| Economics |
[Aug. 28th, 2006|08:13 pm] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | home | ] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  restless | ] |
| [ | Current Music |
| | Mr. Bungle-California | ] |
I have been reading a lot about these things lately; for the majority of the summer. And as I read these different ideas for how societies should be run, the more angry I get with the way things are. The more and more I read about how there is no law enforcing income tax collection, or how high the cost of living is, or how much the war is costing and how much of the taxes collected go towards it, the more angry I get. Wars have been fought over smaller issues than this. It's beginning to baffle me.
While sitting in Econ, our first activity was to ask someone "how (they) affected the economy this summer?" As people presented this information, many stated that they spent most of their money on gas, and that they believed it was good because they were stimulating the economy. Others mentioned how they spent money on consumer goods and felt they were also doing good to the economy. My reply was that this summer I tried to buy as little as possible to do my part in reducing the cost of living. I'm pretty sure my answer was unique. It's too bad that it was. Correct me if I'm wrong, but stiumlating the economy is the converse of reducing the cost of living. I got really confused when people said that them buying gas was good for the economy, because in a way, I understand it is; it's pumping revenue into the oil industry which, as I understand, is a major supporter of our government. But at the same time, it's hindering the economy because of how expensive oil is getting. People are stoked off gas being $2.98 a gallon, and I think that's fucked up. Gas used to be under a dollar less than fifty years ago, and now people are stoked when it's under three? And worse, they perpetuate this rising of prices by complying and consuming. I realise that gas has become a necessity due to commuting and travel and what not, but every kid in rohnert park with a drivers lisence doesn't need a car. It's a luxury.
I could ride my bike to Santa Rosa and back every day if I wanted to. I think it's pretty rediculous to drive a car when you work, go to school, and live in Rohnert Park. I know it's rad to be able to 'have the freedom' to go any where you want when you have a car, but it's still more of a luxury than a necessity. It almost seems like a conspiracy because of how much more likely you are to get pulled over by the cops on a bike than in a car.
Also in econ, we were asked to differentiate wants and needs (or necessities). Many people said clothing, food and shelter were necessities, which they are. I commmented that while food and clothing are necessities, people do not need expensive clothes and food to survive, there for there's a thin line between wants and needs in those catagories. People are often tricked into thinking that they need something that they don't; that's how marketing works. That's why companies like walmart, as well as the oil companies are so successful; they create the illusion that they have what you need, and what you need is what they have, when in reality, you don't. At least to a certain extent.
Celebrities are also playing a major role in this snow job. By having lavish and luxurious things like expensive cars and designer clothes, they are creating the illusion to the masses that that is what being successful is all about; having a nice car, having a big house, having fancy clothes. But it isn't, that's just excess, and that seems like a hard idea to grasp for most people being fooled by this illusion. I could understand a desire for a big house if you had a big family, or something like that, but to have it just to prove that you've accomplished is excess. I could understand having a large truck if you lived in the mountains, or some terrain that required it, or if you did some job that required it, but just having it to be badass and drive around suburbia and the city with is excess. People attempt to beat this reasoning by saying "Oh, well I go up to tahoe to snowboard, and I need my truck for that." That's fine, do you go up every weekend? "Well no, only during the season." Oh, well that's fine, do you drive a car when you're not driving your truck to tahoe? "Well, no, I like using one car..." Understandable, but if you're only using your truck during the snow season, wouldn't it make more sense for your one car to be a car? Apparently not.
As Remi Boncoeur said in Kerouac's On The Road , "We must cut down on the cost of living." Making rediculous purchases and perpetuating the gas crisis are only raising this cost of livning higher and higher. So what are you going to do? Keeping being the consumer you were raised to be? Or try the alternatives?
Having morals is great, I support it whole heartedly. Just make sure you know what yours are, and what they should be. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
rottingbrainz's journal