RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter
The Good Consumer Print
Saturday, 6th December 2008 (by J.D.)This article is about Consumerism, Frugality, Funny Money, Marketing, Shopping
In my favorite section of David Mitchell’s brilliant Cloud Atlas, Sonmi-451 is a clone who works in a fast-food restaurant in near-future Korea, a society ruled by corporcracy (a government of corporations).
In this seemingly utopian world, citizens are consumers, and their purpose in life is to spend. Commonplace items are known by their brand-names: a theater is a disneyarium, a video display is a sony, a vehicle is a ford. Television is not TV, but AdV. The word “democratic” is a pejorative.
Though there are many layers to the story of Sonmi-451, it is, at its heart, an indictment of consumer culture, and the modern society we’ve built around the “religion” of consumption.
Last week at My Money Blog, Jonathan shared a short film called The Good Consumer, which reminded me Cloud Atlas:
You are an individual, but you are also a member of a global community. Most important of all, you are a consumer. As a member of this community, it is your duty to consume. Why? Because the system would collapse if you stopped spending.
The Good Consumer was produced by Bonfire of the Brands, and purports to be an instructional video explaining how to be a good consumer. It offers tips like these:
- “A good consumer is always buying new products.”
- “The golden rule of consumption is to concentrate on buying the things that you want, as opposed to the things that you really need.”
- “The good consumer follows fashion.”
- “Household brands are your friends.”
- “The good consumer does not wait to replace her possessions when they wear out.”
- “Consumption is good for the environment; the more you consume, the more you can recycle.”
- “Remember: consume for happiness.”
Obviously, the entire film is an exercise in irony. It’s meant to dissuade consumerism, not encourage it. One of the benefits of taking control of your personal finances is that, in general, you find the siren call of the consumer lifestyle less appealing. When you learn that you can be satisfied with what you have, you’re less bothered by what you don’t.
December 6th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Wow, I was just thinking the same thing early in the AM today and posted about consumer buying trends (I tried to bring up an example in three major consumer product categories: cars, electronics, and clothing):
http://www.scordo.com/blog/2008/12/how-to-avoid-buying-trends.html
Basically, I think folks need to buy ONLY when they truly need something (and then buy only high quality stuff that have good reliability and low cost of ownership)
Vince
December 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I am not supporting flat-out mindless purchasing as a way of consumption.
I would like to note however, that the entire economic system is built around consumption, and without it the system falls apart.
At least that is what economics theory is telling me (so far).
Where do we draw the line between good consumption and bad consumption?
December 6th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Karl writes: Where do we draw the line between good consumption and bad consumption?
This is a fantastic question, and I think it goes to the heart of our current economic system. Where do we draw that line?
I’d argue that consumption that involves personal debt is, almost always, bad consumption. I know there are people who disagree with me, and that’s fine. But I think that consumption fueled by money you don’t have leads to an unsustainable lifestyle. It creates an economy that is not sustainable in the long term. What we’re seeing right now is the collapse of a credit economy.
To me, good consumption is that which can be afforded by the consumer, and which satisfies basic needs and brings personal meaning. Impulse purchases and compulsive shopping are not good consumption. Buying a copy of Iron Man on credit because you see it in the checkout lane at the grocery store is not good consumption. But buying the movie because you like it and can afford it — well, that’s okay consumption. Better yet is consumption which is planned: you’ve budgeted the $20 for Iron Man and have the money set aside for it.
The U.S. consumer does not follow the latter model. He generally follows the first path (with plenty in the middle, too). That’s why we’re in the situation we’re in.
It may be true that our economy cannot survive if people don’t consume. But we’re now seeing the consequences of an economy fueled only by consumption without regard for saving and the capacity to pay.
If our economic system is built around excess consumption, around the consumer mentality, then it’s built on shifting sand. It’s an economy of dreams.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Your second para, “In this seemingly utopian world …,” and “how to be good consumer tips,” tell us how consumers are not only in utopian world, but also in North America.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Sounds like an interesting story! I’ll have to check that out. It reminds me of Brave New World’s “End, not mend” mantra.
But I think consumption applies to experiences as well as material goods. When I look at the ridiculous amounts of money that sports stars earn (not to mention the cost of tickets to a professional event!) I can’t help but think our economy relies on consuming entertainment as well as material goods.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination.”
–Oscar Wilde
December 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Karl, “the entire economic system is built around consumption” is not quite true. Instead, you must realize that any economic system is a balance between production and consumption, and attempting to build it around consumption without regard for production is what causes economic failures, both on the international scale (see any newspaper headlines from the past few months) and in personal finance.
Production in excess of consumption is good, but production equal to consumption is a minimum requirement for sustainability. This is the definition of positive cash flow, around which all economic and personal-finance activity revolves.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Just out of curiosity, where did the author get the idea to have the dominating companies be disney and ford? I always thought Korea had their own successful giant corporations: Samsung, Daewoo, Hyundai, etc.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
J.D.’s points are well taken. The fact is that the type of capitalism the US enjoys is the good old fashion Anglo-Saxon capitalism that calls for increasing share holder value at all costs (hence the over leveraging on Wall Street). The type of system we do enjoy CAN work without massive consumer spending and we actually did have a system in place (from 1945 - 1971) prior to the end of the Brenton Woods agreement (in ‘71) - between 45-71 the US grew and US corporations were not driven solely by profits and stock price (they actually were driven, partly, by social contribution).
Consumption for the sake of consumption is just plain silly, regardless of whether it bolsters an economic system or not. J.D., again, made this point well.
Any economic system whose aim is stability can work just fine, conversely any economic system whose goal is astronomical profit for shareholders (supported by the Federal Gov., as we have had since Nixon) will NOT work (see current economic state, the early 20th century, etc.)
Vince Scordo
December 6th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Off Topic: I was very much struck by the bonfire in the public park … did he have permission for that? Can you imagine that happening here? The lawyers would be all over the place! Definitely more freedom on that side of the pond.
On Topic: The film was creepy. It made me think of soylent green, Westworld and general dystopia.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
@Austin (#8)
I think the reason for the choice of companies is simply pragmatic from a story-telling perspective. If I remember correctly, Mitchell is a Brit, and he’s writing for a Western audience. What he’s done is simply extrapolate our current habit of taking a brand-name and making it a word (”google this phrase”, “xerox this report”) into a future utopia/dystopia. (Previous commenters are correct that this is very much a dystopia — I call it a utopia because, like many dystopias, that’s how it appears at first.)
So, Mitchell takes our natural inclination and projects it into the future using brand names his readers will be familiar with. (I think he calls coffees starbucks, too, but I couldn’t find that on a quick leaf back through the pages.) I think it’s just a way to make his point accessible to readers.
I love Cloud Atlas. I think it’s a great book, but the story of Sonmi-451 is just 1/6th of it.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
But if on the other hand if the world environmental systems fail, which is what might happen due to the damaging influences of existing world economies, we might not have a stable enough biosphere left for our food to grow and clean enough water to drink. Now that is a much more frightening prospect in comparison to the first scenario.
So if you ask me. The existing system is bad. And if it looks like it will burn down and end in ashes. Let it burn.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I often think to myself, what would we do with our lives if we didn’t spend so much time (and of course money) shopping? Or consuming media (like hours upon hours of TV or Internet use)?
Some of your readers who are intrigued by your post might like the books of Alain de Botton, especially Status Anxiety.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Amen to what Mark said.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Mark you summed it all up perfectly!
December 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I just watched the movie Wall-E last night and I think it makes a lot of the same points! If you haven’t seen it, you should check it out!
December 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Yes, I too think that it is easy to become happy with what we have rather than be depressed about what we want. Over the past three months my life has changed from one in which I am always spending on things I don’t need, to actively removing the things I no longer want (and of course, not buying anything to replace them, or indeed, much at all).
I have found this recent experience to be way more fulfilling than I could have ever imagined a few short months ago and after recently getting rid of my car, I’m not looking at selling my TV. That will be a very happy day.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
That’s a brilliantly Orwellian video! I plan to post it all over the place….
December 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
@invisible.bees (#13)
I just picked up a copy of Status Anxiety the other day. Maybe I should fast-track it in my reading list…
December 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
To the Oscar Wilde quote. I would say that I truly believe that debt deadens the imagination. Because the answer is always buy something, spend more money, even money you don’t have. It allows people not to plan ahead to imagine what their cost might be in the future. Consumer debt makes people lazy and therefor, and imagining and reaching our goals and dreams in not an idle pastime.
December 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Numberstation,
I do realize that the economic system we are talking about requires a balance between production and consumption, and that production is necessary.
However, what I was trying to touch upon is the dilemma of a country going into a recession. Uncertainty about the future dictates that risk-averse people will cut their spending i.e. consumption because of the bad times ahead. This in turn adds to the problem - there is less economic activity going on. At that point theory dictates that the economy needs to be stimulated by incentives for consumption in some form.
On a personal level we mostly focus on how to cut expenses, while on a national level the same expense can be wanted, which is what I was thinking about.
I think JD had some great thoughts on the subject, and that sustainable consumption is an exciting topic. Debt is ok for some things, but short-term credit card debt is just evil.
Thank you for your response!
(Also, I don’t agree that excess production is a good thing - if it goes above required inventory the resources could have been better utilized elsewhere in the economy. It might sound textbook, but hey I am an economics student ;D)
December 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Thanks J.D.
Your explanation makes sense.
@Mark
I agree being responsible with the environment is a good thing. However, I don’t think allowing the economic systems to fail will help this cause because it will just provide more opportunity for exploitation. Sometimes the people who take advantage of these opportunities have a responsible attitude but most often not (i.e. Hitler).
For the U.S., the Great Depression serves as an example of what happens when the economic system fails. The result wasn’t pretty. Many people suffered because available resources for daily needs (food, shelter, etc.) were limited and being depleted. Sure they could have grown their own food, but this process takes time. How does this help the family who is starving? Furthermore, instability caused chaos which meant higher crime. So the general public suffered.
What about the people who exploited the system? Sure they might have winced at their lost profits but for the most part they could continue with their lifestyles and expand their power.
The current financial crisis reminds us how without proper controls the general public suffers at the hands of a few greedy people.
I think it is reasonable to say that most people don’t want to destroy this planet. Therefore, with the knowledge that allowing the economic system to fail doesn’t solve the problem, why make the majority suffer for the wrongdoing of a few?
“Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.”
Will Durant
US historian (1885 - 1981)
December 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
my idea of good consumption includes “buy local.” the other day I was thinking about what I actually mean by that, and it’s not really just “buy local,” since I’m fine with buying things from elsewhere and hope folks from elsewhere will buy thiings from my locality. What I really want is to buy analogously to how I want to eat: “Lower on the food chain.” I think it is better for everyone when we buy things from smaller, locally-owned businesses, not big global corporations.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
JD - As always, a terrific, insightful post. Yep — consuming our way to prosperity … but happiness?
Best,
Jeff Yeager
Ultimate Cheapskate
December 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I personally think Mark is 100% wrong. It isn’t until our society has provided for our basic needs that we can “afford” to be concerned about the environment. I don’t mean this as a personal statement of values, but as an observation. If I’m concerned about death by starvation dumping my personal sewage in the public water doesn’t seem as big of a deal. It isn’t until the farmer produces enough to feed the community that I will put an emissions standard on his tractor. Doing things in a way that best protects the environment takes more time and money. The more disposable time and money we have the better friends we can be to the environment.
And I would like to make the point that blaming the current situation (and Depression by extension) on “greed” is an oversimplification. Do you think there is any less greed during good times than there is during lean times? If gas prices go up due to “greed”, does it go down due to a sudden drop in greed? We will NEVER EVER in the course of human existance get rid of greed as a major motivator. Greed is the desire for more than you need. Find me someone who doesn’t want more, even on this site. Every businessman and entrepreneur I’ve met is motivated by a level of greed, and 90% of them are excessively honest and ethical. They are just shrewd.
My personal assessment of the situation is that cycles happen. A situation is built which people are given enough rope to hang themselves. When they do we restrict public access to rope (and navel gaze as to how it happened and demand someone DO SOMETHING), until we find the next job for which we need rope and loosen access until the next set of people hang themselves.
There will always be greed. There will always be swindlers and criminals. It’s a fact of life and while we need regulation to keep things standard (even honest people can disagree), we can’t get rid of every bad outcome by making it illegal. If we could: recession would be illegal. Being sad would be illegal. Death would be illegal.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Karl, what can I say… I simply disagree. When people cut back consumption, it means they are SAVING. It means emergency funds grow, it means people are able to afford their health care when needs arise, it means that with a lot of people socking away money, they’d like to earn interest on it. Then there’s a return to SENSIBLE credit. When production outweighs consumption, it means we can export, and our wealth extends to other economies. It means we can afford to be more charitable and philanthropic.
I simply don’t see a downside. What’s your textbook say?
December 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
@numbersstation.
Karl was talking about over production - produced goods that can’t be exported.
He was purporting that using the value-added (production) approach simply for the purpose of boosting GDP was crappy and that it is an inefficient allocation of national/worldwide resources to do that.
Here’s a question for everyone related to our consumer culture (which btw, that video really was creepy). The DNA of the US Economy is being shown for how frail it really is - and we know a part of that is over-consumerism. If you could redesign the US economy, what would you change to make it more stable?
I’m going to throw in two things off the bat:
Save: On both a national and individual level. Don’t live on credit. Credit means you have debt which means when things go bad you’re going to panic.
Change: The way companies operate. Take out the 20th century industrial methods. Umair Haque has had a series of excellent posts recently on this subject.
Anyone have any other ideas?
December 6th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Unfortunately, “concern” about the environment is no longer optional. Natural and ecological processes provide us with trillions of dollars worth of free services. Of course treat we them as given and take them for granted.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Mark, exactly my thoughts. Our system is no longer acceptable, it HAS to change anyway. It’s not just some hippie who says this now, but studies like those published in “The New Scientist”.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Another movie to throw into the fray is “Brazil”…especially the part where everyone is always celebrating Christmas and buying the “in” executive gift…and no one ever opens their present.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Cloud Atlas is one of my all-time favorites, as well as Black Swan Green and Number 9 Dream by David Mitchell. If you can afford it, support your local bookstore and “consume” them; if not, check them out of your library.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned THX-1138 in the thread here. It’s a very early George Lucas work that has state sponsored consumerism as a huge part of the world. It’s been a while, but I remember part of it being a society where people spend money on useless crap to keep the economy going, and are then required to basically trash it every couple days or so and buy more.
Note the irony of this, as the creator now is the guy who releases a “Special Edition” of his movies every couple years, obsoleting everything else he’s ever done as the “definitive” work.
Well, every movie except THX-1138. And Howard the Duck.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I laughed at that film. It’s scary how close that comes to some peoples thoughts. The tips were outrageous. I’m glad I saw it.
-Nate
December 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“Working for a rise, better my station
Take my baby to sophistication
She’s seen the ads, she thinks it’s nice
Better work hard - I seen the price”
December 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Registering just to say that I loved Somni-451’s story in Cloud Atlas. Awesome book, great point, and I’ll be reading your blog a lot more as a result.