The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
'Reasonable' is culturally determined. Therefore it would in principle be possible to live in a reasonable way at widely different standards of living. You propose what is reasonable to you given what you know and the culture you live in.
However, because humans are bastards they tend to create unequal social organizations. While some societies are relatively egalitarian, the historical evidence is that it is possible for a culture to survive for a long time even if a substantial number of people have an 'unreasonably low' standard of living. Then there's both ex-post-facto cultural justifications for some people's misery, as well as individual adaptation to their living conditions.
Recall
Easy credit prevented things coming to a head earlier, but they would have and for the same reason - people will consume the culturally-determined "necessaries of life" whether or not this entails living above their means Project Gutenberg: Wealth of NationsConsumable commodities are either necessaries or luxuries. By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensibly necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person, of either sex, would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France, they are necessaries neither to men nor to women; the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning, by this appellation, to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life; and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.
Project Gutenberg: Wealth of Nations
Consumable commodities are either necessaries or luxuries. By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensibly necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person, of either sex, would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France, they are necessaries neither to men nor to women; the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning, by this appellation, to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life; and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.
By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensibly necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person, of either sex, would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France, they are necessaries neither to men nor to women; the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning, by this appellation, to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life; and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.
The necessary change is cultural as well as political. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
One night I went to a pub owned by a South African. I saw a group of guys drinking whiskey and marvelled (to the owner) at how people could afford Whisky. "It's not only that", he said. "It has to be an expensive brand of whisky that they have seen advertised and associated with an affluent western lifestyle. I have cases of cheaper Bell's whisky in the storeroom I can't shift. They want the Johnny Walker. It's the same with motorbikes or other branded goods. It has to be the expensive European/US brand rather than local produce. Branded Coca-Cola sells for three times the price of local fizz."
So yes, the greater the deprivation, the greater the captivation by the symbols of affluence and an affluent lifestyle. The problem is that I see this as both unattainable and unsustainable for the planet as a whole, and the people who have the most often don't seem to become any less greedy for more as a consequence. notes from no w here
People do change their behaviour, but not because poiticians tell them to but because the world around them change.
Recent history shows that massive, unrelenting propaganda works.
At the moment, we have an entire advertising industry whose entire raison d'etre is creating and disseminating massive, unrelenting propaganda in favour of expanding consumption. On the other side, we have a few NGOs and a couple of activists who run anti-consumption propaganda on a shoestring budget. It hardly seems improbable that a properly funded, properly engineered anti-consumption propaganda campaign could meet with success.
It has been done before: During the serious shooting wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, governments would actively encourage thrift in order to conserve productive capacity for the war effort. I will leave it to historians to judge the effectiveness of those campaigns, but the precedent for government(-sponsored) anti-consumption propaganda is there.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 12 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by gmoke - May 17 1 comment
by DoDo - May 12 10 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by Migeru - May 7 8 comments
by gmoke - May 171 comment
by ARGeezer - May 1612 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1210 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments
by In Wales - Apr 2136 comments