[lbo-talk] Living beyond one's means

Barry Brooks durable at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 24 03:47:52 PST 2008


People living beyond their money means may lead to suicide. The world economy living beyond the physical means of the planet may amount to a form of mass murder. That may bring moralistic ranting or suggestions about how to live within our means. It seems that conservation would help. To each according to his needs implies conservation.

Conservation can help solve resource scarcity and reduce pollution. The opposition to conservation is very strong because if we reduce consumption, by any means, that will be in direct conflict with out efforts to stimulate the economy.

The easy way to sell conservation claim it will create jobs. It is true jobs will be created by efforts to conserve. Recycling is labor intensive when it is most effective, because the best kind of recycling is simply repair, cleaning, and reuse of the things we already have. But, that kind of work is outside of the exchange economy and makes no profit.

Paid work will also be created by conservation. We need to build a new infrastructure that is designed for conservation. That will create a business boom, but only for a while because once that system is in place it will not need much paid work to operate and it will not need frequent replacement. A system that needs frequent replacement can not be conservative. Extended durability is a key component of conservation, and that is also in opposition to our efforts to stimulate the economy.

We can not design and build a conservative system so long as we cling to any system that needs to stimulate the economy, to consume more, stay busy, and make jobs. Those who claim that conservation will create jobs may think that that lie is a smart sales pitch. The claim of job creation has failed to convince the decision makers to accept conservation.

Simulation beyond need to create jobs and profit is all about money. Stimulation makes no sense to those who consider the physical operation of the economy. A focus on the physical economy makes conservation seem like a good idea.

It's good that conservation is only bad for the paper economy, our system of providing income, because the paper economy is artificial. Rules made by humans can be changed at our whim, but physical rules must be our master.

Conservation conforms to what we need in the physical world. Our money system must be revised to conform our physical needs. The old assumption about abundant resources and scarce labor has become backward.

Barry Brooks



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list