Stuff Is Not Salvation

wcindy wrote: "But the mentality that drives consumerism IS to blame--because corporations are run by PEOPLE who are subject to greed just like everyone else."

wcindy, I believe you are confusing "consumerism" with "materialism". Consumerism was the movement begun in the 1960s to make manufacturers and suppliers responsible to the ultimate user for the safety and quality of what they put on the market. The law used to be that if you bought something, say, some hair color product at a drug store, and it made your hair fall out and burned you scalp, you had no recourse against the manufacturer, because your dealings were only with the drug store seller. That changed, the manufacture of the unsafe product became a tort, and "consumerism" was born. "Materialism" on the other hand, has been with us always. Look at what King Tut had buried with him in his tomb. I assume that what you are trying to criticize are manufacturers and suppliers of useful goods that people want to have, whether as a necessity of survival or just to make life a little bit more interesting or fun? What's wrong with that, really? Except, let me ask you about the most widely advertised products of our time right now, that being pills for "male enhancement". Who is to blame for that? Where is the market for such stuff really coming from? Should we really have to tolerate the disgustingly suggestive commercials on TV and radio? Or, since the stuff is consumed (at some level of serioous risk to the consumer), does that give it an exemption from criticism as "materialism"?

I don't think there's anything wrong with buying lots of presents, although I personally don't. I do think that its irresponsible if you are going into serious debt buying presents.

Nonetheless, Its your life to live, who am I to stop you?

I agree

Someone who sees this as a political issue assumes that if someone disagrees with you he must be a political opponent. Although I would agree that materialism is more in the purview of those who wish to reward the greedy, I think it is rather shallow to think that there are not those who are conservative who wish not to be swept up by the pursuit of things and are trying to protect their children from the same.

Before the sixties credit was something that most people did not use and it was only considered wise to use it in the pursuit of a business objective. Mastercard has promoted it as a means of expressing love, bonding with love ones and being generous. In the next few years will will learn that for a large portion of the population it was an invitation to impoverishment for no matter how you phrase it, credits only purpose should be in the pursuit of business objectives.

linrach wrote: "The free market enslaved us to revolving credit long, long ago. Does anyone know how long its been since you didn't HAVE to give an airline or travel agent your CREDIT CARD NUMBER, just to book a reservation. They have made having access to credit an imperative in order to function in every day life. Now, people are hopelessly dependent upon them." linrach, you don't have the whole picture. That airline doesn't care whether you pay your fare off over time or pay it all on your next statement. All they want is certainty of collection for their own account, and the credit card gives them that, saving them the costs of handling cash and/or trying to collect on bad checks. The credit card issuer assumes those risks and costs, and gets paid well for it.

And JustBill--you're not at odds with my position if, as you say, you have emphasized quality time for kids over distracting gadgets "for decades". But the Qundllen piece wasn't about kid stuff.

I agree wholeheartedly with the article, but some of the posts about credit are a bit puzzling. No one forces you to not pay off the credit card every month. I grew up with depression era parents, I was always very nervous when my credit card carried a balance, although when I was in my many years of school, I needed to do this. The day I got out from under loans I never carried a card balance afterwards. People who carry balances because they need to eat or pay medical bills are just unfortunate and unlucky, those who do it because they think shopping is a birthright are just foolish

Just a guess, but I'm confident the growth curve for credit the last two decades matches up nicely with obescity rates in the U.S. A sickness indeed! Pardon the pun, but there are no free lunches anymore. And that is good for the country.

The free market enslaved us to revolving credit long, long ago. Does anyone know how long its been since you didn't HAVE to give an airline or travel agent your CREDIT CARD NUMBER, just to book a reservation. They have made having access to credit an imperative in order to function in every day life. Now, people are hopelessly dependent upon them. The other thing is: Growing up, my parents NEVER let us overhear their conversations or watch them when they worked out their monthly budget and paid their bills. As if shielding us from it was going to help us?! If children grow up without an example of how to budget and finance their lives, who will teach them? Schools don't even offer real finance classes to high school students anymore. But as soon as the graduate, you can bet their first carrot (credit card application) will arrive promptly in the mail to ensnare them in the trap.
And finally, why should be be financially responsible when our own GOVERNMENT can't even be a good example! So, its okay for our politician's to owe outrageous debt to us and everyone else in the world, but-My GOD- be 31 days late on your private credit card account and you are lower than the ticks on dogs! Mendacity and Hypocrisy!!!!

With all deference to StandingO, I am a conservative Republican from southern California and I completely agree with the views in this editorial. America's children have been bought off for decades by the guilt of too-busy parents who think that giving kids everything they want is somehow beneficial for either party. We have exchanged time, imagination, discussion and relationships for loud, shiny, empty stuff.

The problem is advertising convinces us that items define us as opposed to our behavior and our character.

Consumerism is not dead, as it is based on greed and insecurity, which don't seem to be going anywhere but up. It would be nice if some of the leaders of this country and world had the humility to offer that all humans and the environment have an interrelationship which is undeniably important. As long as we are exhorted to buy instead of save, bomb instead of help and punish instead of forgive, we are in for a long and protracted misery of the soul AND the pocketbook. And by the way, I agree with you Anna.

I think a good depression is the very thing this Nation to get back to what is important in life!

Well . . . this piece piece is all post-hoc rationalization, pretty much reflecting the northeast/liberal mindset. Why do they suddenly discover that everything they own is evil? I doubt that the author will sell all that she owns and give the proceeds to the poor. And if having "stuff" is such a burden, why all the clamor about rising unemployment and the push for greater government benefits and a "stimulus package"? Rubbish. Personally, I don't own a cellphone or a Blackberry or anything like that. Sure, I admit that there are some positive applications for cellphones, in business and in emergencies, but beyond that they are the root of the current economic problems. How can people enjoy their "stuff" when they spend most of their time walking around with a cellphone stuck in their ear? Cellphones are a costly cultural neurosis, and the population needs to be cured of them. Then they can get back to enjoying their "stuff".

Well . . . this piece piece is all post-hoc rationalization, pretty much reflecting the northeast/liberal mindset. Why do they suddenly discover that everything they own is evil? I doubt that the author will sell all that she owns and give the proceeds to the poor. And if having "stuff" is such a burden, why all the clamor about rising unemployment and the push for greater government benefits and a "stimulus package"? Rubbish. Personally, I don't own a cellphone or a Blackberry or anything like that. Sure, I admit that there are some positive applications for cellphones, in business and in emergencies, but beyond that they are the root of the current economic problems. How can people enjoy their "stuff" when they spend most of their time walking around with a cellphone stuck in their ear? Cellphones are a costly cultural neurosis, and the population needs to be cured of them. Then they can get back to enjoying their "stuff".

Many people are out there decrying the so-called 'War on Christmas'. Displays of Christmas decorations have spurred protests about their presence public places. As a result, we're down to having such displays in our churches, where they have meaning, and to retail stores, where they don't. Perhaps it's time for Christians to declare our own 'War on Christmas Shopping' and take the protests to heart.

I agree and think this Christmas is a real opportunity for all of us. As a college professor, I am seeing even the brightest students who have no idea how to use their own imaginations. So, go to Goodwill, get some wild clothes, something for tents, hats, whatever - read some books to the kids, make up stories - less is exactly what we need. When my grandmother, grandfather, mother, and aunts and uncles came up from Mexico during the Revolution they had only the clothes on their backs and a picture of our Lady of Guadalupe. Once they were safe, my grandmother brought all the children together and said "losing everything was the best thing that ever happened to us because now we know what is important: our family, our education, and our faith. Thank God for Nothing!" This became one of the dichos by which our family has tried to live since then.

Go to Guatemala. After a Mayan grandmother prostrates herself on the sidewalk in front of you for a few Quetzales (14 cents), come back and tell me how much you really need that new Coach bag.

Anna,
You're right as usual; stuff does not make you happy and ruins your savings rate. However, I think you're talking about two different things here: Yes, people are consuming more than they need to, but they are not responsible for the mess we're in. The usual suspects are: corporations who have been sucking at the teats of the Republican ethos. I'm amazed that all those poor mortgage holders managed to hoodwink an entire financial industry. I'm appalled that Enron screwed millions of people and folded its tents and walked. I'm aghast that Exxon blew in the ears of the right people to avoid huge damages for the Valdez incident. I'm puzzled that environmental laws require the American people to clean up after corporations who pollute. I'm curious that the UAW is blamed for unfair contracts when the Big 3 signed each and every one of them. The same Big 3 that were able to stonewall any significant environmental or safety laws for thirty years. Why aren't people in the street screaming about their salaries being stagnant for 35 years? And when did the MSM take a dive on hard driving investigative reporting that would have informed people about these scandals and the flagrant lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney White House? I F Stone died 30 years too soon. The bottom 98% of the American people have been marginalized by the upper 2%. It's time for Thomas Paine to rise from the Dead and set things right. I mean left.