According to Tim Jackson, our current economy is based on persuading us to spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about. I'm not sure I've ever heard a better description of the microcosm that is Wall Street. But is it possible to enjoy prosperity without GDP growth? Or does Keynes's Paradox of Thrift make more sense? Put on your thinking caps, guys, because this is a view you probably haven't heard.
Trending Content
Career Resources
Though I am completely in agreement with the general theorem that the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality has become a worldwide epidemic, I simply cannot accept the psycho babble of the technoratti mafia either.
The clean/green energy movement though is (on its face) attempting to portray some sort of wonderfully wonderful Changri La-la-la values, in reality guys like this neo-socialist are nothing more than a more pervasive, invasive and disingenuous institutional salesmen plugging the next big financial product of the future.
I love how the British are at the forefront of this wonderful new world of peace, humanity, caring and sharing, etc... Anyone who's read the Economist over the last decade can attest to how British societal values in regards to economics and finance have rampantly run towards the red side of the fence. The Economist might as well be a more verbose Puffington Host.
Let's be clear, clean energy would help, but there are HUGE costs involved with implementation and (let's not get ideas twisted here) the sort of fantasy land scenarios that are always attached to "going green" have nothing to do with basic realities that existed long before evil old Adam Smith brought chaos to a world of mass murder as standard-operating-procedure, human bondage to land and dark age leftover remnants.
Bottom line is human beings compete, today we compete over money, via jobs, greed and ambition. Throughout history our acquisition methods were a bit more brutal and direct. Not much has changed.
Solar energy (for example) won't do jack shit to stop people from being greedy pigs and idiots.
I agree wholeheartedly that people today are more vapid then ever, that having been said I don't think that this guy is much different than those he brings into question. Matters of faith and ideology are best left to the family and the individual. A holier-than-thou quasi-educated elite espousing the globe-altering benefits of what is essentially just another product to sell, does not really feel me with "hope", "change" and all their other test marketed buzz words.
I support where you're coming from Eddie, but I guess I still haven't reached the level of enlightenment at which I can accept the positive parts of a message, delivered by what I ultimately feel is a very unsavory character.
have to agree with Midas, the general principle of increasing savings and investment is a great idea, however the rest of this guys philosphy sounds like a tortured undergrads thesis in environmental sustainability.
there is to date no way human society can become 100% environmentally sustainable and in my view attempts at this goal are the same as the pursuit of the perpetual motion machine. even solar panels/wind turbines use non-renewable materials in construction and maintenance, resulting in carbon emissions and non-recyclable materials. his asks why people don't invest in hybrid vehicles, high efficiency stoves etc. it's because it doesn't save you money, the savings are built into the cost. In our vain attempt to appear environmentally conscious we are merely overspending on useless "green" products, that will be much more efficient and cost saving in the future anyways, allowing developing nations to leapfrog capital purchases in the future. As a society we consume goods and services, whether to show off or whether to improve our lives it doesnt matter, we do it.
I think this is a case of presenting the ills of society to support a convaluted idea. Yes a lot of people buy products just to show off or cause its the in thing, maybe if they decided to live within their means and not do so, the prices of these products (ex. housing, education) wouldn't be so high and they would be able to save/spend properly.
While I enjoyed the first 12 or so minutes, his model of economies based on conspicuous consumption is thought-provoking, his "alternative" isn't convincing. Like 3M says, he's really just selling something. While energy and the shift to different resources will be a major engine of the world economy in the next century, claiming this is somehow separate from our current economic system is disingenuous. Over the past few years, the internet's growth has had less to do with overstretched consumers and more to do with the individualization of media. Facebook, ipods, iphones fall within the spectrum of comparing oneself to others, but they're hardly the reason people are overleveraged, and yet these are economy's greatest success stories.
Similarly, "green" technology will be successful once it becomes economically preferable to our current energy sources (and that day will come) all the while staying in the same system of consumption we are currently living in. Take hybrids for instance. People would rather drive Priuses than any other hybrid despite the fact that they are ugly as sin, precisely because they want people to know they are driving a hybrid (see the South Park episode on smugness). Nevermind the fact that many European diesel cars get higher mileage than any hybrid out there and look good doing it, "looking green" sells.
The speaker is correct in affirming that the forces of social mobility will not be enough for us to undergo the technological change we need to thrive. But once oil starts getting scarce, you better believe the oil majors are going to be looking for a new golden goose and whether it be fusion, hydrogen power, or "pulling carbon from the atmosphere" they'll find it. I just hope I'll already own the relevant soon-to-be deep ITM options when they do.
kinda reminds you of tyler durden's rant in fight club, no?
Dolores suscipit quia impedit laborum cum similique. Cumque nobis sit a hic. Non quasi numquam laboriosam ut eligendi.
Voluptas maxime qui omnis ratione eum doloribus. Qui repellat temporibus cupiditate nihil dicta officiis dolore. Quis aut vel ab occaecati. Optio voluptatibus est aut et earum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...