Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Thoreauly simple
Mother Jones, a radical American publication, has an article by Michael Agger discussing several books on self-sacrifice in its November / December issue.
It starts by discussing Henry David Thoreau and his book Walden. For those not versed in American culture Thoreau was, among other things, a nineteenth century advocate of simple living.
The article then moves on to the present day with a discussion of Colin Beaven:
“The most notorious neo-Thoreauvian might be Colin Beavan, a 45-year-old New Yorker better known as No Impact Man, and even better known as The Man Who Doesn't Let His Wife Use Toilet Paper. That last detail was the highlight of a 2007 New York Times profile of Beavan, which portrayed how he, his wife, and their two-year-old daughter were attempting to live in downtown Manhattan with zero "net impact" on the environment. This goal involves eating only organic food grown within a 250-mile radius, composting inside their small apartment, forgoing paper, carbon-based transportation, dishwashers, TV, and adhering to whatever new austerities Beavan dreams up.
“Naturally, Beavan is hoping his no impact experiment has maximum impact. Like Thoreau, who, after all, was living on Emerson's land, Beavan is well connected. He has a book contract. His wife's friend has made him the subject of her documentary film, and he has a website, where people praise his boldness and question his motives.”
He almost makes Ethan Greenhart, spiked’s spoof environmental columnist, seem sane in comparison.
The article then goes on to discuss the following books:
* Judith Levine, Not Buying It
* Mary Carlomagno, Give It Up!: My Year of Learning to Live Better With Less
* Sara Bongiorni, A Year Without "Made in China": One Family's True Life Adventure in the Global Economy
* Alisa Smith and JB MacKinnon Plenty: One Man, One Woman, and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally
In conclusion Agger argues that: “The ultimate lesson of the new Thoreauvians seems to be that change is rarely drastic. We must strive for continuous, daily, incremental improvement toward whatever social, environmental, and economic goals we deem important.”
It starts by discussing Henry David Thoreau and his book Walden. For those not versed in American culture Thoreau was, among other things, a nineteenth century advocate of simple living.
The article then moves on to the present day with a discussion of Colin Beaven:
“The most notorious neo-Thoreauvian might be Colin Beavan, a 45-year-old New Yorker better known as No Impact Man, and even better known as The Man Who Doesn't Let His Wife Use Toilet Paper. That last detail was the highlight of a 2007 New York Times profile of Beavan, which portrayed how he, his wife, and their two-year-old daughter were attempting to live in downtown Manhattan with zero "net impact" on the environment. This goal involves eating only organic food grown within a 250-mile radius, composting inside their small apartment, forgoing paper, carbon-based transportation, dishwashers, TV, and adhering to whatever new austerities Beavan dreams up.
“Naturally, Beavan is hoping his no impact experiment has maximum impact. Like Thoreau, who, after all, was living on Emerson's land, Beavan is well connected. He has a book contract. His wife's friend has made him the subject of her documentary film, and he has a website, where people praise his boldness and question his motives.”
He almost makes Ethan Greenhart, spiked’s spoof environmental columnist, seem sane in comparison.
The article then goes on to discuss the following books:
* Judith Levine, Not Buying It
* Mary Carlomagno, Give It Up!: My Year of Learning to Live Better With Less
* Sara Bongiorni, A Year Without "Made in China": One Family's True Life Adventure in the Global Economy
* Alisa Smith and JB MacKinnon Plenty: One Man, One Woman, and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally
In conclusion Agger argues that: “The ultimate lesson of the new Thoreauvians seems to be that change is rarely drastic. We must strive for continuous, daily, incremental improvement toward whatever social, environmental, and economic goals we deem important.”
Labels: America, book, consumption, ethics, spiked
Friday, December 12, 2008
The growth sceptic mindset
A particularly interesting insight into the logic of growth scepticism from Philip Stephens, an associate editor of the Financial Times, in a piece in today’s newspaper entitled: “Global warming: the way not to mobilise the masses”.
He first acknowledges that anti-growth sentiment of the type favoured by protestors against Stansted airport is unlikely to win popular support”
“In this mindset saving the planet demands that people give up their foreign holidays, abandon their cars, turn down the heating and clean their teeth in the dark. Through this prism, pain is a virtue and the halting global warming metamorphoses into a much broader attack on consumerism, materialism and, at the extreme, anything that smacks of the market.
“Whatever one makes of the intent, such zealotry is doomed to failure. Self-flagellation does not sell. If keeping the planet cool is seen to be the project of affluent middle-class do-gooders the masses will mobilise all right – against it.”
The wording in the second paragraph should be carefully noted. He does not object to the intent of the protestors but simply the zealotry with which they publicise their case. Stevens favours putting the argument in a positive form:
`’The case must be framed as an opportunity rather than a burden. Technological innovation – in automobile design, energy efficiency, renewable energy and the rest – is more than a useful adjunct to an austere low carbon lifestyle. It is a vital pillar of any plan to reduce the build-up of CO2. Bluntly stated, unless we find a way to capture emissions from coal-fired power stations, the game will be lost.”
For him technological innovation - of a low horizons, low carbon kind - needs to accompany the austere low carbon lifestyle. They are not an alternative.
He first acknowledges that anti-growth sentiment of the type favoured by protestors against Stansted airport is unlikely to win popular support”
“In this mindset saving the planet demands that people give up their foreign holidays, abandon their cars, turn down the heating and clean their teeth in the dark. Through this prism, pain is a virtue and the halting global warming metamorphoses into a much broader attack on consumerism, materialism and, at the extreme, anything that smacks of the market.
“Whatever one makes of the intent, such zealotry is doomed to failure. Self-flagellation does not sell. If keeping the planet cool is seen to be the project of affluent middle-class do-gooders the masses will mobilise all right – against it.”
The wording in the second paragraph should be carefully noted. He does not object to the intent of the protestors but simply the zealotry with which they publicise their case. Stevens favours putting the argument in a positive form:
`’The case must be framed as an opportunity rather than a burden. Technological innovation – in automobile design, energy efficiency, renewable energy and the rest – is more than a useful adjunct to an austere low carbon lifestyle. It is a vital pillar of any plan to reduce the build-up of CO2. Bluntly stated, unless we find a way to capture emissions from coal-fired power stations, the game will be lost.”
For him technological innovation - of a low horizons, low carbon kind - needs to accompany the austere low carbon lifestyle. They are not an alternative.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, growth, technology
Monday, December 08, 2008
A production dearth not consumer binge
The following comment by me appeared in the latest Fund Strategy (8 December).
In this upside down version of events, the fundamental problem was cheap credit fuelling extravagant purchases of houses and consumer goods. Feckless consumers and reckless lenders are the villains in this sordid morality tale.
What this scenario misses is that it is necessary to produce before you can consume. Production is a logical pre-condition for consumption and everything that is consumed has to be produced first.
This means that consumption cannot be considered in isolation from production. The myth of the overconsumption binge is hopelessly one-sided.
It would be more accurate to say that the fundamental problem was one of underproduction. Insufficient real value was being produced in the developed western economies. Often paper wealth – such as bonds and equities – was confused with real productive capacity.
The British housing market provides a prime example of this trend. One reason that British house prices rose so much was the artificial constraint on the supply of new homes by “green belt” legislation. As a result of such archaic rules few new houses were built – with the bulk of the population condemned to live in antiquated dwellings. If house building was easier and more efficient it is doubtful that such a large bubble would have developed.
Of course it is true that credit fuelled economic expansion during the relatively good years. But that was a result of economic weakness rather than its cause. The authorities, most notably the Federal Reserve in America, encouraged cheap credit as a way of offsetting a tendency to economic stagnation. It would have been far better if the American authorities had encouraged real productive investment.
The problem of underproduction was exacerbated by the prevailing bias against production in western societies (see the comment in last week’s quarterly review). Attempts to bolster production were viewed with suspicion or hindered by bureaucratic delays.
In contrast projects that squandered individual’s most valuable resource – their time – were lauded. If the effort used to keep turning lights on and off or stop water taps running was used more productively, the economy would have benefited. Instead, society got caught up in a wasteful cycle of mind-numbing rationing.
In this upside down version of events, the fundamental problem was cheap credit fuelling extravagant purchases of houses and consumer goods. Feckless consumers and reckless lenders are the villains in this sordid morality tale.
What this scenario misses is that it is necessary to produce before you can consume. Production is a logical pre-condition for consumption and everything that is consumed has to be produced first.
This means that consumption cannot be considered in isolation from production. The myth of the overconsumption binge is hopelessly one-sided.
It would be more accurate to say that the fundamental problem was one of underproduction. Insufficient real value was being produced in the developed western economies. Often paper wealth – such as bonds and equities – was confused with real productive capacity.
The British housing market provides a prime example of this trend. One reason that British house prices rose so much was the artificial constraint on the supply of new homes by “green belt” legislation. As a result of such archaic rules few new houses were built – with the bulk of the population condemned to live in antiquated dwellings. If house building was easier and more efficient it is doubtful that such a large bubble would have developed.
Of course it is true that credit fuelled economic expansion during the relatively good years. But that was a result of economic weakness rather than its cause. The authorities, most notably the Federal Reserve in America, encouraged cheap credit as a way of offsetting a tendency to economic stagnation. It would have been far better if the American authorities had encouraged real productive investment.
The problem of underproduction was exacerbated by the prevailing bias against production in western societies (see the comment in last week’s quarterly review). Attempts to bolster production were viewed with suspicion or hindered by bureaucratic delays.
In contrast projects that squandered individual’s most valuable resource – their time – were lauded. If the effort used to keep turning lights on and off or stop water taps running was used more productively, the economy would have benefited. Instead, society got caught up in a wasteful cycle of mind-numbing rationing.
Labels: consumption, economics, environment, finance
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Credit crunch Christmas
I was saddened but not surprised that my local Borders bookshop is cashing in this Christmas with a section promoting books related to the credit crunch. All of the books look like they have either been rebranded or recycled for the section.
Among the most heavily promoted titles are Delia’s Frugal Food and Save Cash & Save the Planet. Other topics including debt management, DIY, making your own clothes and holidays (either in Britain or camping).
Meanwhile, the cover story in this week’s New Scientist magazine is on “how to unplug from the grid”. It examines how to live unconnected to the power grid or water, gas and sewerage supplies.
Unfortunately these examples seem to indicate that the trend for green austerity is becoming stronger rather than weaker. As long as growth scepticism remains unchallenged the possibility of resisting green austerity will be diminished.
Among the most heavily promoted titles are Delia’s Frugal Food and Save Cash & Save the Planet. Other topics including debt management, DIY, making your own clothes and holidays (either in Britain or camping).
Meanwhile, the cover story in this week’s New Scientist magazine is on “how to unplug from the grid”. It examines how to live unconnected to the power grid or water, gas and sewerage supplies.
Unfortunately these examples seem to indicate that the trend for green austerity is becoming stronger rather than weaker. As long as growth scepticism remains unchallenged the possibility of resisting green austerity will be diminished.
Labels: consumption, economics, environment, food, science
Sunday, November 30, 2008
TV primer on GM crops
Belatedly caught up with the BBC TV Horizon programme on Jimmy’s GM Food Fight (as I write there are still 23 days left to watch it on BBC iPlayer). It provided an unexpectedly good primer to the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops (or GMOs as they are known in America). The presenter was Jimmy Doherty, a traditional farmer with a PhD in entomology, who also presented the informative Jimmy Doherty’s Farming Heroes (see 20 July 2008 post).
Doherty did a good job of explaining the basics of GM. For instance, he pointed out that selective breeding of plants has existed for literally thousands of years. He pointed out that crops such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts cauliflower, Kohlrabi and numerous varieties of modern cabbages were all bred from the wild cabbage. GM technology merely provides a more efficient way of breeding.
He also pointed to other advantages of GM technology. These include modifying plants to improve their qualities by making them, for instance, more drought resistant or disease resistant. Such modifications can mean that less pesticides are required to growth them. It is also possible to use GM technology to enhance the nutritional value of food.
Doherty also allowed the critics of GM, based mainly in Europe, to have a voice. Lord Peter Melchett, a British environmental campaigner, voiced his opposition to GM mainly on the grounds of the uncertainties involved in relation to the environment and human health. Yet despite professed concern about “uncertainties” such campaigners, including Melchett himself, have destroyed experiments to determine the qualities of GM crops.
The programme also contained a couple of surprises:
• An interview with an Amish farmer who – despite eschewing mechanised tractors – happily used GM crops. The programme also pointed out that 80% of corn, cotton and soya production in America is GM. GM technology has been used in dozens of countries for over a decade.
• An interview with the head of a research unit in Uganda experimenting on using GM technology to counter a fungus that is decimating the country’s vital banana crop. The unit has high security but, unlike in Europe, its aim is not to keep anti-GM protestors out. The fences and barbed wire are designed to keep out Ugandan farmers who desperately want to plant the crops rather than await the results of time-consuming trials.
Doherty did a good job of explaining the basics of GM. For instance, he pointed out that selective breeding of plants has existed for literally thousands of years. He pointed out that crops such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts cauliflower, Kohlrabi and numerous varieties of modern cabbages were all bred from the wild cabbage. GM technology merely provides a more efficient way of breeding.
He also pointed to other advantages of GM technology. These include modifying plants to improve their qualities by making them, for instance, more drought resistant or disease resistant. Such modifications can mean that less pesticides are required to growth them. It is also possible to use GM technology to enhance the nutritional value of food.
Doherty also allowed the critics of GM, based mainly in Europe, to have a voice. Lord Peter Melchett, a British environmental campaigner, voiced his opposition to GM mainly on the grounds of the uncertainties involved in relation to the environment and human health. Yet despite professed concern about “uncertainties” such campaigners, including Melchett himself, have destroyed experiments to determine the qualities of GM crops.
The programme also contained a couple of surprises:
• An interview with an Amish farmer who – despite eschewing mechanised tractors – happily used GM crops. The programme also pointed out that 80% of corn, cotton and soya production in America is GM. GM technology has been used in dozens of countries for over a decade.
• An interview with the head of a research unit in Uganda experimenting on using GM technology to counter a fungus that is decimating the country’s vital banana crop. The unit has high security but, unlike in Europe, its aim is not to keep anti-GM protestors out. The fences and barbed wire are designed to keep out Ugandan farmers who desperately want to plant the crops rather than await the results of time-consuming trials.
Labels: consumption, food, health, science, technology, television
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving!
An article on America’s Thanksgiving festival as a celebration of abundance and prosperity.
Labels: America, consumption, food
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Debating sweatshops
The last programme in the series of the BBC Radio 4 Iconoclasts programme looked at the debate around third world sweatshops. Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor of economics at Columbia University, argued that sweatshops should not be criticised for paying poor wages although he conceded it was wrong to have poor working conditions. He emphasised that industrial exports could lead to growth which could in turn life countries out of poverty.
After an initial introduction by Bhagwati there was a debate involving Ceri Dingle of Worldwrite a campaigner from War on Want and the owner of a fair trade fashion label. The advocates of ethical consumption came out with the usual clichés: complaining about free market economics and trickle down theory (even though neither had been mentioned by Bhagwati or Dingle). They also focused on sweatshops in the poorer countries without understanding that the plight of those working on the land is generally worse. There were also complaints about inequality (but not arguing for more growth) and an implicit assumption that the British government could somehow help trade unions organising in poorer countries. Dingle ably put the case for more growth, greater industrialisation and higher expectations.
After an initial introduction by Bhagwati there was a debate involving Ceri Dingle of Worldwrite a campaigner from War on Want and the owner of a fair trade fashion label. The advocates of ethical consumption came out with the usual clichés: complaining about free market economics and trickle down theory (even though neither had been mentioned by Bhagwati or Dingle). They also focused on sweatshops in the poorer countries without understanding that the plight of those working on the land is generally worse. There were also complaints about inequality (but not arguing for more growth) and an implicit assumption that the British government could somehow help trade unions organising in poorer countries. Dingle ably put the case for more growth, greater industrialisation and higher expectations.
Labels: consumption, development, ethics, radio, trade, work, Worldwrite
Anti-consumerism as terrorism
Rob Killick reminds us in a review of the Beider Meinhoff Complex on spiked that anti-materialism was a significant trend in 1960s radicalism. He portrays the leaders of the 1960s Germany terrorist gang as an extreme part of a broader trend which saw itself: “as part of an international movement of opposition to imperialism, but made no effort to build links with the working class in Germany, which they saw as in thrall to capitalist consumerist ideology”. Killick ends with the correct point that the elitist belief in a stupid consumerist working class is now widespread.
Labels: consumption, Europe, film, spiked
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Climate leader attacks meat consumption
The lead story in today’s Observer quotes Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argues that people should reduce their meat consumption to help quell global warming. There are several obvious things wrong with this demand. In no particular order:
• It is an intrusion into individuals’ personal freedom. It should not be up to the authorities to tell people what to eat.
• It is an attack on Western living standards. It helps set a precedent that people should be prepared to do with less.
• It is an attack on development. Everyone should have access to the best the world has to offer – including meat.
• It is a meaningless gesture. The idea that such token gestures can do anything about climate change is ridiculous. On the contrary, by focusing on our individual behaviour it encourages a climate of narcissism rather than the broad thinking need to tackle the problems facing humanity.
• It is an intrusion into individuals’ personal freedom. It should not be up to the authorities to tell people what to eat.
• It is an attack on Western living standards. It helps set a precedent that people should be prepared to do with less.
• It is an attack on development. Everyone should have access to the best the world has to offer – including meat.
• It is a meaningless gesture. The idea that such token gestures can do anything about climate change is ridiculous. On the contrary, by focusing on our individual behaviour it encourages a climate of narcissism rather than the broad thinking need to tackle the problems facing humanity.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment, food
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Green culture fuels inflationary surge
The following comment by me appeared in this week’s Fund Strategy. It is related to my cover story on the rising trend in oil prices which you can read here.
Although this week's cover story is about oil it also helps explain why inflation is rising so strongly. It is not just that energy prices are rising - such an assertion simply begs the question of why energy is becoming more expensive. Insufficient investment in energy supply is a key factor in rising prices more generally.
Showing that inflation can largely be attributed to rising food and energy prices at present is simple mathematics. It can be seen by looking at the breakdown of various inflation indices that are available.
It is also clear that rising energy prices are a significant contributor to rising food prices. Energy is used to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere to make fertilisers and it powers farm machinery. The diversion of crops from food to biofuels is another related factor. There are other reasons for rising food prices (see 12 May 2008 cover story) but energy is key.
There may also be other factors pushing up inflation. And at other times a different explanation for rising inflation might be necessary. But at this juncture the energy sector seems to be central to the explanation.
As this week's cover story argues the broad story in relation to energy is that supply is not keeping up with rising demand. As developing economies grow they rightly want and need more energy. The challenge is to ensure there is sufficient investment to guarantee such needs are met.
In the abstract there should be no problem in meeting such needs. There is no absolute shortage of energy resources. There are ample reserves of oil, hundreds of years' worth of coal reserves, plentiful hydroelectric power sources and nuclear.
The problem is insufficient investment to exploit these resources fast enough. That in turn is pushing up prices as rising energy demand exceeds supply growth.
The obstacle is environmentalism in its broadest sense. It is not a question of a few "tree huggers" protesting outside proposed power stations.
Rather it is a culture that is reluctant to invest in energy supply. America, for example, has not built an atomic power station since the 1970s. In Britain too the investment in renewing the energy infrastructure is pitiful.
The best response to inflation would be to invest to make energy too cheap to meter.
Although this week's cover story is about oil it also helps explain why inflation is rising so strongly. It is not just that energy prices are rising - such an assertion simply begs the question of why energy is becoming more expensive. Insufficient investment in energy supply is a key factor in rising prices more generally.
Showing that inflation can largely be attributed to rising food and energy prices at present is simple mathematics. It can be seen by looking at the breakdown of various inflation indices that are available.
It is also clear that rising energy prices are a significant contributor to rising food prices. Energy is used to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere to make fertilisers and it powers farm machinery. The diversion of crops from food to biofuels is another related factor. There are other reasons for rising food prices (see 12 May 2008 cover story) but energy is key.
There may also be other factors pushing up inflation. And at other times a different explanation for rising inflation might be necessary. But at this juncture the energy sector seems to be central to the explanation.
As this week's cover story argues the broad story in relation to energy is that supply is not keeping up with rising demand. As developing economies grow they rightly want and need more energy. The challenge is to ensure there is sufficient investment to guarantee such needs are met.
In the abstract there should be no problem in meeting such needs. There is no absolute shortage of energy resources. There are ample reserves of oil, hundreds of years' worth of coal reserves, plentiful hydroelectric power sources and nuclear.
The problem is insufficient investment to exploit these resources fast enough. That in turn is pushing up prices as rising energy demand exceeds supply growth.
The obstacle is environmentalism in its broadest sense. It is not a question of a few "tree huggers" protesting outside proposed power stations.
Rather it is a culture that is reluctant to invest in energy supply. America, for example, has not built an atomic power station since the 1970s. In Britain too the investment in renewing the energy infrastructure is pitiful.
The best response to inflation would be to invest to make energy too cheap to meter.
Labels: apocalyptic, consumption, economics, energy, finance, Fund Strategy
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Now water gets a footprint too
The annual World Water Week in Stockholm seems to be an occasion for an outpouring of panic about global water shortages. BBC Two’s flagship Newsnight programme has already fallen for it (see Monday’s post) and now, not surprisingly given its environmentalist leanings, the Guardian has too. The lead news story in today’s paper gave credence to the World Wildife Fund’s notion of a water footprint and a related leader called for individuals to reduce their water use.
Such demands get reality upside down. As I have argued before it is the shortage of investment in water infrastructure that is the problem. There is no absolute shortage of water. The underlying problem is poverty rather than a particular chemical compound.
It is strange that the stuff of life itself - carbon and water - is being demonised by environmentalists.
Such demands get reality upside down. As I have argued before it is the shortage of investment in water infrastructure that is the problem. There is no absolute shortage of water. The underlying problem is poverty rather than a particular chemical compound.
It is strange that the stuff of life itself - carbon and water - is being demonised by environmentalists.
Labels: consumption, environment, footprint, water
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Fetishising water
The BBC2 Newsnight programme this evening completely succumbed to the panic about water shortages. Its underlying assumption was simple: population growth and industrialisation are leading to greater use of this scarce commodity. This in turn is leading to the prospect of conflict and even water wars worldwide.
Sadly none of the studio guests challenged the fetishisation of water. It is wrong to see water as causing conflict – water is just “stuff” – the problem is the lack of investment in infrastructure to ensure everyone has enough water. Nor is it true that water is a finite resource (see, for example, posts of 22 August 2006, 19 October 2006 and 12 March 2008).
Worldwrite is also producing a documentary on this topic called Flush It!. Hopefully it will provide an antidote to such scare-mongering. Its premiere is at the Battle of Ideas festival on 2 November.
Sadly none of the studio guests challenged the fetishisation of water. It is wrong to see water as causing conflict – water is just “stuff” – the problem is the lack of investment in infrastructure to ensure everyone has enough water. Nor is it true that water is a finite resource (see, for example, posts of 22 August 2006, 19 October 2006 and 12 March 2008).
Worldwrite is also producing a documentary on this topic called Flush It!. Hopefully it will provide an antidote to such scare-mongering. Its premiere is at the Battle of Ideas festival on 2 November.
Labels: consumption, environment, film, television, water, Worldwrite
Sunday, August 17, 2008
More of more-is-less
Miller-McCune magazine, a publication from the Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media and Public Policy in California, has a useful review essay by David Villano on the “more-is-less” thesis. In other words it examines (sympathetically) the argument that it is possible to be more prosperous while consuming less.
Many of the points it makes are familiar – Americans consume far more per head than most of the rest of the world, the threat of climate change is imminent, the need to change lifestyles etc – but it includes many useful references. Among them are Confronting Consumption, (MIT Press) a 2002 book on America’s consumer society co-edited by Michael Maniates. Others include the California-based Global Footprint Network, the Voluntary Simplicity Movement, Redefining Progress and Mean Genes, a book on how our desire to consume is embedded in our DNA.
Many of the points it makes are familiar – Americans consume far more per head than most of the rest of the world, the threat of climate change is imminent, the need to change lifestyles etc – but it includes many useful references. Among them are Confronting Consumption, (MIT Press) a 2002 book on America’s consumer society co-edited by Michael Maniates. Others include the California-based Global Footprint Network, the Voluntary Simplicity Movement, Redefining Progress and Mean Genes, a book on how our desire to consume is embedded in our DNA.
Labels: affluenza, America, book, climate, consumption, environment, footprint, inequality, progress, review, sustainability
Self-loathing in America and beyond
Dick Meyer, a veteran American journalist, has written an interesting-sounding book on self-loathing in America with the brilliant title of Why We Hate Us (Crown 2008). To quote the blurb from his publisher:
“Meyer argues—with biting wit and observations that make you want to shout, “Yes! I hate that too!”—that when the social, spiritual, and political turmoil that followed the sixties collided with the technological and media revolution at the turn of the century, something inside us hit overload. American culture no longer reflects our own values. As a result, we are now morally and existentially tired, disoriented, anchorless, and defensive. We hate us and we wonder why.”
No doubt there is much that is wrong with Meyer’s analysis but he raises some important questions. There certainly is a strong element of self-loathing in America and Western culture more generally. This is apparent in many areas including environmentalism, identity politics and the hostility towards Chinese economic development. It is a topic that is worth examining in more detail.
An extract from the book and interview with the author are available here.
“Meyer argues—with biting wit and observations that make you want to shout, “Yes! I hate that too!”—that when the social, spiritual, and political turmoil that followed the sixties collided with the technological and media revolution at the turn of the century, something inside us hit overload. American culture no longer reflects our own values. As a result, we are now morally and existentially tired, disoriented, anchorless, and defensive. We hate us and we wonder why.”
No doubt there is much that is wrong with Meyer’s analysis but he raises some important questions. There certainly is a strong element of self-loathing in America and Western culture more generally. This is apparent in many areas including environmentalism, identity politics and the hostility towards Chinese economic development. It is a topic that is worth examining in more detail.
An extract from the book and interview with the author are available here.
Labels: America, book, china, consumption, happiness
Saturday, August 16, 2008
More on delayed gratification
Rob Williams, a freelance journalist and former assistant to a Labour MP, echoes David Lammy’s call for delayed gratification (see 14 August 2008 post) in an article in the Guardian Comment is free blog today:
“if there is a common theme running through the last decade, indeed, the last 30 years, it is one of instant gratification for businesses, governments and for individuals. There has been a total unwillingness to plan, wait for something, to save or to look more than five minutes ahead.”
He hopes the credit crunch will bring delayed gratification back into fashion again:
“For a start deferred gratification (remember your sociology classes?) needs to become acceptable again. The right amount of money to have is actually not quite enough, so that you have to save for a treat, and even, shock, horror, go without another luxury to get what you want. If you really want that holiday, or car, then save up for it.”
His conclusion:
“plastic is no longer fantastic, and our flexible friends are now cracking the whip. Hopefully the lesson of the next couple of years will be ‘how I learned to stop worrying and love the downturn.’ “
It is amazing how creative New Labour and its supporters are when it comes to trying to get the rest of us to make do with less.
Sadly I expect this to be a common reaction to the economic downturn. If anything green trends are likely to be strengthened rather than weakened.
“if there is a common theme running through the last decade, indeed, the last 30 years, it is one of instant gratification for businesses, governments and for individuals. There has been a total unwillingness to plan, wait for something, to save or to look more than five minutes ahead.”
He hopes the credit crunch will bring delayed gratification back into fashion again:
“For a start deferred gratification (remember your sociology classes?) needs to become acceptable again. The right amount of money to have is actually not quite enough, so that you have to save for a treat, and even, shock, horror, go without another luxury to get what you want. If you really want that holiday, or car, then save up for it.”
His conclusion:
“plastic is no longer fantastic, and our flexible friends are now cracking the whip. Hopefully the lesson of the next couple of years will be ‘how I learned to stop worrying and love the downturn.’ “
It is amazing how creative New Labour and its supporters are when it comes to trying to get the rest of us to make do with less.
Sadly I expect this to be a common reaction to the economic downturn. If anything green trends are likely to be strengthened rather than weakened.
Labels: affluenza, consumption, economics, finance
Friday, August 15, 2008
Blaming affluence for youth violence
David Lammy, New Labour’s skills minister, makes a crass link between growing affluence and youth violence in the latest New Statesman (14 August). Some excerpts:
* “In society, the fetishisation of money and the growth of consumerism add new pressures. In a "bling" culture, criminality easily becomes a short cut to symbols of wealth and power that will otherwise take years of hard work to achieve.”
* “the crucial point is this: a resilient economy cannot substitute for a good society.”
“An inability to delay gratification - whether with food, alcohol, money or sex - is becoming a hallmark of our age, reinforced by advertising and media (by the age of ten, the average British child recognises nearly 400 brand names).”
Some questions for Lammy:
- Why is it that richer societies are generally less violent than poorer ones (see posts of 20 July 2006, 30 July 2006 and 31 December 2007)?
- Why is it that only a tiny minority are involved in youth violence despite the mass of society becoming more affluent?
- How does he square his argument with the fact that, according to official figures, violent crime is not increasing in Britain (see Mick Hume’s recent article in spiked on this theme)?
* “In society, the fetishisation of money and the growth of consumerism add new pressures. In a "bling" culture, criminality easily becomes a short cut to symbols of wealth and power that will otherwise take years of hard work to achieve.”
* “the crucial point is this: a resilient economy cannot substitute for a good society.”
“An inability to delay gratification - whether with food, alcohol, money or sex - is becoming a hallmark of our age, reinforced by advertising and media (by the age of ten, the average British child recognises nearly 400 brand names).”
Some questions for Lammy:
- Why is it that richer societies are generally less violent than poorer ones (see posts of 20 July 2006, 30 July 2006 and 31 December 2007)?
- Why is it that only a tiny minority are involved in youth violence despite the mass of society becoming more affluent?
- How does he square his argument with the fact that, according to official figures, violent crime is not increasing in Britain (see Mick Hume’s recent article in spiked on this theme)?
Labels: affluenza, consumption, spiked
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Globalisation and overfishing
Spiegel Online has a substantial article arguing that globalisation, by encouraging overfishing, is destroying the world’s oceans. As it happens even Indur Goklany, an articulate and avid defender of economic development, concedes that overfishing is a problem. But the solution is more systematic farming of the world’s oceans rather than the hunter-gatherer approach that prevails at present.
Labels: consumption, environment, Europe, globalisation, progress
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Review essay on climate change
Today’s Guardian has an unashamedly one-sided review essay by Tim Flannery (Australian academic, climate change activist and author of The Weather Makers), of books on climate change. Among those authors recommended in the piece are works by Al Gore (Earth in the Balance), Mark Lynas (Six Degrees), George Marshall (Carbon Detox) and Oliver Tickell (Kyoto2). The review concentrates on British writers but American authors mentioned include Keith Bradsher (High and Mighty - an interesting sounding book on SUVs), Ross Gelbspan (Boiling Point), William McDonough (Cradle to Cradle), Bill McKibben and Gus Speth. Bjorn Lomborg, a leading sceptic on climate change, is mentioned in a few sentences but disparagingly dismissed.
One telling sentence in the article: “Few books about climate change have been written by the meteorologists and atmospheric physicists that dominate the field”. So even in relation to the science of climate change – as opposed to the politics or economics – there are few popular books written by experts. Pro-environmentalist non-specialists seem to dominate the popular debate.
In relation to the economics of climate change the Stern Review and William Nordhaus (A Question of Balance) are mentioned.
One telling sentence in the article: “Few books about climate change have been written by the meteorologists and atmospheric physicists that dominate the field”. So even in relation to the science of climate change – as opposed to the politics or economics – there are few popular books written by experts. Pro-environmentalist non-specialists seem to dominate the popular debate.
In relation to the economics of climate change the Stern Review and William Nordhaus (A Question of Balance) are mentioned.
Labels: book, climate, consumption, economics, environment, review, science
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Another depressed cheerleader
I am struggling to find a term to describe the angst-ridden mindset of even the most pro-capitalist economists nowadays (see 1 August post). Cheerless cheerleaders? Demand depressives? Moody mentalists? None of these quite captures it. Any ideas please email me.
In the meantime here is a contribution from Willem Buiter, a professor at the London School of Economics and former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, from today’s Financial Times:
“Once the cyclical correction in emerging markets has run its course, I expect growth in those countries to resume at rates that are high but no longer stratospheric. The reason is the environmental constraints on growth in these markets. I am not referring to the (massive) contribution of China and others to global warming, but to the local and regional environmental fall-out from unsustainable industrial and agricultural development: increasing scarcity and rising costs of clean fresh water, clean air and soil that is fit for humans. When the last athlete hobbles out of the polluted Olympic Games of Beijing, black-lunged and gasping for oxygen, there is likely to be a reassessment of what is sustainable growth in China. Even totalitarian regimes require, if not the consent, at least the acquiescence of the populace. Double-digit rates of growth are a thing of the past.”
His article concludes:
“So how bad will things get? After the slowdown/recession has corrected the excesses of the past decade, prospects for the overdeveloped part of the world are quite reasonable, as long as material aspirations moderate in line with modest prospects for sustained growth in standards of living. For emerging and developing countries at the right end of the commodity boom, the potential for prosperity is there, as long as the resource curse is avoided. For poorer countries at the wrong end of the commodity boom, the combination of the terms-of-trade shock and acute environmental challenge will make life very difficult.”
I was particularly struck by the reference to the "overdeveloped" parts of the world.
Pass the prozac!
In the meantime here is a contribution from Willem Buiter, a professor at the London School of Economics and former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, from today’s Financial Times:
“Once the cyclical correction in emerging markets has run its course, I expect growth in those countries to resume at rates that are high but no longer stratospheric. The reason is the environmental constraints on growth in these markets. I am not referring to the (massive) contribution of China and others to global warming, but to the local and regional environmental fall-out from unsustainable industrial and agricultural development: increasing scarcity and rising costs of clean fresh water, clean air and soil that is fit for humans. When the last athlete hobbles out of the polluted Olympic Games of Beijing, black-lunged and gasping for oxygen, there is likely to be a reassessment of what is sustainable growth in China. Even totalitarian regimes require, if not the consent, at least the acquiescence of the populace. Double-digit rates of growth are a thing of the past.”
His article concludes:
“So how bad will things get? After the slowdown/recession has corrected the excesses of the past decade, prospects for the overdeveloped part of the world are quite reasonable, as long as material aspirations moderate in line with modest prospects for sustained growth in standards of living. For emerging and developing countries at the right end of the commodity boom, the potential for prosperity is there, as long as the resource curse is avoided. For poorer countries at the wrong end of the commodity boom, the combination of the terms-of-trade shock and acute environmental challenge will make life very difficult.”
I was particularly struck by the reference to the "overdeveloped" parts of the world.
Pass the prozac!
Labels: consumption, economics, environment, growth, water
Monday, August 04, 2008
The credit crunch as the new climate change
The following comment by me appeared in this week’s Fund Strategy.
Has anyone noticed that the credit crunch is the new climate change?
Until about a year ago, we were being advised to take such measures as reducing energy consumption, not wasting food and being financially frugal to save the planet. Now we are being told to do more-or-less the same thing for the sake of our household finances in the midst of recession. It seems that austerity is in the air.
The most stomach-churning expressions of this trend are the self-appointed experts who dispense their banal advice at every opportunity. They tell us how much money we can save by making packed lunches to eat at work or making sure we do not leave our televisions on standby. Such trite observations are routinely indulged by the media.
But such measures are also backed by government and business. The government sponsors reports such as those on how much food is wasted and promotes regulations to discourage the use of plastic bags. A Scrooge-like attitude to consumption is being encouraged at every opportunity.
This is all pretty strange because the credit crunch and climate change are two fundamentally different types of problem. The former is a relatively muted economic slowdown driven by difficulties on the consumption side of the economy (see last week's comment). The latter is a long-term trend towards an increase in average global temperatures.
If the two have anything in common, it is more in the reaction to them than what they are. Both seem to be prompting a panic reaction that is out of proportion to the immediate threat.
In both cases, the reaction emphasises the need for people to behave "responsibly" and curb their consumption. At best, such measures are irrelevant. At worst, they encourage a small-mindedness that detracts from finding a solution to the problems that they are ostensibly supposed to tackle.
In the case of the economy the challenge in broad terms is to find new ways to promote economic growth and encourage a culture of genuine innovation. In relation to climate change, it is to develop new technology and to work out the best way to adapt to the challenge.
Looking at either problem from the narrow perspective of the individual consumer only mystifies what is going on. We need a broader vision if we are to move forward with confidence.
Has anyone noticed that the credit crunch is the new climate change?
Until about a year ago, we were being advised to take such measures as reducing energy consumption, not wasting food and being financially frugal to save the planet. Now we are being told to do more-or-less the same thing for the sake of our household finances in the midst of recession. It seems that austerity is in the air.
The most stomach-churning expressions of this trend are the self-appointed experts who dispense their banal advice at every opportunity. They tell us how much money we can save by making packed lunches to eat at work or making sure we do not leave our televisions on standby. Such trite observations are routinely indulged by the media.
But such measures are also backed by government and business. The government sponsors reports such as those on how much food is wasted and promotes regulations to discourage the use of plastic bags. A Scrooge-like attitude to consumption is being encouraged at every opportunity.
This is all pretty strange because the credit crunch and climate change are two fundamentally different types of problem. The former is a relatively muted economic slowdown driven by difficulties on the consumption side of the economy (see last week's comment). The latter is a long-term trend towards an increase in average global temperatures.
If the two have anything in common, it is more in the reaction to them than what they are. Both seem to be prompting a panic reaction that is out of proportion to the immediate threat.
In both cases, the reaction emphasises the need for people to behave "responsibly" and curb their consumption. At best, such measures are irrelevant. At worst, they encourage a small-mindedness that detracts from finding a solution to the problems that they are ostensibly supposed to tackle.
In the case of the economy the challenge in broad terms is to find new ways to promote economic growth and encourage a culture of genuine innovation. In relation to climate change, it is to develop new technology and to work out the best way to adapt to the challenge.
Looking at either problem from the narrow perspective of the individual consumer only mystifies what is going on. We need a broader vision if we are to move forward with confidence.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, finance, Fund Strategy
Monday, July 28, 2008
Why the world really has gone "mental"
The following comment by me from Fund Strategy argues it is useful to describe this economic downturn as “mental”.
A senior American politician and economics expert got into trouble recently for saying America was in a “mental recession”. Phil Gramm, vice-chairman of UBS and a former senator, was forced to resign from his position as a top economic adviser to John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate. Barack Obama, McCain’s Democrat rival, had already pilloried Gramm saying – in a reference to a prominent TV talk show therapist – “America already has one Dr Phil”. Despite the hostile reaction, the idea of this being a “mental recession” is a useful one. Both in America and Britain this economic downturn is substantially different from the typical recession. This should be clear from an examination of the magnitude of the slowdown and its character.
In terms of the numbers, it would be easy to assume from the gloomy discussion that the economy is already contracting. But, at least so far, that is not the case. For example, the latest British GDP figures show the economy expanded by 0.2% in the second quarter. It is certainly possible that Britain could dip into recession – defined as two consecutive quarters of contracting GDP – next year, but it has not crossed the threshold so far. Nevertheless, the average independent forecast predicts GDP growth of about 1.5% in 2008 and 1.1% in 2009. It may not be as pleasant as more rapid growth, but it is hardly the Great Depression.
The global figures appear even more robust. According to the latest forecasts from the International Monetary Fund, global output should grow by 4.1% in 2008 and 3.9% in 2009. America is forecast to grow by only 1.3% this year and 0.8% next year, while emerging economies will grow far faster.
The figures do not tell the whole story. Not only is the slowdown far more muted than generally assumed, it is also different in character. Traditional recessions have focused on the production side of the economy. Industry has suffered a shakeout and workers have lost their jobs as companies are restructured. This time, the driver of the slowdown seems to be much more on the consumption side. A reining-back on credit and a squeeze on disposable income seem to be key factors.
A more balanced view of the slowdown should help deal with it in a calmer and more rational way. At present, politicians of all shades seem prone to panic.
A senior American politician and economics expert got into trouble recently for saying America was in a “mental recession”. Phil Gramm, vice-chairman of UBS and a former senator, was forced to resign from his position as a top economic adviser to John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate. Barack Obama, McCain’s Democrat rival, had already pilloried Gramm saying – in a reference to a prominent TV talk show therapist – “America already has one Dr Phil”. Despite the hostile reaction, the idea of this being a “mental recession” is a useful one. Both in America and Britain this economic downturn is substantially different from the typical recession. This should be clear from an examination of the magnitude of the slowdown and its character.
In terms of the numbers, it would be easy to assume from the gloomy discussion that the economy is already contracting. But, at least so far, that is not the case. For example, the latest British GDP figures show the economy expanded by 0.2% in the second quarter. It is certainly possible that Britain could dip into recession – defined as two consecutive quarters of contracting GDP – next year, but it has not crossed the threshold so far. Nevertheless, the average independent forecast predicts GDP growth of about 1.5% in 2008 and 1.1% in 2009. It may not be as pleasant as more rapid growth, but it is hardly the Great Depression.
The global figures appear even more robust. According to the latest forecasts from the International Monetary Fund, global output should grow by 4.1% in 2008 and 3.9% in 2009. America is forecast to grow by only 1.3% this year and 0.8% next year, while emerging economies will grow far faster.
The figures do not tell the whole story. Not only is the slowdown far more muted than generally assumed, it is also different in character. Traditional recessions have focused on the production side of the economy. Industry has suffered a shakeout and workers have lost their jobs as companies are restructured. This time, the driver of the slowdown seems to be much more on the consumption side. A reining-back on credit and a squeeze on disposable income seem to be key factors.
A more balanced view of the slowdown should help deal with it in a calmer and more rational way. At present, politicians of all shades seem prone to panic.
Labels: consumption, economics, Fund Strategy, growth
Sunday, July 27, 2008
A Green New Deal?
The New Economics Foundation is promoting a Green New Deal which it analogous to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Andrew Simms has also written about it on the BBC website.
Just some of the things wrong with it include:
• The assumption that the world is facing an economic crisis comparable to the Great Depression. I will publish a post on this tomorrow.
• The assumption there is only 100 months to act to deal with runaway climate change.
• The idea that the world is facing a problem of “peak oil”. More on this soon but I am coming to the conclusion that the key driver of surging prices is the lack of investment in energy supply.
• The idea that the problem to energy shortages lies in curbing demand rather than bolstering supply.
• The notion that there is any direct link between environmental problems and the financial crisis.
• The argument that financial problems are undermining the economy. This confuses cause and effect.
Just some of the things wrong with it include:
• The assumption that the world is facing an economic crisis comparable to the Great Depression. I will publish a post on this tomorrow.
• The assumption there is only 100 months to act to deal with runaway climate change.
• The idea that the world is facing a problem of “peak oil”. More on this soon but I am coming to the conclusion that the key driver of surging prices is the lack of investment in energy supply.
• The idea that the problem to energy shortages lies in curbing demand rather than bolstering supply.
• The notion that there is any direct link between environmental problems and the financial crisis.
• The argument that financial problems are undermining the economy. This confuses cause and effect.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, energy, finance
Biased article on happiness
A piece on the happiness debate in the Christian Science Monitor (22 July) is blisteringly one-sided. It quotes many of the most prominent advocates of the view that wealth does not bring happiness but no one to put the alternative perspective. The usual suspects quoted include Bill McKibben (author of Deep Economy) and Nic Marks of the New Economics Foundation among others. There are also the customary references to the World Values Survey, the Happy Planet Index and Bhutan.
The most interesting point is by Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania. He divides the pursuit of happiness into three categories: seeking positive emotion, or feeling good; engagement with others; and meaning, or participating in something larger than oneself.
The most interesting point is by Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania. He divides the pursuit of happiness into three categories: seeking positive emotion, or feeling good; engagement with others; and meaning, or participating in something larger than oneself.
Labels: consumption, environment, happiness
Monday, July 21, 2008
Review of Wall-E
Spiked has run my review of Wall-E, Disney Pixar’s new anti-consumerist movie featuring a recycling robot as its central character and humans as little more than fat blobs.
Labels: apocalyptic, consumption, ethics, film, spiked
Friday, July 18, 2008
God’s gone green too
The green message is so pervasive nowadays that it extends from children’s cartoons (see 13 July 2008 post) to god. Speaking at an event in Sydney, Australia, this week the pope recycled the predictable message of self-restraint and anti-consumption:
“Religions have a special role in this regard, for they teach people that authentic service requires sacrifice and self-discipline, which in turn must be cultivated through self-denial, temperance and a moderate use of the world’s goods. In this way, men and women are led to regard the environment as a marvel to be pondered and respected rather than a commodity for mere consumption. It is incumbent upon religious people to demonstrate that it is possible to find joy in living simply and modestly, generously sharing one’s surplus with those suffering from want.”
Evidently for god’s representative on earth “living simply and modestly” - what most people call poverty - should be treated as a joy. Let us pray that he is not taken seriously.
“Religions have a special role in this regard, for they teach people that authentic service requires sacrifice and self-discipline, which in turn must be cultivated through self-denial, temperance and a moderate use of the world’s goods. In this way, men and women are led to regard the environment as a marvel to be pondered and respected rather than a commodity for mere consumption. It is incumbent upon religious people to demonstrate that it is possible to find joy in living simply and modestly, generously sharing one’s surplus with those suffering from want.”
Evidently for god’s representative on earth “living simply and modestly” - what most people call poverty - should be treated as a joy. Let us pray that he is not taken seriously.
Labels: consumption, ethics, film
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Green cartoon indoctrinates kids
Evidently Wall-E, a new animated movie from Pixar, argues if we do not curb our consumption we will destroy the world. According to an article in Slate critics have widely welcomed the outlook it expresses:
“So what is this powerful and profound message? Wall-E tells us that if we don't change the way we live, we'll all get really fat and destroy the world. The plot begins with the idea that a megacorporation called Buy N Large has essentially taken over the planet and induced so much consumption and waste that humans must escape their dying planet on an enormous, space-faring cruise ship. Once onboard, their self-destructive tendencies only get worse: After 700 years adrift, humans have grown too bloated to walk and too lazy to think.”
“So what is this powerful and profound message? Wall-E tells us that if we don't change the way we live, we'll all get really fat and destroy the world. The plot begins with the idea that a megacorporation called Buy N Large has essentially taken over the planet and induced so much consumption and waste that humans must escape their dying planet on an enormous, space-faring cruise ship. Once onboard, their self-destructive tendencies only get worse: After 700 years adrift, humans have grown too bloated to walk and too lazy to think.”
Labels: apocalyptic, consumption, environment, film
Friday, July 11, 2008
Crunchy cons share food obsession
There is nothing inherently radical about the current obsession with eating right. In American Conservative (30 June 2008) a right winger reclaims it for his tradition. “Crunchy Cons” are a well established phenomenon (see post of 15 August 2006).
Labels: consumption, environment, food
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Obsession with M&S is pants
The following comment by me appeared in yesterday’s issue of Fund Strategy:
It may be that many journalists wear Marks & Spencer underwear - Jeremy Paxman famously wrote to the company's chief executive complaining about its quality - but that does not excuse the media's obsession with the retailer's fortunes.
Last week's profit warning from the middle class's favourite retailer led to a 25% fall in the share price and widespread gloom about recession. But while M&S investors may have reason to worry about its share price it is wrong to draw sweeping economic conclusions from its troubles.
There are three reasons why it is wrong to see M&S's plight as an indicator of economic problems. First, M&S accounts for only a small part of the economy. Chris Dillow, an economist who runs the Stumbling and Mumbling blog, estimates that M&S's value added is less than 0.2% of Britain's GDP. It therefore represents only a tiny proportion of economic activity.
He also points out that the Game group reported spectacularly good results last week. But it does not follow from these results that the economy is booming. Some companies do badly and others do well in difficult economic circumstances.
Second, the economy is more than a collection of firms. That is why John Maynard Keynes wrote of the "General Theory". He was concerned about the behaviour of the economy in general rather than that of individual companies. Many economists have realised that the economy consists not just of companies but also of the relations between them as well as other factors such as consumers, workers and governments.
Finally, contemporary economic discussion focuses far too much on consumption. It obsesses over such issues as branding, shopping and consumer confidence. News items on the economy are virtually guaranteed to feature a shop. At the same time the production side attracts relatively little attention. Factors such as return on investment, productivity and profitability are hardly mentioned, despite their central role in economic activity.
Marks & Spencer's recent stockmarket troubles say a fair amount about the company but little about the wider economy. To really understand Britain's economic troubles we must look deeper and wider than just M&S. No single company, even one with as high a profile as M&S, tells the story of the whole economy.
It may be that many journalists wear Marks & Spencer underwear - Jeremy Paxman famously wrote to the company's chief executive complaining about its quality - but that does not excuse the media's obsession with the retailer's fortunes.
Last week's profit warning from the middle class's favourite retailer led to a 25% fall in the share price and widespread gloom about recession. But while M&S investors may have reason to worry about its share price it is wrong to draw sweeping economic conclusions from its troubles.
There are three reasons why it is wrong to see M&S's plight as an indicator of economic problems. First, M&S accounts for only a small part of the economy. Chris Dillow, an economist who runs the Stumbling and Mumbling blog, estimates that M&S's value added is less than 0.2% of Britain's GDP. It therefore represents only a tiny proportion of economic activity.
He also points out that the Game group reported spectacularly good results last week. But it does not follow from these results that the economy is booming. Some companies do badly and others do well in difficult economic circumstances.
Second, the economy is more than a collection of firms. That is why John Maynard Keynes wrote of the "General Theory". He was concerned about the behaviour of the economy in general rather than that of individual companies. Many economists have realised that the economy consists not just of companies but also of the relations between them as well as other factors such as consumers, workers and governments.
Finally, contemporary economic discussion focuses far too much on consumption. It obsesses over such issues as branding, shopping and consumer confidence. News items on the economy are virtually guaranteed to feature a shop. At the same time the production side attracts relatively little attention. Factors such as return on investment, productivity and profitability are hardly mentioned, despite their central role in economic activity.
Marks & Spencer's recent stockmarket troubles say a fair amount about the company but little about the wider economy. To really understand Britain's economic troubles we must look deeper and wider than just M&S. No single company, even one with as high a profile as M&S, tells the story of the whole economy.
Labels: consumption, economics, finance, Fund Strategy
Monday, July 07, 2008
Poor government maths on food waste
The government is having yet another go at people for wasting food (see 8 May 2008 post). A key problem with the argument - leaving aside its snobbery and paternalism - is the poor maths involved. According to a BBC news story on the Cabinet Office report:
“A government study says the UK wastes 4m tonnes of food every year, adding £420 to a family's shopping bills.”
Yet if you do the sums this works out as very little. Assuming the average household size is about 2.4 people I estimate it means about 48p per person per day. Or in terms of weight it is about 183g.
Considering how busy people are this is a remarkably low wastage rate. It is even more striking considering that the food is often fresh and free of preservatives - making waste even greater.
The news story also make a completely illegitimate comparison:
“The Cabinet Office report claims that up to 40% of food harvested in developing countries can be lost before it is consumed, due to the inadequacies of processing, storage and transport.”
Such waste is the result of factors such as a poor road network and lack of electricity. It is linked to low levels of development rather than some kind of moral failure by individuals or families.
“A government study says the UK wastes 4m tonnes of food every year, adding £420 to a family's shopping bills.”
Yet if you do the sums this works out as very little. Assuming the average household size is about 2.4 people I estimate it means about 48p per person per day. Or in terms of weight it is about 183g.
Considering how busy people are this is a remarkably low wastage rate. It is even more striking considering that the food is often fresh and free of preservatives - making waste even greater.
The news story also make a completely illegitimate comparison:
“The Cabinet Office report claims that up to 40% of food harvested in developing countries can be lost before it is consumed, due to the inadequacies of processing, storage and transport.”
Such waste is the result of factors such as a poor road network and lack of electricity. It is linked to low levels of development rather than some kind of moral failure by individuals or families.
Labels: consumption, food
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Guardian’s “green squeeze”
Following Sunday’s post the Guardian has launched a comment series on “the green squeeze”. In motivating the series it asks: “Will the credit crunch usher in a green backlash, as people abandon environmentalism in favour of what they consider more pressing economic concerns, and how should the green movement respond? Throughout the week, leading thinkers assess the lessons of history and the changing tactics necessary to deliver their agenda during a recession.”
My answers are (a) no, people will not abandon environmentalism (b) it is a pity. Environmentalism represents an outlook that favours austerity so is well suited to a period of economic restraint.
My answers are (a) no, people will not abandon environmentalism (b) it is a pity. Environmentalism represents an outlook that favours austerity so is well suited to a period of economic restraint.
Labels: consumption, economics, environment
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Growth scepticism and economic slowdown
A couple of people have asked me what impact I think the current economic slowdown will have on growth scepticism. The assumption behind the question seems to be that economic restraint will somehow make people see the benefits of growth again. In my view the answer is not straightforward but, on balance, the growth sceptics are likely to be strengthened.
It is true that cuts in living standards, or even slow increases in living standards, can generate resentment among those involved. Worrying about the consequences of wealth in the abstract is one thing but adjusting to the reality of lower living standards is another.
But in the current cultural climate it is likely that growth scepticism will be strengthened on balance. For example, striving for growth is likely to be seen as coming into conflict with environmental limits. Or it could also lead to fears of the destabilising consequences of inequality.
Growth scepticism can be seen, at least in part, as a negative and fearful response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For example, it was the economic crisis of the early 1970s that played a key role in first popularising the idea of the “limits to growth”.
It is true that cuts in living standards, or even slow increases in living standards, can generate resentment among those involved. Worrying about the consequences of wealth in the abstract is one thing but adjusting to the reality of lower living standards is another.
But in the current cultural climate it is likely that growth scepticism will be strengthened on balance. For example, striving for growth is likely to be seen as coming into conflict with environmental limits. Or it could also lead to fears of the destabilising consequences of inequality.
Growth scepticism can be seen, at least in part, as a negative and fearful response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For example, it was the economic crisis of the early 1970s that played a key role in first popularising the idea of the “limits to growth”.
Labels: consumption, economics, growth
Friday, June 27, 2008
Indians and chickens
After writing my piece on the campaign against the use of Indian child labour by suppliers to Primark (see 24 June post) an interesting parrallel occurred to me. It seems to me there are similarities between the campaign to “save” Indian children with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s campaign for chicken welfare at Tesco. Both sets of campaigners see themselves as superior beings protecting lower creatures from the forces of greed.
Labels: consumption, ethics, food, india, television
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Against ethical consumerism
Spiked has published an article by me on the recent documentaries on child labour in India. It argues that ethical consumerism is nauseatingly elitist.
Labels: consumption, ethics, india, spiked, television
Sunday, June 22, 2008
On consumerism and globalisation
Benjamin Barber, a professor at the University of Maryland, writes that the contemporary world as besieged by two forces: consumerism and globalisation. Both of them, in his view, lead to the erosion of national autonomy. Consumerist capitalism is driven by an ethos of infantalisation which encourages narcissism and an obsession with consumption (he identifies key critics of this trend as David Riesman, Theodor Adorno and Jean Bauldrillard). Meanwhile, globalisation encourages privatisation This again, in his view, leads to an unhealthy atomisation of society.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Labels: consumption, economics, ethics, modernity
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Indian cheap labour obsession
It seems that British documentary film-makers are becoming obsessed with cheap labour in India. After the awful Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts on BBC (see 18 April 2008 and 14 May 2008 posts) it seems that Panorama has a programme on the topic next week while Channel 4 is planning one entitled The Devil Wears Primark (see 1 June 2008 post).
In a pre-emptive strike against possible criticism from Panorama it seems that Primark, a bargain clothes retailing chain, has cut ties with Indian suppliers that used child labour.
There seems to be little understanding that simply cutting such ties is likely to make the plight of poor Indians worse. Child labour is a symptom of extreme poverty rather than its cause.
It is reminiscent of the spoilt western fashionistas in Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts hectoring Indian workers about how their working conditions are “disgusting”. Indians are well aware that they are poor - the difficult part is finding ways to make them rich.
The broader context for this discussion is the feigned concern for developing country workers from the likes of Joseph Stiglitz (see 6 May 2008 post).
In a pre-emptive strike against possible criticism from Panorama it seems that Primark, a bargain clothes retailing chain, has cut ties with Indian suppliers that used child labour.
There seems to be little understanding that simply cutting such ties is likely to make the plight of poor Indians worse. Child labour is a symptom of extreme poverty rather than its cause.
It is reminiscent of the spoilt western fashionistas in Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts hectoring Indian workers about how their working conditions are “disgusting”. Indians are well aware that they are poor - the difficult part is finding ways to make them rich.
The broader context for this discussion is the feigned concern for developing country workers from the likes of Joseph Stiglitz (see 6 May 2008 post).
Labels: consumption, ethics, film, india, inequality
Friday, June 13, 2008
An eco-toff archetype
Adair Turner, to take up the position of chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA - the main financial regulator) in September, is an archetype “eco-toff”. He is a multi-millionaire member of the establishment with strong environmentalist leanings:
* Toff: chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association (later defected to the Social Democratic Party during its brief existence), president of the Cambridge Union, a consultant at McKinsey, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, member of the House of Lords and now FSA chairman.
* Eco: trustee of the World Wildlife Fund and has an organic farm.
His wife, Orna Ni-Chionna, also fits the mould. She graduated from Harvard Business School and did a stint at McKinsey. Now she is chair of the Soil Association (which promotes organic farming) and a director of Northern Foods (brands include Goodfella’s pizza and Fox’s biscuits, it also makes many food products for retailers using their own labels).
Turner’s 2001 book, Just Capital, advocated a “middle way” between free market economics and socialism.
* Toff: chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association (later defected to the Social Democratic Party during its brief existence), president of the Cambridge Union, a consultant at McKinsey, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, member of the House of Lords and now FSA chairman.
* Eco: trustee of the World Wildlife Fund and has an organic farm.
His wife, Orna Ni-Chionna, also fits the mould. She graduated from Harvard Business School and did a stint at McKinsey. Now she is chair of the Soil Association (which promotes organic farming) and a director of Northern Foods (brands include Goodfella’s pizza and Fox’s biscuits, it also makes many food products for retailers using their own labels).
Turner’s 2001 book, Just Capital, advocated a “middle way” between free market economics and socialism.
Labels: consumption, environment, finance
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Cars and popular aspiration
The current discussion of the Tata Nano, India’s “people’s car”, reminds me of the brilliant “sculptor” advert by Peugeot a few years ago for its 206. Whoever made the commercial, with a catchy backing track by Bhangra Knights, caught the popular aspiration for a better life in a clever and witty way. Only as an advert it was geared towards selling a particular product rather than making a more general point.
I was also struck to read recently that first production model of the Ford Model T, the car that popularised motoring in America, was assembled in October 1908. In other words India is about a century behind America in that respect. Henry Ford had many faults but he fulfilled his promise to “build a motor car for the multitude”.
I was also struck to read recently that first production model of the Ford Model T, the car that popularised motoring in America, was assembled in October 1908. In other words India is about a century behind America in that respect. Henry Ford had many faults but he fulfilled his promise to “build a motor car for the multitude”.
Labels: America, consumption, development, india, progress
Sunday, June 01, 2008
A devilish mystery
I was planning to watch The Devil Wears Primark, yet another documentary on Indian sweatshops (see posts of 18 April 2008 and 14 May 2008), on Channel 4 this evening. However, despite being trailed last week, it seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the TV listings. Perhaps satanic forces associated with the cheap clothes retailer are at work?
Labels: consumption, film, india, inequality
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Against global cool
I am hardly a regular reader of Marie Claire but I was struck by how its June eco-chic edition managed to combine environmentalism, beauty and celebrity. Amid the adverts for brands such as D&G, Estee Lauder and Clinique are Cate Blanchett endorsing Marie Claire’s campaign to stop global warming, profiles of Hollywood stars turned eco-campaigners (including Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal and Julia Roberts) and an interview with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.
I was particularly amused by the “Message from our associates” at coolaworld:
“Just being cool is a beautifully simple way to save the planet”.
“Being cool means having a passionate relationship with the world around you, a growing awareness of where things come from and how they arrive. Being cool is shopping to save the planet, saying yes to tap water and no to excess packaging. Being cool is ‘Fashion without Heart’ and food without air miles and, because it helps you feel good about the environment, being cool will always be considered stylish and smart.”
If such self-obsession is considered “cool” then I’m all in favour of some warming.
I was particularly amused by the “Message from our associates” at coolaworld:
“Just being cool is a beautifully simple way to save the planet”.
“Being cool means having a passionate relationship with the world around you, a growing awareness of where things come from and how they arrive. Being cool is shopping to save the planet, saying yes to tap water and no to excess packaging. Being cool is ‘Fashion without Heart’ and food without air miles and, because it helps you feel good about the environment, being cool will always be considered stylish and smart.”
If such self-obsession is considered “cool” then I’m all in favour of some warming.
Labels: celebrities, consumption, environment, film, food
Friday, May 09, 2008
Ramsay’s rant
Gordon Ramsay, probably Britain’s most annoying celebrity chef, has spoken to the prime minister about fining restaurants which serve out of season produce.
There are at least two things wrong with Ramsay’s proposal. First, why shouldn’t people be able to eat out of season food if they want to? If I want Kenyan strawberries in March I should have the freedom to buy them. It might satisfy my desire for strawberries and it could benefit the Kenyan economy too. No one is forced to buy such strawberries if they prefer local produce.
Second, just because someone doesn’t like something it doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. Such an attitude leads to gross intrusions on personal freedom. I detest Ramsay’s boorish and formulaic TV programmes but I have never campaigned for them to be banned.
There are at least two things wrong with Ramsay’s proposal. First, why shouldn’t people be able to eat out of season food if they want to? If I want Kenyan strawberries in March I should have the freedom to buy them. It might satisfy my desire for strawberries and it could benefit the Kenyan economy too. No one is forced to buy such strawberries if they prefer local produce.
Second, just because someone doesn’t like something it doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. Such an attitude leads to gross intrusions on personal freedom. I detest Ramsay’s boorish and formulaic TV programmes but I have never campaigned for them to be banned.
Labels: celebrities, consumption, food, trade
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Food wastage hysteria
The lead story of today’s Independent (London) is a hysterical rant about food wastage in Britain. It notes that:
“Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.”
But to me the striking thing is that, in a population of 60m people, how little is wasted: “The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610”. But this means the average family with kids wastes less than £2 a day on food. Given the difficulty of matching food purchases to changing family circumstances this seems pretty efficient. A certain amount of food wastage is inevitable given the difficulties of matching individual purchases and consumption. Indeed it is desirable because it is symptomatic of living in a richer society.
It is worth noting that the government has played a role in whipping up such hysteria. The figures come from Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap), a government waste campaign.
In a related leader the Independent makes the correct point that it would be wrong to counterpose wasted food in Britain and food shortages in the developing world. But it immediately goes on to suggest such a moral link:
“Ordinary shoppers in Britain are not to blame for the rising price of food across the world. The fact that we are richer and consume more calories than vast swathes of humanity should not be a source of guilt. But in our increasingly connected and exploited world, there does exist a moral responsibility on all of us to consume resources responsibly and sustainably. And that includes food.”
“Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.”
But to me the striking thing is that, in a population of 60m people, how little is wasted: “The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610”. But this means the average family with kids wastes less than £2 a day on food. Given the difficulty of matching food purchases to changing family circumstances this seems pretty efficient. A certain amount of food wastage is inevitable given the difficulties of matching individual purchases and consumption. Indeed it is desirable because it is symptomatic of living in a richer society.
It is worth noting that the government has played a role in whipping up such hysteria. The figures come from Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap), a government waste campaign.
In a related leader the Independent makes the correct point that it would be wrong to counterpose wasted food in Britain and food shortages in the developing world. But it immediately goes on to suggest such a moral link:
“Ordinary shoppers in Britain are not to blame for the rising price of food across the world. The fact that we are richer and consume more calories than vast swathes of humanity should not be a source of guilt. But in our increasingly connected and exploited world, there does exist a moral responsibility on all of us to consume resources responsibly and sustainably. And that includes food.”
Labels: consumption, ethics, food
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Catch-up
I have been sidetracked for the past week so no time for blogging. Hopefully this will now change. However, two things worth catching up on:
- Attended the launch of the Prix Pictet photographic competition last Tuesday (29 April). It is a new photographic awarded focusing on sustainability with Kofi Annan, a former UN secretary general, as its honorary president. It also has the endorsement of Gro Harlem Brundtland, a special envoy to the UN on climate change. This year’s theme is water.
The PR stunt at the start of the event gives some flavour of what it was about. All of those attending were given a clear glass bottle with a little water in it and the name of a country. Mine had a tag on it saying “Ghana” and a note saying the average daily domestic water consumption was 27 litres per head which was equivalent to five minutes in an ordinary shower. What is this bizarre counter-position meant to mean? Perhaps that by having a shower in Britain we are depriving ordinary Ghanaians of water? Or that water is a scarce resource? (see post of 12 March 2008).
- Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a pithy critique of the mainstream happiness discussion in an article (30 April) on spiked on the contemporary obsession with healthy living:
“Having replaced heaven (in either terrestrial or celestial forms) as the goal of human existence, health has been reduced to the anatomical and physiological functions of the human organism. The highest aspiration of the modern individual is biological survival, complemented by the state of bovine contentment celebrated as ‘happiness’ by government advisers, a condition to be achieved by making healthy lifestyle choices, appropriately corrected by short courses of cognitive behaviour therapy.
“For Aristotle a true state of health meant a ‘flourishing life’, not merely in terms of prolonging our bodily existence, but in terms of personal achievement. What matters is not merely feeling good about ourselves, but living and acting well. Happiness is the result of human activity in the world, it is not just a state of mind, and even less mere animal fitness.”
- Attended the launch of the Prix Pictet photographic competition last Tuesday (29 April). It is a new photographic awarded focusing on sustainability with Kofi Annan, a former UN secretary general, as its honorary president. It also has the endorsement of Gro Harlem Brundtland, a special envoy to the UN on climate change. This year’s theme is water.
The PR stunt at the start of the event gives some flavour of what it was about. All of those attending were given a clear glass bottle with a little water in it and the name of a country. Mine had a tag on it saying “Ghana” and a note saying the average daily domestic water consumption was 27 litres per head which was equivalent to five minutes in an ordinary shower. What is this bizarre counter-position meant to mean? Perhaps that by having a shower in Britain we are depriving ordinary Ghanaians of water? Or that water is a scarce resource? (see post of 12 March 2008).
- Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a pithy critique of the mainstream happiness discussion in an article (30 April) on spiked on the contemporary obsession with healthy living:
“Having replaced heaven (in either terrestrial or celestial forms) as the goal of human existence, health has been reduced to the anatomical and physiological functions of the human organism. The highest aspiration of the modern individual is biological survival, complemented by the state of bovine contentment celebrated as ‘happiness’ by government advisers, a condition to be achieved by making healthy lifestyle choices, appropriately corrected by short courses of cognitive behaviour therapy.
“For Aristotle a true state of health meant a ‘flourishing life’, not merely in terms of prolonging our bodily existence, but in terms of personal achievement. What matters is not merely feeling good about ourselves, but living and acting well. Happiness is the result of human activity in the world, it is not just a state of mind, and even less mere animal fitness.”
Labels: consumption, development, environment, happiness, sustainability
Monday, April 28, 2008
The changing ethic of capitalism
Josie Appleton has a perceptive review of Benjamin Barber’s Consumed in the latest (April) spiked review of books. Rather than focus too closely on the book itself she looks at the changing ethic of capitalism. In broad terms her breakdown is the following:
* “The capitalist bookkeeper”. The model was Benjamin Franklin (18th century). Its chief theoritician was Max Weber in his Protestant Ethic (1910).
* “The counter-cultural ethic” of the 1920s and later the 1960s. Analysed by Daniel Bell in his Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976).
* “Infantalisation”. Posited as the ethic for 21st century capitalism by Barber. However, Appleton argues it is misleading to talk of an ethic of consumption and that Barber’s is a weaker book than Bell’s. Rather it has taken on a greater importance in society by default. She cites George Simmel in his Philosophy of Money as a useful theorist of consumption.
It is a useful complement to Dolan Cummings’ recent essay on contemporary anti-capitalism (see 9 March 2008 post) which also refers to Barber’s book.
* “The capitalist bookkeeper”. The model was Benjamin Franklin (18th century). Its chief theoritician was Max Weber in his Protestant Ethic (1910).
* “The counter-cultural ethic” of the 1920s and later the 1960s. Analysed by Daniel Bell in his Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976).
* “Infantalisation”. Posited as the ethic for 21st century capitalism by Barber. However, Appleton argues it is misleading to talk of an ethic of consumption and that Barber’s is a weaker book than Bell’s. Rather it has taken on a greater importance in society by default. She cites George Simmel in his Philosophy of Money as a useful theorist of consumption.
It is a useful complement to Dolan Cummings’ recent essay on contemporary anti-capitalism (see 9 March 2008 post) which also refers to Barber’s book.
Labels: book, consumption, economics, review, spiked
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
A catastrophic vision
It is sad that New Scientist magazine seems to have swallowed environmentalist prejudices whole. The editorial in the latest issue (5 April) is a defence of The Limits to Growth, a key 1972 report arguing that there are natural limits to economic growth. It describes the report as warning that with growing population and an expanding economy “resources would eventually run out”. In fact the report argued that many key resources would run out within a few years. It proved spectacularly wrong.
The cover story is on “the collapse of civilisation”. It builds on the work of Jared Diamond: best-selling environmentalist author and purveyor of the idea that the agricultural revolution was the worst mistake in human history. The basic argument is that that more complex society becomes the worse things could get if it breaks down.
Perhaps we should all be living in mud huts isolated from the rest of humanity? That way if our neighbours encountered problems we could be immune!
The cover story is on “the collapse of civilisation”. It builds on the work of Jared Diamond: best-selling environmentalist author and purveyor of the idea that the agricultural revolution was the worst mistake in human history. The basic argument is that that more complex society becomes the worse things could get if it breaks down.
Perhaps we should all be living in mud huts isolated from the rest of humanity? That way if our neighbours encountered problems we could be immune!
Labels: consumption, economics, environment, growth
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Co-op packed lunch misery
I must receive many thousands of press releases every year but one last week from Cooperative Financial Services must rank among the most despicable. It started by revealing that “the British workforce spends a staggering £162 million on lunch every day”. It then calculated that this figure represents an average of £5.503 per day, which equates to £1,265 per year or £50,600 in a lifetime. The next stage was to declare that “the research shows that only just over a quarter (29 per cent) of the 3,200 people questioned take a packed lunch to work with them. Two-fifths (41 per cent) of the British workforce purchase their lunch from the local supermarket while one in seven (14 per cent) prefer to stay close to the grindstone and visit the staff canteen.”
I do not know about my readers but spending £5.50 per day on lunch does not seem excessive to me. However, the Co-op has done its sums. It says that “official statistics show that the Great British favourite is a BLT sandwich with a banana and a packet of crisps washed down with a café latte. If everybody took the time to make their own BLT sandwich at home and substituted the expensive caffeine option for water, they could save £4.36 every day which equates a total saving of over £1,000 per year.”
It seems to me excessively churlish to begrudge people the “luxury” of buying a sandwich and packet of crisps for lunch. And having a café latte instead of water is hardly the height of decadence. This also underlines James Heartfield’s point about environmentalists having contempt for our time.
Of course the Co-op has a reason for asking us to forsake consumption in the present. If only we invested in a Coop personal pension we would be much better off in retirement, it says. However, according to my calculations it could mean about 11,000 frantic morning rushes to make packed lunches and the same number of miserable lunchtimes.
I do not know about my readers but spending £5.50 per day on lunch does not seem excessive to me. However, the Co-op has done its sums. It says that “official statistics show that the Great British favourite is a BLT sandwich with a banana and a packet of crisps washed down with a café latte. If everybody took the time to make their own BLT sandwich at home and substituted the expensive caffeine option for water, they could save £4.36 every day which equates a total saving of over £1,000 per year.”
It seems to me excessively churlish to begrudge people the “luxury” of buying a sandwich and packet of crisps for lunch. And having a café latte instead of water is hardly the height of decadence. This also underlines James Heartfield’s point about environmentalists having contempt for our time.
Of course the Co-op has a reason for asking us to forsake consumption in the present. If only we invested in a Coop personal pension we would be much better off in retirement, it says. However, according to my calculations it could mean about 11,000 frantic morning rushes to make packed lunches and the same number of miserable lunchtimes.
Labels: consumption, finance, food, work
# posted by Daniel Ben-Ami @ 13:50
