Buy Nothing Day
adbusters.orgPeople who think it's bad to want the world economy to grow probably haven't stopped to think about what economic growth consists of. Economic growth isn't just fat Americans buying bigger SUVs. It's also people in poor countries increasing their standard of living, and advances in medical care.
That was an ad hominem response to the question of can we continue using resources at an ever increasing rate. That includes asking if the world can afford to bring the poor up to western living standards. They are ugly questions but it doesn't make sense to burry our heads in the sand about them.
I don't think ad hominem is the phrase you want here. I think what you mean is, the more important question is whether we can continue to consume resources at the rate we do. And my reply to that is that creating more wealth doesn't necessarily imply consuming more resources. For example, new versions of machines often consume less power, not more.
To further your point, it doesn't even necessarily imply consuming resources at all: a person using his wrench to fix a car is creating wealth without using any resources.
I don't think anyone is burying their heads over this. The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are.
"The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are."
The argument -- as far as I have witnessed it -- is not about preventing the poor from becoming rich. The argument is should richer people need to suffer to effect the enrichment of the poor. Acting to prevent is not the same thing as not acting to effect.
That's not very different. It implies a level of wealth that can't be made available to the poor, regardless of the fact that we have in our selflessness given it up.
The answer to "we can't afford it" is the same to many other scenarios where you can't afford something but need to get it anyway: Figure out how to make it work. Inventing non-fossil liquid fuels would make a very good start.
Criticizing globalism and the externalities of "wanting the world economy to grow" is not an argument against increasing the standards of living worldwide, and I'm not sure why you're conflating the two.
His point is that one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action. If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty.
As pathetic as it is to see people camping out at Wal-mart to buy products they do not particularly need (indeed, many of them would be better off if they saved the money that they will spend today), one of the results of that behavior is additional economic opportunity for poor countries and poor people.
You could state a case that the net gain from this behavior makes it not worth having, as the social and environmental costs of using natural and human resources to produce unneeded products obfuscates the value of the resultant economic growth, but then you would need to present data and math.
"If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty."
That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.
There are bucketloads of empirical evidence for "one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action". GP didn't appear to argue against any and all restriction on capitalism, but that those (like AdBusters and Occupy[1]) who argue broadly against capitalism (rather than specific shortcomings), implicitly (and probably involuntarily) argue against "opportunities to leave behind poverty".
1: At least many of them
We are talking about different things. I am not talking about class mobility. I am talking about the wealth of nations.
Why are you stating that Capitalism must not be restricted or impeded if the wealth of a nation is to increase?
I never made that statement. I did, however, claim that a major cause of the increase in the wealth of nations is capitalism. I made this claim because I have studied economics and history and I have read and heard multiple compelling arguments supporting this claim.
The site specifically says we have to challenge the idea "that the economy must always keep growing."
We should question the idea of "growth" especially if its leaving a net negative on other aspects of humanity.
Do you have any data to support that statement? You are going to need a pretty massive data set and significant argument to demonstrate both the cause and the negative aspect of the effect.
That's cute.
You're right, but I think the main point of the campaign is to show that the way the world economy is growing is harmful to our planet.
could there be a case however against economic growth being too fast? an example of too fast would be building a chernobyl before the safety infrastructure was up.
I am not sure how shoddy engineering equates with too fast economic growth. That seems like defining your terms so generally that they can refer to almost anything.
I also think it is ironic that you chose as an example an infrastructure project not built as the result of capitalism.
As others have pointed out, Chernobyl is a terribly example for the point you're trying to make.
Growth can probably be too fast - China has some problems in this regard, infrastructure, basic services, environmental concerns, the political system etc. can't quite keep up with the reasonable demands of a rapidly growing new middle class.
The growth rates attainable for the US and Europe, however, are unlikely to be dangerous.
I wouldn't consider that growth, though.
Web.py is arguably an example of shoddy engineering in explosive software startups that did not become a medical experiment.
"The results show that foremost among the causes of growth in U.S., German and Japanese manufacturing value added is electric power consumption."[1] Now I wouldn't pay too much attention to the word "causes" in there, but...
Define your terms too precisely and there would be nothing to think about.
[1]"Engineering and Economic Growth" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X04...
Yeah right!!! Nice spin on it dude. Increasing their standard of living while being subject to poor environmental conditions because of their corrupt officials who are pushed to be corrupt by our corrupt politicians, and so on. It's easy for you to say that while living in the land of the plenty and the so called free. Why dont you focus exclusively on startups with a whole-world(env-friendly) minded approach, because you my friend are in a position to impact the world for the good more than other people. Im sure the over consumption could be regulated a bit by a buy nothing day, its no different than a turn off your lights day, it's actually better than that, it forces us to ask why do we buy? And if your answer to that is "to be happy" oh man you have swallowed the wrong pill when given the choice. -a person that will never kiss your ass
I buy plenty of things to make me happy.
I don't need the internet. Either do you. I also don't need to eat anything other than bean tortillas, but I will. I could probably get through my life wiping with single ply, but I'd rather have double.
If that makes me a bad guy in your eyes, ah well. I'm sure a few of the beers I went out my way to purchase will ease the pain.
I guess moderation in peoples consumption levels and the types of consumption are relative, but i'm sure there is a line where they become dangerous for the rest of the people living on the planet, but we in the 1st world really don't understand where that line is since we are not faced with the issues other people in the world are, so we look down and say who cares that i have enough while you don't, that's just how things are, hurry up and get over here too so you can have this too, what happens when all the people do? what then?
We will just wait for someone else to figure it out while we comment on hacker news and have a beer and use the internet all at the same time and eat 1st world burritos and post on facebook with our 9 billion cell phones, all at the same time, hopefully we can all do this all at the same time, and in the process of figuring it out some of us are just unlucky to be born in a different vantage point, where we don't have cell phones, barely can carry water to drink to our families, try to fish in waters that are not polluted, education is scarce, all this because the ones born into the more favorable vantage point wait for others to fix the problems while they fat on their couches and complain that obesity is a problem because the corporations feed us fat food, and to think that we can actually help those people if we just want to? if we just approached the problem with the same vigor as we approach securing our oil-reserves, but who gives a fuck, all we do is just sit here on hacker news and complain and bitch and comment and feel good because we get points and we are on the main page but it all equates to nothing and i am guilty for it, so i'm going to go out and get breakfast at one of the many places available to me, happy thanksgiving
My point was, it's all relative.
Even poor people spend money on non-necessities. I watched a documentary on how being able to afford a Coke is a sign of status in many third world countries. They obviously don't need Coke, but having it seems to make them happy (I can't complain, I love it as well). Even though they might not be able to afford many of things we deem important, they manage to get enough change together to buy a soft drink.
There is little we can do to help those in the poorest countries. We can give our time or our money, but rarely are either of those things given. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never taken time away from your job to spend a week in Liberia or Eritrea. Is it a problem? Probably. Is it something that is going to be solved by not buying anything today? Of course not.
I agree it's relative, but the major reason those people like this "Coke" was because they've been fed images from the west about how they should be, don't you find it odd that most countries you go to, have some of the same things you have here? Coke, McDonalds, Marlboro, Burger King
That doesn't mean those things are good. If our society here in the west was focused on exporting things for the good of the people around the world, maybe we would export good education?
But you just cant export good things when everything is money driven, someone has to suffer, someone has to get the short stick from the bunch and in this case it is the poor people because they don't have enough power to do anything about it. They're problems are real, food, clean water, electricity, education so they accept our so called sharp toothed help because it alleviates some of their problems in the short term, but they don't have the right organization to stop us and say "no, you can't dump your shit(chemical waste, etc) here man", no if you can't find cheap labor in your country "we wont work for you here either unless you pay us the right amount" So the west knows this, corporations know this, so they go and exploit and keep it hidden from us because they want us to be at ease when we pay for their products at the cash register.
When you say there is little we can do, we can also abstain from putting forward idiotic ideals into their television sets so they go buy our shit because they think that is the thing to do, since television and ads are the only major exposure they get from the 1st world countries they look up to it because of their ignorance that there are problems there too.
We can also abstain from going over there and exploiting them because they haven't had the proper education to judge our causes in a equal light.
Yes there are things we can do, and yes not shopping one day is a start, i didn't say not shopping at all, but not shopping on one major day out of 365 days is not too much to ask, because if you want to make a impact it has to be substantial, its the same mindset corporations have when they go look for cheap labor, we need a place to make shit that will ensure us with substantial profits.
I've lived in a 3rd world country before so i know that you can make do with less and even here i make do with way less than the average hard-working american(including immigrants), even though i can live a life that includes many more material things, for me those things don't increase my happiness, so i choose not to.
And this western way of going about things assuming that the major problems of earth will be solved by the people who currently are in the have, is faulty thinking as well, no one can say that the person who can contribute most to this world can't be born somewhere in a very unfortunate environment but with the right treatment can grow up and cure cancer, develop clean energy, produce more efficient systems, for us to sit here in the west and pretend we are the only ones that can even deal with and attempt to solve these problems just because we are in the have category is ignorant.
On some level not providing the right education to all of the worlds population is shooting ourselves in the foot at a global level, because you never know where the major game-changer will be born and by not providing a good eco-system for those people to grow in, you are negating this so called progress ideal which is so feverishly rooted in our future
Is it just me that's sick and tired of all these extreme all or nothing causes? It's either no patents or leave it the same, it's either capitalism is all bad or all good, it's either we are saving the planet or burning it as we go.
You know we can just change certain laws in the patent system to get it fixed right?
You understand that the idea of someone being able to sale their hard work for a living isn't evil right?
Or that maybe just making a true concerted effort of a smaller carbon footprint is enough? We don't need to ban all gas lines, or coal and replace it all with solar wind farms.
Consider this, we are fighting other people's ideals with equally extreme ideals and then wonder why the world doesn't see our brilliance. They think all of torrenting technology is evil because it allows for easier "unauthorized" access of someone else's creative content. It's a tool people. Capitalism isn't bad, overly greedy people are bad, and they just happen to love capitalism.
It's called moderation.
I was pleased to see a recent PETA campaign advocating for the use of controlled atmosphere killing of poultry. Rather than their typical sensationalist approach (ex. http://www.peta.org/features/would-you-eat-a-chickens-period...) that appeal only to the faithful. They made economic arguments:
Typical slaughterhouse practices are stressful for workers and lead to damaged product.
Improving worker conditions decreases employee turn over and boosts yield.
It's probably wishful thinking to take this as a signal they're transitioning to become a serious advocacy organization.
No capitalism and go environment is definitely the overarching theme in this campaign. And I do believe that the prevailing capitalism is damaging to our earth. But they also make a point in advocating the support of local business to stimulate the local economy.
"It's called moderation."
If moderation was the natural state of things, we wouldn't have to argue for it.
Which is why I argue for it. Humans do have the ability to override their natural way of thinking, until that day is no longer true I guess I'll keep arguing for the case of moderation.
“Today, humanity faces a stark choice: save the planet and ditch capitalism, or save capitalism and ditch the planet.”
Move to North Korea, everyday is buy nothing day and best of all, none of that horrid capitalism.
The funny thing is that the people in North Korea only survived due to capitalism. Because the government has been incapable of distributing food, people have been forced to obtain it by trading in ad-hoc black markets.
Yes, and also by periodic acts of charity from capitalist countries. North Korea asserts its right to have any political system it wants, then its programs fail, then it threatens war, then the west gives in and provides emergency food supplies. Then the process repeats.
No, that's closer to market socialism than capitalism.
I thought you weren't an expert on alternative economies?
First, market socialism is socialism with elements from capitalism, so the particular mechanism (ad-hoc black markets) is a capitalist one, regardless of where it came from.
Second, in market socialism, the market is legal and "white". In North Korea, they are very much not legal - thus, "black".
Interestingly, the resilience of markets to pop up anywhere there's a need, regardless of legality or formal training in how to run them, tells us something about capitalism and it's inherent compatibility with human nature.
A culture can stop being capitalistic and consumer-driven without becoming a fear driven dictatorship.
Do you equate spending money with freedom and civil liberties? Is that the only way for you and I to be free, is to buy things?
Economic liberty seems to be a precondition for strong civil liberties, although certainly not sufficient.
Also, class mobility seems to be most likely in a society with high economic activity, since there is a lot of demand to be filled and therefore the opportunity to fill it.
The criticism is: economic liberty, mobility blah blah, you need discipline at the individual level to balance that. Good education from parents and the eco-system you take part in, but i guess that is under your "certainly not sufficient" bit, but i believe that discipline takes you farther even in a not so ripe economic situation, i've seen joyful people in poor conditions, i've seen people bettering themselves in no to ripe conditions
i think this is the classic problem of people trying to fix their situations from the outside in, instead of from the inside out, ex: better economic situation = better people, but that is clearly faulty logic, i think it should be more like better people = way better economic situation
but then again why would a system that depends on its economy so much enforce such an idea: "better people", better people doesn't make enough money as it stands for them, that is why they don't put that in their ads instead of "buy this because of (some bullshit reason here) messaging" because "buy this because of this fucked up reason we created for you" makes more money, period,
politicians don't give a fuck about you and me man, they care about numbers, because of their vantage point, the ones that do end up getting wiped out, as we have seen throughout history, just like this new awesome movie lincoln shows "man wants people of all races to be free" get asassinated because of people with no self-discipline and no fucking compassion that were mostly focused on themselves
history really explains a lot about us, and so far it looks like we really haven't learnt too much
i wonder to think, what would the world be like if people in current power positions would actually be altruistic, sounds like a pipe dream to me
Haha mommy when i grow up i want to be the perfect consumer, just like you!
I don't understand your criticism.
Yes, the only way you can be free is to be free to produce, buy and sell things. And to do a million other activities that other people might not find virtuous.
The only way? I can conceive freedom without any buying and selling of things.
Yes, you can choose not to trade, you can even agree within a group that there will be no trading in the group. But if you coerce other to refrain from any trading they wish to engage in without hurting you, they are not free.
The fundamental axiom is that you own your own body. It follows from there that you own the output of your body. Trade is fundamentally the voluntary exchange of this output for other people's output. Preventing this exchange amounts to denying you the right to dispose of the output of your body, thus denying you ownership of it, thus denying you ownership of your body.
I'm all for producing and exchanging goods, but with a deeper respect for nature and to the mutual benefit of all.
Most decisions being made about your water supply and the limited natural resources in your area do not include your input and are not for your benefit. That is the face of capitalism today.
> A culture can stop being capitalistic and consumer-driven without becoming a fear driven dictatorship.
Do you have an empirical example of this?
I'm not an expert on alternative economies (sorry) but I can name a capitalist consumer-driven society that is controlled by fear of their government.
> I'm not an expert on alternative economies (sorry)
You don't have to be an expert, but you did assert that is was possible. That usually implies some level of empirical evidence.
> but I can name a capitalist consumer-driven society that is controlled by fear of their government.
So can I, but luckily correlation doesn't imply causation.
Funny that this is so high up on Hacker News. The first quote on the page:
“Today, humanity faces a stark choice: save the planet and ditch capitalism, or save capitalism and ditch the planet.”
There won't be too many startup accelerators or funding rounds when we ditch capitalism, folks. Funny how there was none of this talk on iPhone Launch Day, either...
It's too bad they tied the word "capitalism" to the specific, "short term gains at all cost" system we have now. I guess it's not too surprising really, since most people only think of Marxism when someone says "communism" etc. But of course it's possible to have a good, responsible and caring society without ditching capitalism.
But there will be untold millions for those lucky enough to win the political patronage lottery.
No one is claiming that we can't or shouldn't try to fix the problems with the system.
Doesn't pg commenting on this thread validate it's relevance? I posted this because I wanted to see a hacker discussion of this topic.
Really, the American brand of capitalism isn't the same as European capitalism or Japanese capitalism. Even within America, there are many different types of capitalist economies.
While I share Adbuster's disgust with the hordes of zombie sheep lining up to consume in excessive quantity things that they do not need, I don't think this has anything to do with Capitalism as an economic philosophy.
"I don't think this has anything to do with Capitalism as an economic philosophy"
The manner in which Capitalism is implemented and followed is just as important as abstract philosophy. Deeds, not words.
The thinly veiled celebration of violence is disgusting. The image from this poster: http://www.adbusters.org/content/carnivalesque-rebellion-liv...
seems to be a Reuters photo with this caption:
"AVIANO, Italy (Reuters) - A protestor throws a rock at riot police outside the Aviano Air base in northern Italy Sunday. More than 300 protestors took part in the demonstration against NATO's air strikes on Yugoslavia. Photo by Stefano Rellandini"
You know, I wasn't actually thinking about doing any shopping today. But if Anonymous and Occupy have gotten on the bandwagon, I think I may just have to stop by my local Wal-Mart and take advantage of some of those deals.
Occupy is pretty much a product of adbusters. Companies sell consumer goods to those unable to produce, Adbusters sells consumer ideologies for those unable to think.
I had an instant anti reaction when I saw the mask and the #occupy
> I think I may just have to stop by my local Wal-Mart and take advantage of some of those deals
Yeah, that's the spirit. Head on over and contribute to the problem [1][2][3]
1. http://robertreich.org/post/36219730368
2. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171389/worker-group-alleges-wa...
3. http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/support-...
You get to feel good about not buying stuff, and then the next day you still get to buy stuff!
Alright, alright, they do have better ideas for a "delay gratification" message. Credit card cut-up (pre-commitment) and zombie walks (exposure) sound like good ideas.
Don't make a day about not doing something negative, make it about doing something positive. Don't turn off your power for a day, spend a day installing better insulation so you need less power.
It's important to read any adbusters content with their context in mind. I think they produce a lot of interesting content, but their agenda (I don't mean that to be denigrating) muddles a lot of their arguments.
This article to me makes an important point -- Black Friday has pretty much descended into self-parody -- but couching it as an anti-capitalism argument (instead of an anti-consumerism one) ruins the message for me.
This is crap reasoning, sorry jmduke. You might as well say that you need to read the writing of a racist while keeping in mind that he is a racist, so you should not worry too much when he makes racist statements.
The criticisms that people are positing here are exactly criticisms of the agenda of Adbusters. The whole thing is about keeping their context in mind and objecting to it.
I buy nothing about 95% of the days in a year. I don't get why this is supposed to make such a difference?
This leaves 18 days per year to buy things, each 20 days from the last. Do you grow your own food, or do you eat only nonperishables?
I shop for groceries about once per month, to buy food in bulk then freeze bread, meat and veggies. I grow some veggies in the backyard during the summer. I'm not the healthiest eater, mostly I just hate shopping. This gives me 6 misc days to buy gifts for birthdays and things.
I guess this doesn't count jumping on the odd humble indie bundle.
That 5% of purchases makes up the majority of these retailers profits is why.
That is irrelevant to the point at hand - asking everyone to not buy things on one day, even if successful, merely postpones the retailers' revenues by a day or so.
A more poignant campaign would revolve around convincing people not to buy certain unnecessary things at all, ever.
"A more poignant campaign would revolve around convincing people not to buy certain unnecessary things at all, ever."
Which is not at odds with Buy Nothing Day and the associated movement. They're not just suggesting you delay purchases, but to buy from independent/local crafters or make your own gifts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day
I haven't followed the philosophy to a T, but I've avoided the malls and chain stores fully, giving more personal gifts from Etsy sellers, local craft-meetups, handwritten cards, and baked gifts than ever this year. Supporting local/small businesses is always a good idea!
That's the spirit! A lot of people seem to be interpreting this as a one day thing. The campaign is using this day to start a revolution in changing the way we consume in the current economy. At least that's the goal. Less mass over-consumption and more stimulation of the local economy.
> Supporting local/small businesses is always a good idea!
Why?
Because the offerings are fairly unique, the gifts are more personal, and the profits will be reinvested in my community. Does it destroy any system in place? No, but I can be certain that the profits won't be used to damage me and my interests.
I have very little control over consumer electronics, and I am a bit too reliant on Amazon for mass-market goods, but I try to be somewhat conscious of my purchases.
ditto
So it's either go nuts and trample people or buy nothing and I must be in debt because of credit cards?