Which America? The Possibilities of American Thrift Print
Friday, 23rd January 2009 (by J.D.)This article is about Books, Frugality, Gurus
As National Thrift Week winds down, I’m pleased to offer (by permission) a short essay from author David Blankenhorn. This is taken from the end of his 2008 book, Thrift: A Cyclopedia, published by Templeton Press. (Read more about the book here.) I’ve altered formatting slightly to make it more readable in blog format. Emphasis is mine.
I want to conclude this book by asking you to reflect briefly on this 1957 observation on successful American business leaders (“Titans”) from Max Lerner:
There is one division which cuts across most of the Titans of the earlier prewar era of America — the split between the puritan and the magnifico.
J. Piermont Morgan, the greatest of all the Titans, was a magnifico in the sense that he operated on a scale of magnificence. So also were [James J.] Hill, [John W.] Gates, [Jay] Gould, several of the early Du Ponts, and [Charles Tyson] Yerkes himself.
There was a lustiness and grandeur of scope in their private as in their business lives. They bet and gambled, lived conspicuously, gave parties, sailed yachts, were seen in the European capitals; there were legends of the stables of women they kept; they built palatial homes and crammed them with art treasures rifled from the museums and collections of Europe. There was native optimism in them; in business as in private life they were “bullish”…
There was another strain, however, represented by Daniel Drew, the Rockefellers, Henry Ford: not the strain of magnificence but of the taut Puritan qualities. These men came out of small towns and remained at home in small-town America. They were abstemious, church-going, taught Sunday-school classes. They spent little on themselves, and what they did they spent quietly. Like Rockefeller, they handed out shiny dimes; like Ford, they ploughed everything back into the business.
They had the eccentricities in which men can indulge when they sit on top of a pyramid of power. They were apt to be gloomy men and presented a stern vision of the world, at once unsmiling and unrelenting. Yet they were probably closer than the magnificos to the theological roots of capitalism: the demonstration of virtue through success, the doctrine of calling, the gospel of work and thrift.
— from Max Lerner, America as a Civilization, 1957
When I think of this same basic division today, I think of Donald Trump and Warren Buffet.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump, one of Max Lerner’s magnificos if ever there was one, is a billionaire real-estate mogul and owner of gambling casinos, who has also in recent years become a best-selling author, TV and radio star, and tabloid media celebrity — the latest and possibly most shameless in a long line of out-sized American gamers who get famous by being rich and stay rich by being famous.
If we ever need a poster boy for “Thrift—Not!” we surely have one in Donald Trump. For him, everything is about high living and fast bucks, or what Trump calls “the art of the deal.” He is a caricature of egotism. Much of his money is from his gambling interests. He leaves behind him a trail of indebtedness and messy bankruptcies. He is a man whose core philosophy seems to be that bigger is always better and that more is always good. A man who cannot have his name on too many buildings or billboards, or in letters too large. A deep craving for glitz, flash, and conspicuous consumption — Donald Trump was bling before bling was a word. Quantities of bragging that, in most places, would gag a horse.
Heaven help us, we all, or at least most of us, have a bit of Donald Trump in us. After all, is it always wrong to want it, have it, and flaunt it? As Lerner recognized, being a magnifico in America can be quite exciting and, often enough, lots of fun! I imagine that more than a few Americans play the lottery today hoping that they’ll get lucky and become a somewhat smaller-scale version of Donald Trump, a hometown magnifico.
In any case, there is a reason why so many, and growing numbers, of our signs across the country have the word “Trump” emblazoned on them. If Trump were a U.S. city, he would doubtless be Las Vegas or Atlantic City, but there is also a sense in which all of our cities, and our society as a whole, have been moving steadily in recent decades in a Trump-like direction.
Warren Buffett
Warren Buffet is also a famous billionaire. But any similarity to Trump ends there. Buffet lives modestly in Omaha, Nebraska. He eats lunch at the Dairy Queen. He has never borrowed money in business [J.D.'s note: this doesn't mesh with Lowenstein's biography of Buffett], and has never been in debt. Throughout his career, nearly everyone associated with him has made money, usually lots of it. Lerner describes his American puritans as typically “gloomy men” who are “at once unsmiling and unrelenting.” But Buffet seems to be cheerful enough, and by all accounts has a great sense of humor.
He could not be less interested in “the art of the deal.” As an investor, he emphasizes the fundamentals and looks for companies that are likely to thrive over time.
He filed his first tax return at age thirteen, for his paper route, and took a $25 deduction for his bicycle. Because he does not believe that the children of rich men, including his own children, should inherit all or even most of their fathers’ estates, he recently announced plans to give most of his money away. He argues that “huge fortunes that flow in large part from society should in large part be returned to society.” He keeps receipts and is a stickler over small sums of money. For years — until he gave it to a charity auction — the license plate on his car read “THRIFTY.”
Most of us have a bit of Warren Buffet in us, or at least would like to. There is much to admire here. And as Lerner’s observations suggest, Buffet’s America — the America of “the demonstration of virtue through success, the doctrine of calling, the gospel of work and thrift” — runs quite deep in our history and still looms large today as an aspect of our collective identity and a shaper of our possibilities.
The question for us today is, which America? Looking ahead, in which direction do we want to go? Do we want as a society to become a bit more like Trump? Or a bit more like Buffet? To me, the answer is clear enough. Moreover, the stakes are quite high. If I had to pick the best word to describe the Trump direction, it would be “waste.” For the Buffet direction, by far the best word, and possibly the only truly adequate word, is “thrift.”
National Thrift Week concludes tomorrow at Get Rich Slowly with one of my favorite instructional films from the 1940s. See you then!

RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter


January 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 am
This is fantastic. Buffet is the only titan of industry that keeps the values of old alive. I’m a follower of the tycoons of old, and buffet would have blended in nicely with that group.
I like how David Blankenhorn takes a shot at the would-be modern day capitalists.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Great read.
Absolutely the country as a whole needs to shift more toward the “Buffett style”. However I do think we need some Trumps in there to make it work.
I think Capitalism is at its best when it has a nice mix of Buffetts and Trumps. Obviously we have gone way too far to the Trump side and are now facing the consequences.
But does Capitalism work if everyone becomes “thrifty”?
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
Weakonomist, I beg to differ. There are other men and women who share Warren Buffet’s philosophy and success (though probably on a slightly smaller scale), just none are so well known.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 am
I find much to Admire in Buffett, but nothing to admire in Trump.
And Weakonomist, a very public example of another thrifty billionaire would be Bill Gates, who’s now combating AIDS in Africa.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 am
If you want to learn about investing and Buffet’s thought process take, a look at the annual letter he writes. I found them to be enlightening and educational.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/letters.html
Enjoy,
-ThatGuy
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 am
The annual letters are a great resource. Common business sense. His insights on accounting, charitable giving, and management are all must reads for any business owner or investor.
I love Buffett - how can you not? I’m going to my first annual meeting this year. I wanted to go last year but we ended up being too busy with family stuff. This year I’ve already booked my room. My wife and I are so excited!
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:14 am
Although I have greater respect for Buffett than I do for Trump, I’d rather live like Trump. For one thing, he’s in NYC. And what is the point of having all that money if you can’t spend it. The same goes for people like us. If you achieve your savings goals (getting out of debt, fully funded emerg. fund, maxing out retirement) then why not spend some of your money. You’ll regret it if you don’t.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 am
The economic downturn has led many people to be more thrifty, but this is reducing spending and thus extending the economic weakness.
What an odd thing for our country. We should be more thrifty, but our economy is based on all of us been hyper-consumers.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
@KC: You don’t have to have (or spend) money to be happy. When you get your sense of happiness, or self worth, from money or material possessions: then you will never have enough.
WB is awesome. The dude’s a sage… On the other hand, isn’t Trump in financial trouble?
haha!
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
We need the Trumps of the world to really appreciated the Buffets of the world.
One could not exist without the other. They both have their place.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
Putting all glitz and glamor aside, Buffet’s way of making money is more reliably reproducible for the rest of us than Trump’s. When gambling is your way of making money, logically there can only be a small number of successful Trumps out there. We can’t all be Trumps, even if we all try in earnest. We can, however all be Buffets, at least in some part, because we all have it within ourselves to be smart, methodical, and patient.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
I think of many Hollywood celbrities when I think of magnificos, they all make millions have lavish home, travel extensively, and throw their money around any way it shows how rich they are.
Ironically many of these magnifico’s also try to use their power & fame & to make the world better. They use their fame to encourage others to donate to charity (not that they donate much themselves) and they try to use their fame to encourage us to take up whatever their causes may be. It seems like the puritans just get invovled in causes and don’t flaunt it.
Perhaps there’s a personality or emotional issue when it comes to being a magnifico or a puritan. Perhaps introvert/extrovert? or something along those lines?
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
i tend to lean more towards the “frugal” warren rather than the “flashy” trump.. but i think it’s okay to have a healthy “balance” in between the two
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Per the Forbes 400, Buffet is #2 ($50b), Trump is #143 ($3b). Thats a large difference.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
Thanks for the link to the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letters. I really enjoyed reading Buffet’s 2007 letter.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
I am taking an estate planning course this semester (working to earn education requirement for the CFP exam). The instructor is an estate planning attorney. He has quoted two facts that boggle my mind.
1. People who amass a large estate will generally pass it on to their children, their children will consume much of what was given to them and pass what is left to the next generation. By the third generation the estate is nearly gone and there will be little if any to pass on. He described it as “shirt sleeve to shirt sleeve in three generations.” As I thought about he’s correct in nearly every family of wealth that I could recall.
2. The average amount of time it takes for heirs to spend money that has been passed down to them is 13 months, regardless of the some of money.
When you consider these averages I love the fact that Buffet is going to give his money back to society. He knows that the effects of his wealth will be multiplied exponentially if he passes on his wealth in this manner. What an example for the rest of us.
@KC
Money doesn’t provide happiness, it provides comfort and security against needs. That comfort provides us happiness. At some point your comfort level becomes maxed out and spending more money cannot make you happier. So what do you do with the money? Help others build a higher level of comfort in their own lives, thereby making them happier. (Not giving money away but providing them opportunities to increase their well being, think community centers) The result, you will then find that you are happier. Make sense?
Chett
5k5k.org
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
@KC - I think you’ve just defined one of the big differences between the magnificos and the puritans.
There are a lot of things I might end up regretting in my life - most of them have to do with relationships, finding joy in life, living with a clear conscious. I can’t even imagine regretting not making a purchase or not spending money. Money is about responsibility and security to me. It has NOTHING to do with happiness. You couldn’t pay me to live like Trump. I don’t see him / his lifestyle as better than my rather financially humble one (speaking in terms of dollar signs).
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
what makes America beautiful it that we have both Trumps and Buffets working together. I dont think one could exist without the other.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Chet-
That is absolutely true about inheritence!
My great-great grandfather was worth about 1.2 million in 1899… he passed on some of his wealth to my great-grandfather who became a successful real estate investor in the post-war years. He then passed on all of his wealth to his three daughters (my grandmother and her sisters) I’m not sure of the amount but it was probably a couple of million all together.
There is to date one building that is owned by my mother and her cousins out of perhaps 15 or 20 40-years ago. They will probably sell it sometime in the next 5-10 years at which point my mom wil have a relatively small sum to put into her retirement holdings and will most certainly be gone by the time it gets to me.
However, my great-great grandfather’s 1908 mansion in Seattle is still in my family
so that’s nice, but it will probably be sold when it passes to the next generation. Also we still own the house my mom grew up in and have great tenants in it right now. My mom plans to move there when she retires (it’s out in the country).
Anyways, yeah, if I build-up a large estate I believe I would donate most of it to charity as well… it really does more good that way than going to children who should be making their own way anyway.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Most of us want to live like Donald Trump. Maybe not quite to the same level as Trump, but we do want bigger and shinier and more exciting.
If what we really wanted was humble minimalism, we have groups that we can look to for an example. The Amish for example. They live perfectly fine lives, although simple by the standards of the American mainstream. We could all do that if we wanted, but we don’t really want to.
Yesterday you ran a column on appliances, written by a person who purports to value environmental responsibility highly, but can’t get by without a special purpose water-heating appliance. This doesn’t seem excessive to us, but it would to the Amish. It’s not necessary at all, it’s an extravagance.
What about you J.D., and your Mini Cooper? It feels like just a bit of an extravagance, but compare it to the Amish, and it might as well be a Bentley, which is the sort of car that Trump might drive.
For me, it’s boats. I own a boat. It’s small and old and relatively humble, but if I had millions of dollars, can I honestly say I wouldn’t buy a brand new one with all the fancy electronic equipment? Probably not.
We never tend to think of our own lifestyle as excessive. It always feels comfortable and “normal” to us, because it’s what we’re used to, but if we try to take the viewpoint of someone who lives with less than we do, once again say the Amish, or an African farmer, or Afghan nomads, we have to look towards our own lifestyle and say “Wow, look how lavishly they live! Television! Air conditioning! Cars! Cars *with air conditioning*! Fruits shipped in from other countries to eat when they’re out of season!”
The middle class in America is already “magnificos” when compared to most of the world, but we don’t really realize it because we’ve grown up with it. That’s the way that that American society works. The “standard of living” as we like to call it, has constantly shifted in the “magnifico” direction.
We rode horses, then we drove cars, then we drove multiple cars, then we put radios in our cars, then air conditioning, and then televisions and video games.
We listened to the radio, then we got TV, then we got color TV, then we got satellite, then our TVs got bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and we attached surround sound to them and added HD.
Fifty years ago, we had small two or three bedroom houses with one bathroom, they averaged about 1,500 square feet. Now we build houses twice as big, with more bedrooms, and one bathrom for each bedroom, and we have fewer children than we used to.
The constant magnific-ation of America is what we also call an increasing quality of life. No one is fighting it, and we all welcome it with open arms, except for a few, like the Amish. The means of production get more efficient as technology advances, and that’s why everyone is able to have more than they used to, even when they do the same amount of work
How many of us think that, when we buy our next car, we want it to have *fewer* luxuries than the car we drive now? How many people are thinking of moving to a *smaller* house than the one we already own? How about getting rid of your television in favor of an AM radio? Especially given the fact that you know you can afford these extravagances, and you’re getting rid of them simply for the sake of, well, what? Puritanicalness? Idealism? Will you impress yourself if you do this? How about your friends?
We don’t move backwards in extravagances, because once we have them, we cease to see them as extravagances, and they become status quo, and after a while, the status quo looks like necessities.
If you could imagine a life such that money was immaterial — one in which everything was free and you cold have anything you wanted, what sort of life would you choose? Does it still feel puritanical to you, or is it a bit “magnifico”, at least in the areas that you’re passionate about? If you have billions to spend on anything you like, then this is nearly the case — a 50 million dollar yacht is cheap if you have $50 billion in the bank, so why not get it if it suits your fancy?
This last scenario is where America is headed. People are going to work towards their ideals. We will never reach them exactly, but people are going to strive towards the lifestyles they’d have if economic issues weren’t a factor. Be honest about what you’d have and where you’d live and how you’d spend your time if it was all free, and then tell me how reserved it really is.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I think some of the spirit of Trump is good, for example, even though Rockerfeller was thrifty he was magnificently generous to charity. But in general, we have to be Buffetts to get to the point of being able to make grand gestures. Even small grand gestures in our community, like Christmas gifts for needy families.
If only the government would help us be Buffetts before being Trumps. Many people have learned the value of thrift but I fear over-stimulation of the economy will force many people into Trumpish behavior.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
@Tyler Karaszewski, I think you totally hit the nail on the head. When I think of how many people I know that say they’re not rich, and can’t afford emergency home repairs, or braces for their kids, or whatever. Yet they drive a Lexus, and have 3 different gaming systems, and all the newest generations of iPods and laptops and HD tv’s. When I feel whiny about my financial situation, I try to remind myself of my immigrant parents who came with $200 and a 2yr old child, and yet they’re now comfortably retired. Yes, I grew up wearing hand-me-downs, both toys and clothes, but I was never hungry. If they could do it, without even speaking the language, I have absolutely no excuse having had every advantage and college education. But am I willing to scrub toilets in restaurants and hotels for minimum wage, the way they did in the beginning? Am I willing to go without cable tv? Probably, but I’d certainly whine about it, whereas my parents never whined.
Our financial cushions are definitely dependent on what we consider “needs” and “wants.” I certainly think all the time about how at least half of my “needs” are actually just “really really wants.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@Tyler (#20)
What a fantastic comment. Would you mind if I use it (particularly the “if you had all the money you needed and could buy anything” part) as the basis for a future entry?
I think there’s another factor to consider. Most of us have life partners (spouses, etc.), but partners don’t always agree on what lifestyle to lead. It used to be, for example, that Kris wanted to live a more modest lifestyle than I did. Now things have changed. It’s not Kris who has changed — her tastes are still relatively modest — but I who have altered my value.
As part of my experience over the past five years, I’ve transformed from magnifico to puritan. (Not wholly puritan, but much more so.) I do want a Mini Cooper, but whereas I would have bought one new in the past, now I’m willing to wait until I need a new car. I think our house is too damn big. (I like the land, but the house feels wasteful.)
The fact is, I do have the money to buy a lot of the things that I want. But now that I have the money, I find that maybe I don’t want those things after all. I’d rather have TIME or FREEDOM. To some extend, buying a Mini Cooper would be a sacrifice of some amount of time and freedom, and so I’m not willing to do it.
Anyhow. I’m rambling. I just think Tyler’s question is fascinating. It’s actually closely related to finding your “number” for retirement. That mythical magic number is the one at which you have enough to do whatever you want for the rest of your life. What is that number? It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with lately…
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
J.D., you talk about how you *do* want a mini cooper, but you’re not willing to sacrifice time or freedom for one, and that’s a perfectly reasonable choice. And it’s a choice that needs to be made because our resources aren’t infinite.
But, if you didn’t need to make the choice, and you could choose time, freedom *and* the mini cooper, you’d have all three. Your ideal, and the ideal of pretty much every other American (and citizens of every other country, for that matter), is one in which they can have all the things they want, including free time, and not have to compromise other things by sacrificing one desire for another.
An “ideal” as I’m using it in this post, is a collection of all our needs, and all our wants, such that you don’t have to sacrifice *any* of them. There is no compromise — that’s what makes it ideal.
The question originally posed today was “Which America?” I don’t think the possible answers to this question are just “Buffet’s America” or “Trump’s America”. Those may be anchors at each end of the spectrum, but where I think America will really go is towards our ideals. J.D.’s includes time, freedom, and a mini cooper. Mine includes sailing. Everyone has different ideals, but each need or want that makes up our ideal is shared by many people. Many other people besides J.D. and I want time, freedom, a mini cooper, or a sailboat. And many of those people will work towards making each of those more attainable for everyone who shares that ideal. As each goal becomes easier to attain, we no longer have to make as many compromises. We can sacrifice less, and be closer to our ideals.
America is a country which, despite its flaws, has steadily moved towards these ideals over the course of its history. This is not a uniquely American phenomenon, but an attribute of the human race. Almost all nations have moved forwards towards the ideals of their citizens over time.
There’s a measurement called the Human Development Index that is used to rate countries’ development. The criteria it uses are life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita. These are all very basic goals (certainly more basic that a mini cooper or a sailboat). Some countries do better than others right now, but the interesting thing to note is that if you look at America now, and America 100 years ago, we’d score better now. So would China, or India, or the UK or Mexico, or probably nearly everywhere.
The world continues to improve. More and more people are meeting their basic goals, and the fortunate among us, including most Americans, are able to meet more “magnifico” (so to speak) goals, even when they far exceed basic needs (like a sailboat). I see no reason for this to slow. As more people worldwide increase their education, and technology spreads, and efficiency of production everywhere increases, that means we will all be able to meet more goals, and bring us closer to our ideals.
We will continue to make compromises when striving for our ideals, but the things we compromise for will change. 25 years ago, the average family may have had to compromise if they wanted a computer. The original Macintosh that went on sale in 1984, adjusted for inflation, cost over $5000. Maybe you couldn’t have a computer and also a new car. But now you can buy a new computer for 1/10th that price. You can get your new car *and* a computer. That’s one less compromise you have to make. But now, you have to make a compromise because you can’t also get a new HDTV, which wasn’t even a compromise you had to consider 25 years ago.
When we don’t need to make these compromises anymore, then this state becomes the status quo. It’s pretty much a given now, 25 years later, that American families have computers.
We’ve nearly reached 100% literacy already, life expectancies continue to improve, more and more people are able to go to college. We’re meeting these basic needs and even more. Other things that have already become status quo: two days off every week, personal transportation in the form of cars, air conditioning, television. What’s next? May be universal health care? Clean, affordable electricity?
As each of these things goes from extravagance to status quo, that opens up room for us to consider a new extravagance, and as that becomes status quo, we do the whole thing again. So, “Which America” will we see in the future? The one where today’s extravagances are considered necessities, and the extravagances are things we can’t even dream of today. It happened over the last 50 years, and it happened over the 50 years before that, and it’ll happen in the next 50 years, too.
“In which direction do we want to go?” is exactly the right question, because I have no question as to whether we’ll go where we want. I’m sure of it. The question then is, are we honest with ourselves about what it is we really want?
If we really want simplicity, we can get there, but I think what we really want (many of us anyway) is to look just a little bit better than our neighbors. We all want to be impressive, in our own way, whether it’s through having the biggest house, or the best stories about traveling the world, or be well-known as a leader in our field. I think that’s human nature, and it’s why we’ll probably continue in the “magnifico” direction. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, either, if it’s done responsibly.
I hope this isn’t too much repetition from my last post. I was trying to clarify a bit, but I may have just said the same thing over again in different words. Sorry if you read both of these (very long) posts entirely and found the second one to duplicate the first.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@Tyler
When I look around at the community I live in, I have to agree with you. Bigger, shinier, better is the rule of unacknowledged law in the US. My siblings who live overseas tell me that this is one of the reasons that Europe (at least) looks down their nose at us. My guess is that this is a cultural problem in the US, not a universal one of humanity.
I do disagree with you on two other points.
While advancing technology and standard of living are partially responsible for the movement of US culture toward Magnificos, I would argue that the greater influence is credit. If everyone in my community was forced to live on what they actually earn, almost no one could afford to live here, and the huge advances in technology would disappear, because no one could afford them.
Second, I disagree that those who chose to be Puritans are just lying to themselves.
I am a puritan. And while my life is complex and exceptionally wealthy compared to most of the world (having lived overseas, this is part of the reason I believe in living a more puritan lifestyle), I chose to keep it as simple as possible within the boundaries of functioning as a citizen of my community. Why do I do this? It isn’t about ego or even really money itself. For my husband and myself it is because we find joy in self-sufficiency. We like to do things ourselves, and we think it is one of the most important traits we can pass on to our kids.
Neither is it about ‘sounding like Ghandi.’ It *is* about humility. Not humility for humility’s sake or humility for self-glorification. But humility because of my personal understanding of where I stand in the world. I am not Amish or an African Farmer. That is not the world I belong to. I am responsible for how I live / consume / behave.
You can tell me that if I suddenly had $50 Mil in the bank that there would be changes in my life and you are probably right. But those changes would not include becoming shinier-flashier. Instead they would be based around creating an even more fulfilling, more self-sufficient life than we are able to on our current income.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
@Tyler again
Ya know…
Since we cross posted each other and I’ve now read your latest response, I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are trying to say. The moment you switch ‘bright and shiney lifestyle’ for ‘ideals’ we are probably talking about the same thing.
We just (possibly) have different ideals.
Of course, differences in ideals has caused a good lot of the conflict we’ve got going in the US already.
And I suppose I’d add that while money/wants/etc. are becoming more readily available, I believe that there is/will be a price to pay for them. There is always opposition, always positive and negative consequences. That opposition may not be a car vs. a computer. It may not be clean water vs. a car. But it will be something.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
RT:
I shouldn’t have implied that people who choose to live a puritanical lifestyle are lying to themselves (I certainly don’t think the Amish are). What I meant to imply is that people who *say* they want to live a puritanical lifestyle while fitting squarely into the middle class actually want to live a fairly lavish lifestyle — that of the American middle class, but are fooling themselves into thinking they want something else. If they actually wanted the puritanical lifestyle, they’d be living it, not talking about it. It sounds like maybe you are doing this, and more power to you. A lot of people just like to talk about it, though.
And I hear you on the credit issue, but I don’t think it’s entirely true. The economy is able to support itself. It doesn’t really matter if an individual’s income is high enough to afford an expensive SUV, what matters is that means of production are efficient enough that everyone can have one and it doesn’t result in anyone else starving to death from lack of resources. Whether the work done to pay for the car is done before or after the car is purchased isn’t really relevant, as we’ve demonstrated that we have the capability to provide the whole world with cars and still be able to grow food to feed them all at the same time. If our companies can afford to give cars away to people who haven’t paid for them and just hope that they mostly pay for them eventually, it only goes to strengthen the argument that we have quite efficient means of production.
And as far as I’ve seen in my travels around the world, people in other countries certainly work for more just like we do in the U.S. In India I saw successful engineers living in modern apartments with security guards and gardens — things that many of their neighbors didn’t have. The well-off drove brand new cars, instead of old motorbikes. In Mexico I saw the wealthy retreat to from Mexico City to Cancun to vacation with American tourists. In Germany I saw successful businessmen driving around in BMW 7-series sedans.
Certainly the McMansion is particularly popular in the U.S., but every culture that I’ve seen has it’s rich and powerful with their own indulgences.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
RT:
We cross-posted again. I think you’re right — we all do have different ideals, and people should be true to their own ideals. In fact, I think it’s very difficult for people not to be.
And some people do in fact have far more puritanical ideals than others. Obviously Warren Buffet does. He has the capability to live however he likes, but chooses to live fairly modestly. He’s probably fulfilling his ideals quite well.
But still, I think it’s a part of human nature, more prevalent in some people than others, to want to look impressive, and that does drive society as a whole in the “magnifico” direction.
Although, if a significant culture shift took place such that minimalism was considered impressive, maybe that would change. I don’t know how that would happen or what might trigger it, though.
I think that certain pursuits in the “magnifico” direction, aren’t necessarily bad, though. For instance, if we could build fully-recyclable cars, and fuel them with clean, renewable energy, what’s the harm in providing everyone with a big SUV? Certainly that’s an oversimplification, but if we’re able to follow our pursuit of “big and shiny” in a responsible way (which, historically, we haven’t been good at), then it’s not necessarily something to avoid.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Wow, fascinating thread today! Every culture *does* have its rich and powerful, with their own indulgences. But isn’t it interesting that those indulgences are so uniform across cultures?
More living space, preferably attached to land - check. Less time spent working, or ability to support a non-working spouse - check. (Or more than one spouse - in some cultures, being able to afford multiple wives is the true sign of wealth!) Luxurious furnishings, building materials, means of transportation, landscaping - check. Everywhere.
And the poor have their indulgences - which tend to be, across cultures, intoxication and gambling. When we start talking about rich and poor, though, we open up that can of worms called “class.” Which is something our particular culture really doesn’t like to talk about.
Even as thoughtful a group as this Comment Cloud might want to stop for a second and consider that the mere ability to take ten, twenty, or forty minutes out of one’s day to read and comment on a blog is, to the vast majority of people, an indulgence.
We must look at our condition honestly, and in context, before we are able honestly to arrive at what constitutes a need, a want, or an acknowledged indulgence.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
@Tyler
I have all these brilliant, witty (and undoubtedly 100% correct comments) to send back to you, but we’re leaving for the evening and I won’t be back till really late. I did want to say that I’ve really enjoyed our dialogue. I’m usually pretty quiet around here. Not only did you draw me out, but it has been both thought-provoking and fun.
Okay… One last comment.
You said: “Although, if a significant culture shift took place such that minimalism was considered impressive, maybe that would change. I don’t know how that would happen or what might trigger it, though.”
On a small scale, this does appear to be happening because of the current economic situation in the US. I’ve long believed it needed to happen (surprise, surprise) and it will be really interesting to see how it pans out long term.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Trying not to get overly academic here…
I think the desire for what we don’t have is a human desire on the most basic level. After all, we would not have moved beyond living in caves and mud huts if we didn’t have an instinctual desire for more.
I think in the modern marketing driven world, it makes it very difficult to realize what amount of betterment we “need” or is healthy and at what point our desire for more, bigger, better, newer is counter-productive or even destructive - of the environment, or what have you.
There’s a reason that pride and vanity are considered sinful in many religions, I think it’s because it can lead to a lack of compassion for your fellow man, but also because it is universal. Rules are made because populations are engaging in a destructive behavior, they don’t come out of a vacuum.
Summary: It’s all about balance. The middle road if you will. It is not natural to be completely hedonistic nor completely “puritan” (i hate that word actually).
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I definitely think that I am more like Buffet.
I have to admit, I like Trump, even though he is a bit over the top.
There’s nothing wrong with being proud and confidant but I think our celebrity culture is getting to be a bit too much.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Not exactly related to the above article, sorry, but worth mentioning, and maybe JD can add it to a future links post:
Peter Schiff: Oh, he saw it coming
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/20/magazines/fortune/okeefe_schiff.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009012310
January 24th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I have to laugh because I have considered myself minamalist, I grew up in low income housing married at 15, divorced at 17 and now my current husband of 26 yrs and I have ammassed rental properties so by many standards we’re rich. We put them on 15 yr loans so they’d be paid off. We stay home work in our garden, grow a lot of our own foods and travel to Mexico to check out ruins and beaches. We drive our work rig a lot 1976 International Scout 2 and don’t mention we own the properties we manage. I followed Peter Schiff thru Ron Paul the only one that understood the economics that was coming. I also knew this was coming, and chose to keep our houses thinking real estate would hold value better than paper. The real estate boom did not help us we own all our places and hold them for income so the huge increases in insurance costs and property taxes cut into our income, rents did not go up as much. So on paper it showed we were worth more, but what good is that? If all Americans were thrifty we would have a real economy instaed of booms and busts. We need to get back to the constitution, none of the problems we face would exsist if we ha followed it. I am looking for 435 people to run for congress one in each congressional district, people who have had jobs and run businesses. We the people must retake congress.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Trump is a brand, not an investor.
Just another celebrity with a high-consumption lifestyle.
Recently everything he’s touched turns to dross.
He can’t even manage to make money with a casino!
And the Amish are free riders on modern society, as a recent WSJ article notes.
Happy to take advantage of high-tech healthcare, but slow or no pay.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Bill, you might want to go back and re-read that article. It has nothing to do with the Amish being “free riders”, but rather demanding that they pay for the actual services provided instead of the jacked up prices that the rest of us have to endure thanks to insurance.