Ok... back to it. I hope I have the energy to delve as deeply back into this as I want to...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I can't say I ever understood the "stuff" argument to begin with. First of all, that's all relative. Consumption is bound to go up across the board, especially if we've outsourced all of the "stuff" making.
|
Honestly, that fails the logic sniff test. If we've outsourced all the "stuff-making," how do we still have enough jobs to generate the income for the increased consumption you are claiming is proportionate to the jobs we've lost?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Secondly, doesn't most "stuff" become a negative asset, or equity whatever, once it has been bought? (I recall the story of the new car leaving the lot)
Does being a nation of people with a lot of worthless stuff make us wealthy?
|
Personal property does devalue over time, but the point of the "stuff" was to show that the luxurious encoutrements allowed by our our modern economy add to the quality of our lives. That is very true. Our lives are quantitatively better now than in frontier days or the middle ages. People love stuff. We have more stuff than we used to. That's why the "stuff argument" is effective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
"As of 1970, for example, only about a third of American homes had both central heating and air conditioning, while more than four-fifths had both in the 1990s. Moreover, the homes themselves were more than one-third larger. "
Larger, cheaper, and built with lower quality ("McMansions" anyone?). I think things such as this are poor indicators of wealth.
|
I agree with you, but you are tilting at windmills here. The economy cannot be blamed for shoddily built homes, Kev. If you want a viable argument against the article, you are gonna have to shoot more towards the idea that a managed economy on the level that we currently enjoy is bad, which would be a fiscally conservative argument I don't know you are ready for.