David Suzuki article on Consumerism

[Smurf]

Sorry, I'm not paying enough attention to what I'm saying I guess. I meant that you showed that what I said wasn't entirely correct. That last paragraph was morely meant to show that I'm not blindly trying to defend my words.

Ah, well in that case I challenge you further:

Alright, so consumerism was a way of preventing another depression. It's still a solution, since they knew that the last war caused the first depression.

The depression was caused by many factors, mostly bad economic policy, but I don't think WW1 had anything to do with it.

(which, if true, proves we can come down from war-time economies without a consumer culture (although I havn't studied the period) since the 20s were kind of a golden age)

 

[Smasherman]

My history teacher's stance was that, in order to meet the needs of production for war, more factories were produced and made more efficient. When the war ended, there was a huge production capacity, but a small market, so workers were laid off. Since these workers no longer make money, they can't buy the products produced by the factories, so the market shrinks even more, leading to more lay-offs. This cycle continues.

 

[Smurf]

My history teacher's stance was that, in order to meet the needs of production for war, more factories were produced and made more efficient. When the war ended, there was a huge production capacity, but a small market, so workers were laid off. Since these workers no longer make money, they can't buy the products produced by the factories, so the market shrinks even more, leading to more lay-offs. This cycle continues.

My understanding is that it wasn't the war production that caused this but advances in production technology, such as the production line (1913) and, even more importantly, more usage of automated farm equipment that made manual labour minimal and obsolete. It also resulted in a mass over-production of food (which continues to today), but since demand stayed the same prices plummetted and farmers couldn't make any money.

The fact the stock market was being held up artificially didn't help either.

However, I can see the logic behind your view, but it doesn't hold up to history. If it was caused by massive production and not enough consumption it would've happened immediately after the first world war, instead of waiting a decade and a half before plummetting. Unless you can make the argument that consuption did skyrocket immediately following ww1 - but then you have to come out with a completely different reason why the depression started - or why a consuption dropped quick enough to cause the depression.

It would be very interesting to see a study of these times and events.> this is a relatively new area for me, so everyone feel free to point out any logical falacies or assumptions I made.

 

[Smasherman]

Ah, I see. Unfortunately, I have homework to do, as well as sleeping. I haven't really studied history extensively enough to make a solid assertion (which is why I use my teacher's), nor do I particularly care to at this time, so I'll assume that you're correct.

Yes, it would be interesting to see a good study. Maybe economics courses teach it.

 

[jimmie]

State or imply what? That a website still consumes resources?

Paperless society is fine, but I think you're being a tad bit overzealous by criticizing someone for using a newspaper to get his word out. It doesn't even look like he wrote this for the paper. If a television show, radio program, or newspaper offered to feature something you put up on your website, would you honestly tell them know? In what way would that help your cause?

loseyourname, you're just not getting it.

And its up to me and my site to make sure that you do 'get it'.

First off, regarding "criticizing" Suzuki for getting the word out: what I stated was that he could have only improved the message by improving the medium, and since I am aware that he and you are net yet fully aware of what I know; hence, the NEED for the website that I am creating.

Suzuki, and other individuals that intend to be right, are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. I KNOW I have more knowledge on said subject than Suzuki. I KNOW I possesses the knowledge to teach, and I know exactly HOW to execute the process of teaching. The question is: are you (all individuals) 'willing' to learn?

And regarding if a TV show et al offered to feature something I put up on my site, I would not even diginify their proposal with a response.

But most importantly what you (all individuals) do not yet understand, is that those mediums have already done the most they can for my site, and that is to provide a sharp CONTRAST in advertising methods.

Can you say "polarize the market"?

 

[Smurf]

And regarding if a TV show et al offered to feature something I put up on my site, I would not even diginify their proposal with a response.

why? ...

 

[jimmie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmie
And regarding if a TV show et al offered to feature something I put up on my site, I would not even diginify their proposal with a response.

why? ...

see my previous quote and especially the words after the word "is".

The RIGHT way for an individual to MASS-COMMUNICATE "consumerism", with the least amount of on-going effort (although making the site has been a Herculean effort, but once its done, its done, and its almost done) and with as little effect on the planet as possible, is ONLY a website dedicated to teaching consumerism.

Reach advertising CURRENTLY is what it is, and it shall not last forever.
Soon, it shall be... it was what it was.

Let it be known: ONLY I currently am aware of reach advertising's "achilles heel".

My site shall expose its only weak spot.

 

[devil-fire]

i agree partly with the higher road being the humble one but if all enviromentalists just tryed to make as little an impact on the world instead of contradicting themselves but Using resources to preach the Preservation of resources, the message of resource preservation would never get out.

an add in a big newspaper with a million subscribers that said "from start to finish, this add has required the clearcutting of 1 squair foot of forest. think of the volume in the rest of this paper and preserve your children's future" and people actualy bought the new paper less and thought about minimizing their consumption, it would be a worthy sacrifice of the 1 squair foot.

 

[loseyourname]

why? ...

Because he's enlightened apparently and knows something the rest of us don't. You're starting to sound worse than smurf, jimmie, but it is obvious that you don't care how arrogant you come across as. I guess I can respect that.

 

[jimmie]

it is obvious that you don't care how arrogant you come across as

actually, I do care.

I am aware that the tone of some my recent posts on the current thread has been aggressive.

I am also aware that being perceived as aggressive may interfere with the learning process and deter particular individuals from learning.

However, it is the individuals that intend to learn and be right that understand that ANY aggression they may perceive from me was focused towards ONLY the individuals that intended to NOT be right.

Those individuals that are deterred from learning because of my 'tone', simply did not accept their place as 'student', and my place as 'teacher'. Being humble was a pre-requisite for learning, and some individuals intend to not be humble.

And in the current big global picture of everything, that is exactly the problem. Everyone is out of place. Everyone 'wants' to rule the world, but can't even rule their own 'self'. Everyone needs to be put in place.

Order starts ONLY at the top.

 

[loseyourname]

Honestly, jimmie, you don't seem aggressive in the least bit. That's not what I meant. What you seem is extremely presumptious and perhaps a little overconfident in your assertion that you "know something" that no one else knows. You sound a bit like a cult leader, especially in your new insistence that the world would be ordered and all its problems solved if everyone would just follow you.

 

[Skyhunter]

Honestly, jimmie, you don't seem aggressive in the least bit. That's not what I meant. What you seem is extremely presumptious and perhaps a little overconfident in your assertion that you "know something" that no one else knows. You sound a bit like a cult leader, especially in your new insistence that the world would be ordered and all its problems solved if everyone would just follow you.

I don't see him looking for followers, only students. I for one am interested in what he might have to teach, especially if he has unique knowledge.

I follow my own path as I suggest everyone do.

 

[jimmie]

You sound a bit like a cult leader,

All "cults" have/had a particular name. Also, "cults" have/had "disciples"; I am alone. Just Me.

My organization does not have a particular name. Hence, not possible to be a cult. The organization is me. "I am" the organization.

However, "America" is a particular name.

you "know something" that no one else knows.

I do. And that knowledge is going in my site.

the world would be ordered and all its problems solved if everyone would just follow you.

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Smurf]

Because he's enlightened apparently and knows something the rest of us don't. You're starting to sound worse than smurf, jimmie, but it is obvious that you don't care how arrogant you come across as. I guess I can respect that.

WTF