So, I’m interested to here some Mises input on this. I occasionally talk to a Hippy, or some counter-culture person who is against Capitalism for its essence is consumerism and materialism, and because it generates the idea that material wealth is happiness.
Warren Buffet has even written a book against consumerism and materialism, on how its dangerous and it leads to unhappiness, but that society buys into it mainly because Capitalism promotes the ideas that money and material wealth = happiness.
I’m interested to know if there are any arguments about Capitalism and Consumerism/Materialism.
Economics is a value-free science. As for capitalism, it depends how it’s defined. The common sentiment of what capitalism is, is that it promotes improved economic activity as the ultimate goal of society, to be achieved at any cost. In essence, that everything comes down to money and economic calculation. If that is what captialism is, then I’d have to agree with those people.
Capitalism is defined in so many ways that I can’t even describe an all-encompassing definition that covers them all.
I think the Keynesians are partly to blame. Consumerism can be to some extent traced back to consumptionism. They promote that “consumption makes the economy work” idea. Who doesn’t believe in it today? Western society used to have values of thrift and patience when free markets were at their peak (IMO) in the late 19th century. Now, comparatively, it’s all about consumerism.
If you believe in the subjective theory of value, which the hippies, ironically, don’t, then you’ll realize that value is subjective and, therefore, “material wealth” does not necessarily equal happiness.
Well my opinion is that the idea comes from that when it comes to materialism- people(not all people, but some are like this) are trying to find happiness in external objects and situations instead of within themselves, and the stimulus they receive is like a drug, and temporary. They are happy when they go shopping, but once the shopping spree is over and time has passed, the unhappiness within themselves comes back back so they resume the activity.
Eventually some type of shopping provides less and less of the happiness, so other measures have to be undertaken to try and “find” that happiness when true happiness can only come from within. If you are someone who is unhappy with yourself and living in squalor, but are one day able to afford a better standard of living, you can still end up being the same unhappy person in a more comfortable couch. I find that people who rant against materialism are often those that have succumb to this type of “happiness” seeking themselves, and once they find out that they don’t really need anything but themselves to stay happy they get a bit overzealous about wanting to spread this newfound realization everywhere.
Nothing is wrong with capitalism- it seeks to improve people’s standard of living and pull people out of dangerous life situations, I guess anti-materialists just want people who get caught up in consumerism to realize that life can be more than just a race to see who dies with the most toys. This materialism can exist outside of Capitalism- its just that the party bosses or “Kings” are the only ones who are allowed to have that problem in societies with no capitalist bent.
I guess by being supporters of libertarianism- it can be difficult to give advice to anyone if what they’re doing doesn’t hurt anybody but themselves so this kind of stuff naturally sounds off. Now I’m not saying anyone who wants material wealth is hurting themselves, but some people especially teens with credit cards, get caught up in huge debt pretty early because of this type of pleasure-seeking.
I disagree entirely with Buffet. Capital-ism’s entire framework is built around the accumulation of capital, capital goods, and the capital stock which breads prosperity. These fundamental tenants hinge on the premise of savings, not rampent consumption.
Capitalism builds an environment of perpetual savings, and it handles the allocation of present resources vs future resources via market mechanisms like interest rates ect…
If capitalism fostered and environment of consumption we’d dive backwards as a society and deplete our resources. We would consume our capital goods and develop an environment of impoverishment. Buffet seems to have developed a paradox in his head, how he missed this point is beyond me.
Whether individuals want to be materialistic consumers now, or materialistic consumers later is irrelevent to any point of judgement. Fiscal conservatives today are the consumers of tomorrow. It’s en entirely superficial gripe to be angry at so called “Materialism” which is nothign more then a vague word which can be arbitrarily assigned to any consumer. Buffet is in no position as a human being to pass judgement on other people’s consumption preferences.
The problem here is that libertarians and hippies define “capitalism” in completely different ways. To an Austrian economist, capitalism is simply an economic system based on property rights and voluntary exchange. Capitalism means individual liberty. It has nothing to do with consumerism and materialism. In fact it is the Keynesian school, not the Austrian school, that promotes consumerism as a way to “pump money” into the economy.
To me, materialism/consumerism is a moral and cultural issue. Even though I believe that free-market capitalism is the best economic system, I don’t think that happiness can be found through material wealth alone (although for most of world’s population living in poverty, a bit of material wealth would drastically increase happiness). Capitalism promotes freedom. Finding happiness is up to each individual, and it is easiest to pursue happiness when we are free.
Capitalism is an economic system, it doesn’t promote anything.
People promote things and some people are into and will always be into (if you ask me) consumerism and materialism. I understand what the question is asking but it’s asking it in a weird way imo.
What exactly is “consumerism” and what is the state of being materialistic, and how does it not apply to everyone? And why is it negative? Those are my questions…
Quote Filc:“What exactly is “consumerism” and what is the state of being materialistic, and how does it not apply to everyone? And why is it negative? Those are my questions…”
I think different people will give you different definitions. My own would be that consumerism and the state of being materialistic is an obsessive need to acquire more property to give yourself some sort of inner peace. It can be negative in the sense of people trying to compensate for their unhappiness by spending money- which only provides temporary feelings of elation which do not stay. Also when taken too far, people will throw themselves into massive debt they cannot hope to pay back since all they’ve done is spend their money to satisfy immediate needs. It doesn’t apply to everyone because not everybody thinks they “need” to acquire anything to stay happy. They’re happy with themselves and with the flow of life, whether or not that life brings to them a higher or lower standard of living.When something outside of yourself has the power to make you happy, it also has the power to make you unhappy when you don’t have it. Does this mean we should throw away all of our goods to try and attain a state of constant peace? No. But in the end being materialistic comes out to objects having power over you and your emotions, rather than you having power over them.
Being unhappy with your present situation so buying things gives you a feeling of being “alive” and in control of your life. That’s what it is. But I do think people take it too far when they think its a negative to desire anything material. Material goods provide new and different experiences, that’s why they’re so great. There just might be trouble when that’s the only way you can ever feel good inside.
What is the threshold between being materialistic and being appropriate? Who is the judge of this? How much is too much? Why is it wrong to want a higher standard of living now rather then tomorrow? Who decides when you should consume and when you should?
Also materialism does not lead to overlending and taking on too much dept, that’s a direct result of cheap highly available credit, that’s another discussion…
Of course the judge of whats appropriate and whats not is ultimately up to the individual. They’ll realize whats not appropriate if they’re the type that realizes that their spending hasn’t increased their happiness a bit. I’m not saying everyone is like this, but there definitely are those that are. In this country especially there are lots of people who have cases of depression but very high standards of living. They usually cling to some type of experience to make them feel happy and in control of their lives. Materialism isn’t the cause of this, its just one way to try to alleviate the pain- some go skydiving so that they can feel the “thrill” of being alive, or do drugs so that they aren’t stuck “thinking” in their head and staying depressed. Some go shopping. I’m exclusively talking about people who are unhappy with themselves and hoping the purchase of a material object will give them happiness. They’re the only people where “materialism” is a problem. Those types are always unhappy until they spend their money. But when they do, since the unhappiness was coming from within, it always creeps back out.(no Im not saying everyone who does drugs or goes skydiving is depressed and unhappy. They’re just examples of activities that can get someone who’s depressed to stop thinking so much because they’re in the “moment”. ) Its not about whether having a higher standard of living “now” is wrong, its about if acquiring more property is really making you happy or is it an illusion? Its subjective but some people do go through life wondering why they’re not happy when by all standards they are “successful”. I think this is just fun to talk about rather than saying I should impose constraints on people for their own betterment.
Some people will judge others on their behavior on spending and view it as wrong because they see a part of their past selves in it and think the other person’s experience is just like their own(not saying thats a good idea, just trying my way to explain why some people are super anti-materialistic).
It only becomes a problem when its “obsessive” and the person consuming becomes aware that they’re chasing for happiness that is only temporary. Its like a cocaine addict, its subjective whether cocaine is “good” or “bad” for you. Its not my place to tell someone to use it or not. If you are already a happy person things can go differently, but if you’re an unhappy person looking for happiness in cocaine, you’ll only find it for a moment. Then back to depression it goes.
Yeah that’s true people taking on too much debt is the direct result of cheap credit. lol I know a whole lot of girls who are only happy when they go “shopping”- and do it compulsively and fall into massive credit card debt they regret later. So I think we can say that the reason that there’s materialism that manifests itself in a negative way is because of government intervention, not capitalism.
If you’re looking for a source of “consumerism” (a highly suspect term to begin with) then consider government control over education. We all know that government control over interest rates produces more consumer spending, but state schools are themselves factories for high time preference individuals. When you destroy a person’s inability to reason and develop self-reliance, you turn him into an automaton that perpetually seeks instant gratification at the expense of future planning. People are then more susceptible to advertising and marketing precisely because they’ve had intellect beaten out of them.
It’s doubtful that getting rid of government schools would eliminate “consumerism” as you see it, but I think it would certainly lead to people who value savings more than they do now.
I think that simple answer is: leftists (all the stripes) consider poverty and hunger noble conditions for the human race. Think of the amount of human-interest stories you could generate in such an environment; the artist, intellectual and benign planner would be elevated to top-dog status. The merchant, aristocrat, priest and non-compliant intellectual branded as ‘enemies of the people’ instead.
France bared the brunt of the full spectrum of this leftist thought during the revolution.
Seriously though, capitalism doesn’t promote culture of any kind, as I see it. The culture of a society is derived from the internal priorities of the individuals within it. The current Western obsession with material goods, for instance, is largely a product of the permanent childhood mentality and egalitarian spirit instilled into people from birth in their state schools. Mises even commented on that to the same effect and also said (in the 30s) that wars weren’t the result of the armament industry, but of the priorities of the people who bought their products.
The free-market merely supplies, in the most efficient manner, what society at large demands. The market itself doesn’t create that demand.
Whom and what are [the ecological crusaders] attacking? It is not the luxuries of the “idle rich,” but the availability of “luxuries” to the broad masses of people. They are denouncing the fact that automobiles, air conditioners and television sets are no longer toys of the rich, but are within the means of an average American worker—a beneficence that does not exist and is not fully believed anywhere else on earth.
What do they regard as the proper life for working people? A life of unrelieved drudgery, of endless, gray toil, with no rest, no travel, no pleasure—above all, no pleasure. Those drugged, fornicating hedonists do not know that man cannot live by toil alone, that pleasure is a necessity, and that television has brought more enjoyment into more lives than all the public parks and settlement houses combined.
What do they regard as luxury? Anything above the “bare necessities” of physical survival—with the explanation that men would not have to labor so hard if it were not for the “artificial needs” created by “commercialism” and “materialism.” In reality, the opposite is true: the less the return on your labor, the harder the labor. It is much easier to acquire an automobile in New York City than a meal in the jungle. Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible, mind-and-body-wrecking ordeal. In “nature,” the struggle for food, clothing and shelter consumes all of a man’s energy and spirit; it is a losing struggle—the winner is any flood, earthquake or swarm of locusts. (Consider the 500,000 bodies left in the wake of a single flood in Pakistan; they had been men who lived without technology.) To work only for bare necessities is a luxury that mankind cannot afford.
