Crunchy Con

Consumption and hair of the dog

Wednesday October 29, 2008

Categories: Consumerism, Economics
Patrick Deneen notes the absurdity of the US government trying to solve an economic crisis caused by institutions and individuals taking on too much debt ... by following policies to try to entice those same indebted people to spend money...
Advertisement
Comments
EricW
October 29, 2008 1:34 PM

We are coming to the most important time of the year for many American merchants - the Thanksgiving-to-Xmas shopping season. If the merchants don't see a huge decline in sales (the only exceptions being that if they heavily, heavily discount things, it really does make sense to buy and buy), then Americans have not changed their buying practices, and nothing the government can or will do can fix things. If Americans on the verge of losing their homes still go out and charge lots of Xmas gifts, then they are totally, freaking nuts, and I hope the government leaves them hanging out to dry.

MH
October 29, 2008 2:10 PM

The government buying beer from drunks is something I could at least support.

MH
October 29, 2008 3:05 PM

Wow another MH running around. Oh well two letters wasn't that great a handle anyway, time to think of a better one.

In support of the policy I will point out that the best time to save is during good times and the worst time to save is during bad times. That's the whole paradox of thrift.

Mark D.
October 29, 2008 3:17 PM

Since I can infer that liberal now means radical consumptionism (or fill in the blank everything deemed "bad") I may also draw a corollary premise that "borrow and spend" Republicans are liberal - the neo-cons better take cover - their eating their own...

Z
October 29, 2008 3:38 PM

What?! Why is the government buying the drunks drinks? They should be buying responsible, middle class voters drinks (like me). Where's my DRINK!?

Matt, Hartford CT
October 29, 2008 4:01 PM

Eric, you're absolutely right. The best thing that could happen this Xmas season is for the retail giants to post record-low revenue numbers and substantial losses. If they don't you're probably right about us slipping back into our old habits.

The whole situation has lent itself too easily to forgetting the recent hardships. Many in my situation; those with prudence who do not finance things they do not need are feeling at ease at the moment because of fuel relief and a few other devaluing economic indicators. I fear, however - those who have merely coasted by may be tempted to reengage their debt with the temptation of lower consumer prices and better interest rates. Stronger beings have fallen for less.

What's the best thing you can buy a loved one this season? Debt relief. Take that $100 you were going to spend; buy a $20 bottle of wine to enjoy together and make an $80 credit card payment instead. No debt? Congratulations.

Our society needs to get away from expecting consumerism. The holiday season is about closeness and engagement with loved ones - not gift giving. Macy's will tell you otherwise, but I know my spouse will be extremely thrilled when she learns that I've paid her mother back for buying us a bedroom set last year. That's three gifts for the price of one. (Mom's happy, I'm a thoughtful husband, and our debts are secured.)

We forget that currency is fundamentally the promise of future enjoyment; financed at today's tax rate and tomorrow's inflation - riddled with debt before you even touch it. It costs you ~$130 today to buy a $100 gift. What we spend today, we forgo tomorrow. I'm all about living in the present, but to do that significantly you must provide security for your future.

The best gift you can give is your compassion - and that's tax-free.

Matt, Hartford CT
October 29, 2008 4:18 PM

Z, you EARN too much money - so we're taking your drinks and giving them to someone who did nothing to get them.

Z
October 29, 2008 4:47 PM

Matt,

I got the impression that I didn't earn enough money. I'm not too big to fail. So, you're taking my drinks and giving them to AIG execs as part of their resort retreat.

Connie Connie in Wisconsin
October 29, 2008 5:08 PM

Matt-not only does that $100 spent really cost you $130 with interest, you have to earn ~ $180 to have $130 after tax.

Scott Walker
October 29, 2008 5:28 PM

Can we please, for the love and pity of God, stop waving the bloody shirt of income redistribution? One might think that shame, if not honesty, might restrain Matt in Hartford, following the astonishing act of theft perpetrated by the Congress at the request of a Republican administration, whereby the income of future generations of Americans has been redistributed to the greedheads playing the Money Game on Wall Street. And you're hot and bothered about some poor people getting a few bucks at your expense? It's not the poor free riders that are breaking the American middle class; it's the rich ones. They, after all, are too big to fail.

Scott Walker
October 29, 2008 5:36 PM

But Matt in Hartford is dead on the money with his suggestion of debt reduction as a great Christmas gift.

Scott Walker
October 29, 2008 8:21 PM

Having just read the comment by Matt in Hartford on the conservative batcave meeting thread, I want to apologize for jumping to conclusions about his point of view, and assuming he was on board with the transfer of wealth to the rich simply because he was dubious about transfer of wealth to the poor. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Don
October 29, 2008 11:19 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5041585.ece

Ben Okri in The Times:

"Individualism has been raised almost to a religion, appearance made more important than substance. Success justifies greed, and greed justifies indifference to fellow human beings. We thought that our actions affected only our own sphere but the way that appalling decisions made in America have set off a domino effect makes it necessary to bring new ideas to the forefront of our civilisation. The most important is that we are more connected than we suspected. A visible and invisible mesh links economies and cultures around the globe to the great military and economic centres.

The only hope lies in a fundamental re-examination of the values that we have lived by in the past 30 years. It wouldn't do just to improve the banking system - we need to redesign the whole edifice."

godisaheretic
October 29, 2008 11:25 PM

on this topic, the part of Republicans is well noted...
Bush continues to lead his 8 year charge of piling up huge debt...
no surprise there...
his presidential role model?
not his dad...
it's none other than Ronald Wilson Reagan...
who taught the American people a powerful lesson by example:
spend now and leave the debt for the future...
well...
it worked for Reagan...
he's dead and gone...
and his half-mountain of debt added to Bush's half-mountain is now providing its inevitable destructive effects...
especially when added to the mountainous personal debt of Americans...
quite the influence Reagan has had on consumers since the 80's...

we are now finding out how hard it is to move a mountain...

prosperity faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive Reagan...

Nightstalker
October 30, 2008 12:14 AM

Godisaheretic: That's nonsense, about Reagan.

Reagan signed 3 major budget deals with Congress to end the deficit.

#1 required several dollars in budget cuts per dollar of revenue enhancements (mostly tax shelter removals).

#2 Required like 3 dollars in budget cuts per dollar of revenue enhancements. (like above)

#3 REquired 1 dollar spending reduction for 1 dollar revenue increase.

Congress (owned by Democrats) never honored them, and continued spending like a drunk.

I would have more respect for Reagan, had he simply vetoed every budget until the FIRST target was met, but Democrats threatened him with shutting down the government, and he caved.

There are three lessons to be learned from this:

1. Never compromise WITH Democrats
2. NEVER compromise with Democrats
3. Never COMPROMISE with Democrats

They have nothing good to do, want nothing good, have no good ideas, good solutions, or good motives.


Nightstalker
October 30, 2008 12:19 AM

Oh, yes. By all means, let's not buy anything.

Let's make sure that unemployment goes wild.

That's a fantastic economic plan.

Just as insane as the "borrow endlessly" one.

godisaheretic
October 30, 2008 12:25 AM

I'm not saying the Democrats are any better...
both parties have caused great destruction...
but...
in your words:
"he caved"...

abundance faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive Reagan and Bush...

Nightstalker
October 30, 2008 1:14 AM

Re: The "we gotta resign ourselves to being poor".

Hell no!

We gotta learn to live within our means. That's no secret. That's not even flashy or odd, or anything but normal truth.

This is not about wanting a depression so everyone will learn to live an anti-materialist monastic utopia. That idea is the worst of all worlds.

First, we have to live within our means, this is true. But what we REALLY NEED TO DO is produce. That is, we need to start drilling, logging, farming, mining, making stuff, we need to start making use of what we have productively to produce wealth, so we can pay off our debts and we can have jobs and support ourselves.

In that pursuit we need drastically altered tax policies and a LOT of regulatory relief from both states and federal government. In other words, WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WORK instead of just borrowing passing speculative money around.

But do you hear any politicians talking about that? Hardly. Obama's talking about killing off small business and slamming down on industry and investors.

I just can't believe people are so blind they aren't screaming out this stuff at his rallies.

I can't believe that so-called conservatives, who freaking know this already and should react this way instinctively aren't screaming it at McCain and Palin.

But I have yet to read even a single op-ed, columnist, or blogger saying this.

Has the country totally flipped out?

polistra
October 30, 2008 2:50 AM

Several candidates did make the point about the need for real production and self-sufficiency.

3 H's: Hunter, Huckabee and Hillary.

Hunter simply wasn't a good candidate, but Huckabee and Hillary were strong candidates and likely nominees. Both were brazenly slapped down, shouted down and hissed off the stage by the media and party apparatus on their respective sides.

Charles Cosimano
October 30, 2008 3:39 AM

Of course we can borrow endlessly. We borrow from each other and we all get rich in the process.

No one is going to live poorly to satisfy someone else's social vision.

Your Name
October 30, 2008 3:07 PM

Nightstalker,

You sound so sure of yourself. You folks were saying the same thing about Bill Clinton. How do you explain how well the economy and small buisness were doing in the 90s AND how we ended the Clinton administration with a surplus? Does history figure into your argument? Ever hear of FDR?

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.