Simple living and consumerism

I am a simple liver and in addition to my main book on the subject, I have written quite a bit over 35 years.  But I don't proselytize. 

I occasionally get questioned about my patriotism and loyalty to commerce as a simple liver.  The logic behind the question is that commerce is driven by consumerism.  Not really true.

Commerce did not originate with consumerism, it originated from the realm of necessity. Industrial commerce grew strong and vital based on providing for necessity.  

Nevertheless, commerce in most of the world long ago out-supplied the realm of necessity and entered the realm of consumerism...satisfying whims and personal goals.

Commerce is currently driven by a large component of consumerism because satisfying customers is the driving force of commerce.  Buying products to enhance personal goals is consumerism.  

In my opinion, the nature of simple living is also the satisfaction of personal goals, it just requires much less in the way of physical objects.  Simple living is more focused on livelihood, friendship and individual authenticity.  Those elements can drive commerce just as well as physical objects.

The effect on GNP growth is not obvious.  If a median income simple liver takes four friends to a wonderful restaurant and hires a string quartet after dinner around a fireplace and conversation, the GNP effect is the same as buying and installing a hot tub.

Simple living is just as relevant to driving commerce as consumerism. Probably more so in the future.

Comments

[robert l. huffstutter]

You have mentioned your appreciation for simple living and a consumerism that is absent of excessive complexities. I enjoy the simple life too, and unless I remove my televisions, life will never be simple again, not until President Obama gets the healthcare system he wants for our nation. Tired and exhaused from the constant thud of bodies keeling over because of no healthcare, I decided to put on my Socialist thinking cap and present a plan that would forever silence the constant pleas for free healthcare for America. Although I am a firm believer in free enterprise, the plan I present should thrill all who want healthcare.

The Obama Administration could have come up with a Healthcare plan that America would have passed in a New York minute.

It was so simple, so easy. With the multi-million dollar bailouts and stimulus that have basically done little, if anything, to heal the economy, the money could have been used to build about one dozen giant Federal Hospitals. The contractors hired to build the hospitals would have started the program rolling and immediately, the economy would have been stimulated.

Think of the jobs, the materials, the excitement. Twelve giant hospitals, Federal Hospitals. And when the hospitals were done, the doors would be open for all who chose to enter. But wait, there's more. Rather than just hospitals, the government could have built two mammoth Federal Medical Schools, open to all who could pass a simple intelligence test, and had a decent knowledge of the human anatomy.

Of course, the tuition would be free. Anyone who wanted could apply, even the children of parents who earned large amounts of money. Of course, the parents could make a contribution, a tax deductible contribution to the program. Depending upon the amount, a wing of one of the hospitals might bear their names or the name of a deceased relative, a kind of memorial wing.

But wait, there's more. Not only would there be hospitals and medical schools, there would be the dorms; they would be built from the ground up. What about the staff of the Medical schools? They would be hired by the government. Doctors with community spirit could volunteer to staff the hospitals.

For those needing cash, let's say, one-hundred grand a year for the first year and add ten grand every odd-numbered year until their salaries topped at around two-hundred thousand dollars.

Within approximately eight years, there would be twelve brand-spanking new hospitals open to all who needed care. They would be located in a grid similar to the Federal Reserve System's grid.

Are you following me? Yes,it is a very Socialistic system, but it would make everyone feel good. And one would not be forced to go to a government hospital, they could use their own healthcare. There would be no taxes affected, no rich folks would be penalized.

The money used for the stimulus would pay for the entire system. If $23,000,000,000,000.00 would not pay for the entire project, then it should probably be scraped. But think about it; it sounds like a winner doesn't it? President Obama would reign supreme in that his campaign promised healthcare that would become reality, but that he went above and beyond the call by introducing a new corps of medical personnel.

To cite an example, take the Corps of Army Engineers, responsible for maintaining river transporation, channel and waterways management, all in a semi-civic para-military manner, yet effectively providing a much needed service. Has anyone complained about our Socialist rivers?

So,the government health corps, the system the Democrats began under the steady helm of President Obama's "hands on" leadership, would be on course, navigated entirely, within a span of a few short years by the U.S. Government. Is there a better employer?

People from every arc of the globe could come and be made well and wholesome, compliments of the USA. And there would be no taxes needed to support this marvelous heathcare system.

It would be self-supporting. How? Think of the interest 23 trillion would acquire over a period of eight years, the time it would take to turn out the first graduating class of thousands of new doctors; who really knows how many thousand of new doctors this would establish for our nation, and eventually for other nations wanting to adopt our program.

This is just a hint of the intricate but simple details I have created to make this system work like clockwork. I might add that I would be honored to be appointed Director of the new Federal Healthcare Department. This is only the beginning of my planned organization for implementing a new and totally exciting free healtcare system for the America I love and respect so dearly.

Robert L. Huffstutter

[David Boxenhorn]

In the final analysis, commerce is supply-driven, not demand-driven. It depends on the quantity of goods and services that can be produced. Of course, the exact mix of goods and services is demand-driven. If we were all simple-livers (and I am too), it would not mean less commerce, just a different mix.

[Suzanna Beth Stinnett]

Michael,
How do you think this relates to an information-driven economy? Maybe I'm not saying that quite right, but it seems to me that what is necessary now is personalized delivery of information, educational and instructional materials. These things are, or can be, related to livelihood, friendship and individual authenticity, both from the point of the consumer of the information and the deliverer.

Am I on the right track here?
love
Bell