should recycle more. That went on to taking laundry baskets to the supermarket to bring your stuff home in,....by now that's a way of thinking for most people and starting to be put into law (not the laundry basket, but the recycling, your garbage bin won't be taken, if it has recyclable stuff in it).
I think it should start with people and their personal attitudes and that way you could circumvent this dread that so many Americans seem to have of too much government involvement.

Don't slaughter me for this very European view-point:eek:

Friederike

[Jane in NC]

The only really agrarian societies are functioning at the level of subsistence farming, not self-sufficiency.



May I recommend for your "free time" (HA!) reading Deep Economy by fellow Methodist Bill McKibben. McKibben theme's echo '70's publications like Small is Beautful and Limits to Growth, updating the ideas to include challenges faced today. His books are never dry and I find his arguments for ethical decision making to be most appealing.

Jane

[GothicGyrl]

It is very much a "it's cheaper for me to just buy a new one than to fix it" problem. Technology is just moving so fast that upgrading things is moving faster.

And while I don't so much mind technology (give me the fastest computer I can afford and it will last me a few years--as the one I am on now has--3 years so far and not a single problem), some of that attitude can be a bit nerving because I just don't have the money to upgrade these things that fast.

What I'd like to see, though, is a return back to "hometown" or "home grown". I will patronize a farm/bread maker over a Conglomerate A's Superduper Crusty Bakery in all 50 states! We have a hydroponic farm right down the road from me, but I can't shop there because the prices are too high and he doesn't have a variety. Which is sad, because it only makes sense that he'd get the variety and lower his prices if people shopped there more.

I want home grown veggies, home baked bread, etc... and I'd pay for it too.. I would LOVE an Amish business right by me--I'd so shop there. But it won't happen because consumers today, don't support it. They "want it now" and "right now", so they settle for second best at Walmart.

I don't so much mind the cars (except the big honkin' suv's or trucks)..but I'm kind of tired of paying $3 for a loaf of stale bread, when I can pay that much for fresh-out-of-the-oven-this-morning bread.

[elegantlion]

It's the toss it out and buy another mentality. I was shocked to see my Walmart has finally joined the 21st century and had reusable shopping bags. The cashier seemed really put out that I asked her to use them as I purchased them.

There are almost too many consumer choices, IMO. How many more gadgets do we really need?

[PariSarah]

May I recommend for your "free time" (HA!) reading Deep Economy by fellow Methodist Bill McKibben.

Ooo! Sounds like fun! I just put it on my "to read next year?" list.

[OceanBreeze]

I recently took two economics classes as prep for my career change. (Accounting). Interestingly, at the beginning of one of the classes, the professor asked if we lived in a world of scarcity. Being forty-something:o, I knew of course that we do. Surprisingly, over half of the 18-20-year-olds in my class thought we did not. Rampant consumerism seems to lead to the misconception of abundance. We as parents need to teach our children that we live in a world of scarcity and we need to be good stewards of what we have.

Jenelle

[Robin in Tx]

Thanks for the conversation! It seems like what most want to see is a cultural change (i.e. what our population values, etc), not necessarily a change in the way our economy works. It sounds to me like it's a labeling problem... instead of criticizing a consumer based economy, perhaps we should be criticizing excessive materialism and wastefulness instead. Those issues and protection of the environment are moral issues, to me, not economic ones, and I would hope my feelings about them would be the same whether or not there was a problem with pollution or global warming, etc.

But as I consider the called for cut back on consumption, I wonder about the inevitable effect on the economy and exactly whose job I would prefer to see go away... It's really a sticky wicket, isn't it?

Interesting to think about.

Thanks again for the comments!
Robin

[Mamagistra]

I never thought about landfills much, but I now have 3 children and our little family produces a lot of trash, so I have stopped buying so many disposable things and I have started reusing things as much as possible.

I agree, and what really irks me is that this desire to reuse and be thrifty has become an industry itself! Several times I've wanted to purchase refill items but found them to be more expensive then simply buying the replacement item outright! That is shameful to me.

I have no qualms about paying more for items that are an obvious good use of resources (organic, local, recycled, etc.), but Reckitt-Benkiser (Lysol) and others who sneakily charge more here and there for less packaging can go jump in a lake. :p

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, when in history have you ever seen commercials for "reverse mortgages"? Has that ever been needed before? People used to pay off their mortgages and their estates went to help their heirs. Now folks have to worry about how to live when they become to old or ill to work. Forget about leaving anything to heirs - except maybe debts (which the insurance commercials also address nowadays....)

What's going to happen to us, as a country? Look at the mortgage crisis we're now entering (in part) because so many have run up so much debt, including maxing out second mortgages, etc., that they can't even afford to stay in their houses. Those houses haven't, in general, lost value - rather they've probably gained in value, but the people have out spent the gains....

What is "enough" for us? I'm not sure that we know anymore. All I'm saying is that we need to try to achieve a better balance in our lives and to know when enough is enough.

What a great conversation this has been, thanks, ladies!

Regena

[mcconnellboys]

Yeah, our family grocery businesses always offered credit, and most old time merchants I knew about did that, certainly at least in rural communities. Folks would pay on pay-day; first of the month when their government checks came in; or by other pre-arrangement. There was no interest charged by my family, by the way, and many merchants did not charge interest or service fees for extending this service. Most families paid up when they said they would, too, as a matter of honor.

LOL, imagine trying that today....

Regena

[mcconnellboys]

You know, when they first started marketing low sodium vegetables, they charged more for those, as well.....

Regena (Must be the research and development costs, LOL....)

[Robin in Tx]

I've noticed this, too.

But using the same logic, I've also wondered about profiteering on the other side of this equation. I mean, really... if an item goes through less processing and is produced with the use of fewer additives/chemicals, etc., then shouldn't it cost less to produce and therefore be less expensive? Shouldn't the local organic produce be at least the same price as their conventional counterparts - it's actually cheaper in the long run to grow organic, right? Recently an organic producer on these boards revealed what sort of income bracket she is in... Wow... No wonder organic is so expensive! People willingly pay twice as much for the stuff! I'm torn on this... I think that the people who are lobbying for all to switch to a more sustainable way of life should also lobby to make that way of life more affordable for all, not just those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay inflated prices (inflated in terms of responding to demand with higher prices).

You're right... this whole issue has become an industry in and of itself and producers on all sides seem to be making an awful lot of money. But the bottom line for me is this... I whole heartedly support anyone who is producing a product to work hard and profit as much as possible... as long as everyone is honest and admits that's what they're doing. How quickly we pay extra (and probably unnecessarily) when a label leads us to believe that we're somehow being good to the earth. Now, whether that label is a label that says "organic", or if that is a conventional refill product, it's all the same to me... you're willing to part with a few cents to either support organic farming or keep a container out of the landfill. Either way, the purchaser is the one paying for it, and is quite happy to do so. And there goes the capitalist way... which I actually support. So in reality, I don't have a problem with it either way.

[Janna]

I always tell my dh that when we make our first million I'm not going to wash out my Ziploc bags, but I guess I'm saving the environment as well as the pennies! :-)

I wash out our zip lock bags too. ;)

I never would have thought to do this were in not for my SIL's mother. I was at her house for SIL's baby shower one year and her mom was scolding her during the clean up, for throwing away a zip lock bag. The mother took it out of the trash and proceeded to wash it out, all the while telling SIL that she didn't raise her to be so wasteful. I quietly watched and went home, feeling scolded myself, LOL.

[Margaret in GA]

I'm trying to do the best I can and it really does seem the world is conspiring against me-- well maybe not the world but definitely the media! ;)

I've decided that all I can really do is grow my own food, support small businesses, and model behavior not just for my kids but the other people in my small town. They really do look at me like I'm crazy when I bring my own bag to the store, but every now and then I think I'm getting through.

As far as economics-- I think the best we can hope for (at least in the near future) is a consumer-based economy in which our dollars are supporting something worthwhile-- a co-op in Guatemala, a small farmer here in the states, a shopkeeper in your downtown. Not supporting lobbyists in Washington (Walmart) or terrorists in the Middle East (Oil) or Industrial agriculture with no regard to food safety, animal welfare, or decent pay for workers.

[Karin]

I do NOT think that nationalism is the same as Marxism or central control!!!! I say this because while I don't like any party, I would say I'm more conservative than liberal on many issues. Also, my grandparents barely escaped from Communism and religious persecution--relatives of mine were sent to Siberia, etc, and they're not even originally Russian, but Germans still speaking German...) I might even be libertarian if I thought that big business would practice ethics if left alone, etc., but I firmlly believe the quote "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." Of course, I don't think politicans are particularly ethical, either, but they have to answer to the voters (some are, but I don't see too many of them!)

To me, nationalism is common sense. There has to be SOME consumerism, but our free trade isn't really free because many countries we charge no tariff to charge us tariffs. Also, we tax imports at 3 percent, but companies that manufacture here something like 22 percent (sorry, I'm too lazy today to open the book right in front of me to get that exact percent--but it's close to that). What's killing our economy is far too much debt and pouring our money out of the country. And greed--my gosh we (as a nation, and I'll include Canada, since I was born and raised there and can do that honestly as I'm a citizen of both) buy a LOT of stuff we don't really need. I come from a family just like this and have done it myself. We could increase our tax base by buying things made in our country by companies owned by Americans. If every man, woman and child living in the US started taking $20 per months that they now spend on foreign made goods to American made, it would make 5 million new jobs. Similar ratios would likely apply to countries like Canada. If we (as a nation) stopped buying so many things we don't need, we'd have more to buy things made here, which are NOT always more expensive. Often not at all.

Nationalism doesn't need to be mandated by government, but can be applied by citizens of a country eager to help its economy. I don't for a moment think that the US is going to elect a president that is for this--all the top candidates support a global economy. I loathe the attitude that we who live here can't do anything about our economy because of free trade/Nafta, etc. It's tough, and sometimes we might not be able to do it, but manufacturers who want to make money will respond to the market demand. The more people buy things made in their country and write those companies to say why they bought, the more response will be seen ( Companies such as Ford, GM, Irish Spring (not sure if that's their name), BioKleen pay their corporate taxes here, pay American workers. Okay, Ford and GM don't make everything here, but far more than Toyota, Nissan, etc (ignore media mythology and check out the facts--I was SHOCKED to learn this), and Toyota, Nissan, etc don't pay any corporate taxes here. Plus, GM and Ford pay lots of pensions. Same in Canada with Canadian companies, etc. One of the main reasons for the decline of the American middle class is the loss of manufacturing jobs--jobs in service industries typically pay far less than manufacturing jobs.

[debbiec]

This is why I want to move and live in Europe, to not be such a minority here. If he would only take that job transfer ~

[CookieMonster]

So really, what is the alternative? If consumerism is the problem, then what is the answer? Robin

Heaven, Baby!

Really, there is no perfect system here on Earth.
And all systems depend on the integrity of the participants to not turn it into something really ugly.

[jail warden]

This is good enough!

Dang! I foolishly disposed of my allotment of rep and you so deserve some. Someone give this woman some rep!!

Yes, the landfills are the big problem, in my opinion. I tell my kids "Everything came from somewhere and when you are done with it, it will go somewhere."

I want them to think about how something was produced and how (and how soon) something will be disposed of.

[Doran]

......

So really, what is the alternative? If consumerism is the problem, then what is the answer?

Others have already stated much of "what's wrong". We have created a system in which consumerism has grown our of control to support the capitalistic economy we created. Capitalism isn't inherently wrong or bad, but it can only thrive when there is "need". In the absence of real need, our system has manufactured need, in large part through marketing. I'm no economist. I am not a purist when it comes to consuming, but I do wash out my Ziploc bags :), I do shop at thrift stores, drive older cars, resist the urge to upgrade to the newest and greatest gizmo as soon as it hits the market, and spend a disproportionate amount of our income of REAL local food -- even if it costs more -- because I don't want to support a cheap food system.

Here is an article (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/15/536/) from Common Dreams that says what I think we all mean to say. I just know that I can't phrase it nearly so well.

Doran

[Colleen]

Everyone has a cow about global warming, but I think our landfills will fill up long before we need to worry about other environmental factors. I never thought about landfills much, but I now have 3 children and our little family produces a lot of trash, so I have stopped buying so many disposable things and I have started reusing things as much as possible.

Many of us who are concerned about global warming/climate change are equally concerned about waste issues. I have always ~ since I was a child ~ been in the habit of recycling and reusing. My larger community, which last year achieved the highest percentage of green energy usage in the nation, is focused this year on a Zero Waste campaign. Glad to have you on board!:)

[Colleen]

I suppose there are people who toss plastic bags after one use. That is so foreign to me! Even when I do part with plastic, it gets recycled. Trouble is, plastic recycling, like most things, is far more expensive in the States than in China.

[Colleen]

Great discussion here, but I've only just had a chance to skim it. My first reaction upon reading Robin's initial post is that people are usually not reacting against a consumer-based economy as much as they are the overt consumerism. You can have the first without the second. Gotta run but I hope I can read more here later!

[nancypants]

I liked this article, The Morality of Economic Freedom (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046898.html). Not sure if it's exactly what you are talking about.

I'm in the mood to read Adam Smith's, Wealth of Nations, The Federalist Papers and other historical documents like this. I hate to admit how long ago it was that I actually sat down and read the U.S. Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html). I guess I get in this mood every four years. :p

Very nice that many of these things are published on the internet!

Wealth of Nations (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm)

Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/)

Good stuff.

[mcconnellboys]

I think you said it very well! Interesting article....

Support Heifer Project!

Regena

[Colleen]

I'm fond of thedistributist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism) alternative myself, in part because it jibes well with other values I hold dear. We don't live in a distributist paradise, by any means, but our area has a lot of small family farms and an amazing mutual aid infrastructure. It's "small and local are beautiful (http://www.amazon.com/Small-Still-Beautiful-Economics-Families/dp/1933859059/)" all around. That's part of why we chose to live here. :) The area also supports a surprising number of artists, small-scale technology businesses (like my wife's), and at-large "intellectual workers" (like me, with my writing and tutoring businesses). It's a humane economy (http://www.amazon.com/Humane-Economy-Social-Framework-Market/dp/1882926242/).

Ahhh, some of the many reasons why I'd consider you're neck o' the woods if I were ever to leave mine...

[Colleen]

(I)f an item goes through less processing and is produced with the use of fewer additives/chemicals, etc., then shouldn't it cost less to produce and therefore be less expensive?

All things being equal, perhaps. But they aren't equal. Many conventional companies that produce en masse are granted tax incentives and loopholes, for example.

Shouldn't the local organic produce be at least the same price as their conventional counterparts - it's actually cheaper in the long run to grow organic, right?

No, not necessarily.

Recently an organic producer on these boards revealed what sort of income bracket she is in... Wow... No wonder organic is so expensive!

I assume you're referring to me, Robin. Comparing income brackets is a bit tricky. Do we make a good living? Yes. Keep in mind, though, that our annual income isn't based on a 40 hour work week. Not even close. And while it may appear at first blush that organic farming costs less ("Fewer inputs ~ all natural!"), additional work and knowledge is required. It's really too simplistic to assume that organics should automatically cost less.

[sdWTMer]

Yes, when in history have you ever seen commercials for "reverse mortgages"?

But, here's the deal for me. Just think about inheritance tax. What's the point of being left anything when the government takes off a huge chunk off the top? Honestly, I would prefer that my parents go ahead and shed all of their belongings before they pass. That way, we could give less to the government when it's not theirs to begin with.

[Colleen]

Bill McKibben has been a favorite of mine for years; I was so tickled to finally meet him in person last spring. Deep Economy is definitely worth a read.

[Robin in Tx]

Yes, I am assuming that most things are equal... certainly mass manufacturing does help reduce per unit cost. But I would think the prices could possibly be a little more in line with each other, to be honest. I don't think organics should be cheaper, I'm just surprised sometimes at how much more expensive they are when they contain very simple, basic ingredients that I can buy in their bulk form for not more much than what the conventionals cost... but package it as an organic pancake mix, etc., and suddenly the price goes sky high. I do think that demand for healthier products helps keep these prices up, because people are willing to pay the extra prices... even if they don't cost but a few cents more to produce.

And I don't begrudge anyone making a successful living! Not hardly! I fully support it. I would imagine that any farmer or dairyman would work the same long hours whether they are organic or not, but I don't think the conventional small family dairy/farm is making that kind of money (it's a big deal down here, and there was an article recently about produce and dairy farmers making little more than what you claim to have paid in income taxes). Perhaps this is incorrect, but I've been led to believe that the family farm is in trouble and that it's hard to make a good living... and that often they are enticed to switch to organic because of higher and more stable prices. That's because people are willing to pay more for organic. There is an economic incentive to producing organic in addition to the environmental incentives. If there wasn't, many farmers wouldn't invest in the switch.

And then you have companies like Campbells producing Healthy Request soups which are the same soups with less sodium, no msg, etc., and charging twice as much for them. Why? Because people will pay the price. Which is great! That's what a free market is all about!

So, I was just agreeing with Debra that the whole health food/organics thing is a huge industry in and of itself. That's all.

[Colleen]

It sounds to me like it's a labeling problem... instead of criticizing a consumer based economy, perhaps we should be criticizing excessive materialism and wastefulness instead.

You mentioned earlier that you've heard people here lamenting our consumer-based economy. I actually haven't heard it expressed in those terms. What I (and others, as far as I recall) have commented upon/worried about is our consumer-based society.

[Robin in Tx]

Perhaps, but I'm not sure what the difference is... the alternatives to a consumer based economy are pretty much the same as the alternatives to a consumer based society... perhaps I'm missing something, but they seem one in the same to me.

But I understand now that it is excessive consumption and wastefulness that is of concern... not that our society or our economy is driving by the free market system.

Ok, my cough medicine is finally kicking in... I need to get some sleep. It's been a fun night!

Robin

[Renee in FL]

And I don't begrudge anyone making a successful living! Not hardly! I fully support it. I would imagine that any farmer or dairyman would work the same long hours whether they are organic or not, but I don't think the conventional small family dairy/farm is making that kind of money (it's a big deal down here, and there was an article recently about produce and dairy farmers making little more than what you claim to have paid in income taxes). Perhaps this is incorrect, but I've been led to believe that the family farm is in trouble and that it's hard to make a good living... and that often they are enticed to switch to organic because of higher and more stable prices. That's because people are willing to pay more for organic. There is an economic incentive to producing organic in addition to the environmental incentives. If there wasn't, many farmers wouldn't invest in the switch.

I think it is more based on our expectations as a society to have cheap food. Colleen's family makes a good living, works long hours, etc. and is able to sell their product at a premium price because people are willing to pay it. When you get to the other side, though, people lament how much regular milk costs (including me.) Why shouldn't we pay more in order to allow conventional dairy farmers the same income potential?

In the 1960s, people spent approximately 30% of their income on food. Now, most families spend roughly 11%. We lament the cost of food, yet we benefit from having an additional 19% of our income that has become disposable!

Price is the intersection between supply and demand - it has little to do with cost of production.

[Robin in Tx]

Price is the intersection between supply and demand - it has little to do with cost of production.


That's actually the point I've been trying to make. :)


Your post made me curious, so I looked it up... According to the USDA, the percent of income spent on food in the 1960s was actually only 17.5%, and now it's around 9.9%. And the noted reason is the rise in income levels that widen the gap between cost of food and income. In 1929 the percent of income going to food was almost 25%... the highest of the century. Why? Because of the depression - people were barely making enough money to feed their families.

Food prices are going up markedly now, and I believe that's primarily a result of fuel/transportation costs and the ripple effect of corn subsidies.

Robin

[Karin]

I think another factor in the higher prices is shelf life. Meat, for example, often has preservatives, but not organic meat. Plus labour. One of the reasons so many soy farmers want to plant GMO soy is because natural soy cannot tolerate herbicides. This meant the hiring of labour to weed the soy fields manually x number of times per growing season, which raises the cost of growing soy (or reduces a farmer's income.)

And, I suspect you'll find that Colleen's family doesn't make nearly as much per hour as you might think. I'd be suprised if they work less than 60-70 hours per week.

[Renee in FL]

That's actually the point I've been trying to make. :)


Your post made me curious, so I looked it up... According to the USDA, the percent of income spent on food in the 1960s was actually only 17.5%, and now it's around 9.9%. And the noted reason is the rise in income levels that widen the gap between cost of food and income. In 1929 the percent of income going to food was almost 25%... the highest of the century. Why? Because of the depression - people were barely making enough money to feed their families.

Food prices are going up now, and I believe that's primarily a result of fuel/transportation costs and the ripple effect of corn subsidies.

Robin

So, food costs have actually gone down relatively speaking?

[Old Dominion Heather]

I am so on board about the waste issue... It makes me angry that VA makes money by taking the trash and waste of other states to bury in our landfils.

[Robin in Tx]

So, food costs have actually gone down relatively speaking?

No. As a matter of fact, food costs rose by more than twice the rate of inflation last year.

But overall, for the past 50 years, the cost of food has not gone up at the same rate that incomes have gone up. But it has gone up. My food budget today exceeds what my total gross income was in the 70s when I was working full time and on my own.

[Robin in Tx]

I'm pretty sure that extended shelf life actually lowers the cost of food. You don't have to factor in spoilage. You are correct about that... but I don't think preservatives are readily found in most the things I buy... fresh meats, dairy, fresh produce, things that aren't processed.

I'm not speculating on Colleen's family's hourly wage (the week my dh works less than 70 hours is extremely rare, too... that's really not the point). She revealed how much they (her business, her family, or some combination of the two) paid in income taxes last year, and it was over four times what we paid, and my husband earns 6 figures. However you slice it, they're making a very nice living, and while I'm sure that hard work and wise business practices can be credited, I suspect a main reason is the higher prices that people are willing to pay for organics.

And I think that's fine!

I'm just pointing out that there's no difference between one business entity trying to make as much profit as possible and another business entity doing the same thing. Whether you're a big corporation or a very small one (family farm style), maximizing profits is the name of the game, and who in their right mind would leave money on the table if they didn't have to? Hence my original suggestion... it's *all* an industry, big corporation and small independents alike.

I don't know... maybe I'm not making myself clear or understood. I'm not criticizing anyone's income... I'm just saying there's no difference between a brand like Lysol charging premium $$ for products that are landfill-friendly and organic labels charging premium $$ for their products. People are willing to pay a little more for these products. So the producers, all of them, get to enjoy a healthier profit. That's all I'm trying to say :).

Robin

[Colleen]

I would imagine that any farmer or dairyman would work the same long hours whether they are organic or not

Not necessarily. Administering an antibiotic is typically less time-consuming than a naturopathic approach. Pulling weeds by hand is far more labour intensive than dousing with Roundup.

I don't think the conventional small family dairy/farm is making that kind of money (it's a big deal down here, and there was an article recently about produce and dairy farmers making little more than what you claim to have paid in income taxes). Perhaps this is incorrect, but I've been led to believe that the family farm is in trouble and that it's hard to make a good living... and that often they are enticed to switch to organic because of higher and more stable prices.

Much will depend on the individual farm and the farmer, the management practices and financial acumen. We did do well, albeit less-so, before we were organic and I believe one reason why is because we avoided some of the pitfalls common to many conventional farmers. Having said that, there is no question that the conventional farm-gate milk price leaves something to be desired, particularly as it fluctuates widely from month to month and year to year. One advantage in our cooperative is that our self-determined pay price does not fluctuate, thereby allowing member-farmers a greater degree of financial stability.

That's because people are willing to pay more for organic. There is an economic incentive to producing organic in addition to the environmental incentives.

Absolutely! Our cooperative strives to preserve both environmental and economic sustainability.

[Colleen]

(Colleen) revealed how much they (her business, her family, or some combination of the two) paid in income taxes last year, and it was over four times what we paid, and my husband earns 6 figures. However you slice it, they're making a very nice living, and while I'm sure that hard work and wise business practices can be credited, I suspect a main reason is the higher prices that people are willing to pay for organics.

As I just said in another post, the self-determined pay price within our cooperative does allow members more financial security. We do make a nice living, for which I'm very grateful. But I have the impression, Robin, that you may be over-estimating our income as you compare your individual income tax to our individual and corporate tax.

Whether you're a big corporation or a very small one (family farm style), maximizing profits is the name of the game, and who in their right mind would leave money on the table if they didn't have to? Hence my original suggestion... it's *all* an industry, big corporation and small independents alike.

I don't disagree, although I consider corporations and cooperatives as vastly different entities.