Dally wrote:The theory being, a desperate Chinese government with strife at home would try to save itself by striking out.

vbfg wrote:China being on the verge of its own financial crisis is hardly a fringe opinion.

DHM wrote:Whose theory? Yours?

Dally wrote:What Mintball neglected to mention about China - where stereotypically multi-national companies make things on the back of cheap labour - is that their government is deperately trying to keep "growth" going by printing money. China will almost invetitably go bust within a few short years unless something changes. That will be catastrophic for it's people and probably us as well. The government supports a banking system that lends to a myriad of broke manufacturers and the banking system does not recognise potential bad debts. These were estimated a few years ago as a huge 30% of China's GDP (and one suspects are growing). At some point, probably quite soon, the Chinese credit bubble will burst with catastrophic results.

Mintball wrote:Well, the cost of living in those countries is less than it is here, so multi and trans-national companies can therefore get labour at lower costs. They can pay more to a qualified doctor to sit in a call centre answering the phone than a hospital can , but that's still far less than they'd pay over here.

But all this growth is on the basis of making things – things that are often sold to the 'developed' world; us. Think of just how many things you buy that are made in China, India etc. All this was partly the aim of neo-liberalism: the developed economies were so developed that they could stop producing things, de-indusatrialise and live off service economies (and still grow).

For that to work, we all had to be encouraged to buy, buy, buy and consume in ways that our parents (well, certainly of my generation and older) would not have dreamt of doing. If that's the case, it makes sense that things are cheaper to encourage consumerism – which also means that they are not of the same quality as more expensive goods might have been some years ago. And that's without mentioning how obsolescence is now built into goods. So the washing machine (as I found out this week) does not last anywhere near the time that it once did and you have to shell out for a new one more frequently. So even if you don't buy into the cult of 'aspirationalism' (because consumption is what that is all about), you still have to buy things more than you once would have.

That 'aspirational' thing is funny: we'd once have called it 'keeping up with the Jonses' and laughed at those who did it. Now so many people do it – they want their homes to look like the pages of a design magazine, for instance. And of course, the rise in all those 'lifestyle' magazines and programmes and exhibitions etc etc etc help to maintain and develop that readiness to consume – and, of course, provide jobs.

Altogether, really quite depressing.

Mintball wrote:And of course, the rise in all those 'lifestyle' magazines and programmes and exhibitions etc etc etc help to maintain and develop that readiness to consume – and, of course, provide jobs.

Altogether, really quite depressing.

Sal Paradise wrote:If only it were so simplistic - you ignore the desire of everyone to reduce the time it takes to do mundane tasks - this is theme that runs through a number of your arguments.

Why do people use supermarkets - because they don't want to spend hours going from shop to shop to conclude an unpleasant basic function. Why do people buy ready meals? because there are better things to do than cook - why would you want an hour cooking if you don't need to? etc.

Perhaps this is driving consumerism?

Sal Paradise wrote:Why do people use supermarkets - because they don't want to spend hours going from shop to shop to conclude an unpleasant basic function...

Sal Paradise wrote:... Why do people buy ready meals? because there are better things to do than cook - why would you want an hour cooking if you don't need to? etc.

Dally wrote:A big problem in our society is enhanced mobility eg through car usage. This allows longer jounrney's to work, frequent school runs, leisure trips, etc. All of these create an illusion of freedom but the down-side is time poverty, feeling rushed, feeling stressed. If people were to analyse their stressed and time pressured lives they would realise that it comes down to their own choosing. The extreme example is the neurotic upper middle-class non-working housewife who is always stressed even if she only has 2 kids to cope with and a nanny! Their stress comes from running round taking the kids to school, going the gym, going for coffee, going for lunch, going shopping, taking kids to activity after activity. None of which, with the exception of a bit of occassional shopping, is in any way necessary. If they made the kids walk / get the bus, play out and did some housework they'd have more time and be happier.