no consumption = no growth = no extra revenue = no stock price increase = world stops spinnin
30% of people don’t get whatever it was that was being produced anymore.
Smith was right when he said the purpose of production is consumption. The thing is imagine if we dropped food production and consumption by 30% – who do you think loses their calories, everyone equally in which case some people will die, or the poorest in which case more people die.
Without mass production things won’t be cheap so quality of life would drop too.
Provided we make production environmentally friendly then what is the purpose of reduced consumption other than morally bankrupt ideology?
If you drop production it seems natural that you would lose jobs. You would then need to employ more people in the remaining industries at a lower pay. This works assuming that people can function with lower pay due to lower consumption. But how can you guarantee that consumption can be lowered to match the lowered pay? It seems that people who are already at their absolute financial limit, just paying for basic necessities, would be screwed with nothing more to cut.
If product drops 30%, so does employment and tax revenue.
The people hurt the most would be the working poor and those who need support – the elderly, the infirm, those unable to work.
The issue isn’t too much production. The issue is the inequal distribution of wealth – and power. The rich keep getting richer because they buy the politicians they need to keep taxes low and the stock market humming.
Or you could grow some of the food you already buy just sayin….
No expert but the quality of life will most likely decrease unless population also decreases by more than 30%
Only way it would work is if all the major economies in the world did it in lockstep. You leading the charge OP?
Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of this solution before? Oh, because we are currently stuck in a vortex of debt and society would collapse if revenues don’t continue climbing. If it could only be so simple as to just stop and take a breather! Oh yeah, and tax the billionaires (for real!).
If consumption dropped right away of course it will be a problem. Production can be slowed down to match it but it needs time.. production is always behind consumption
Until we focus on sustainability instead of unsustainable growth we will continue to have a volatile economy.
Everyone’s quality of life gets worse. Consumption is directly correlated with quality of life.
It’s a big fat “it depends” on what’s being cut. Ultra-high value real estate in blue states across the US collapsed amidst the rise of work from home with cities like since San Francisco seeing a 40 drop in value. While the cost of real estate across the United States in suburbia and rural America rose. Despite many homes increasing in price because of urban the flight the collapse of urban real estate skewed inflation results in giving the picture of real estate coming down in price.
If core needs are being met and over-priced goods and services are being cut then there is potential for living standards to remain the same.
But, if goods and services for core needs are being cut then it will cause a general decline in the overall welfare of the population.
Drop in production would need drop in growth. What I am wondering tho is are we going toward a production that does not necessitate materiel. Like digital product. If so the gap would grow but wouldn’t produce that much more consomption.
13 comments
no consumption = no growth = no extra revenue = no stock price increase = world stops spinnin
30% of people don’t get whatever it was that was being produced anymore.
Smith was right when he said the purpose of production is consumption. The thing is imagine if we dropped food production and consumption by 30% – who do you think loses their calories, everyone equally in which case some people will die, or the poorest in which case more people die.
Without mass production things won’t be cheap so quality of life would drop too.
Provided we make production environmentally friendly then what is the purpose of reduced consumption other than morally bankrupt ideology?
If you drop production it seems natural that you would lose jobs. You would then need to employ more people in the remaining industries at a lower pay. This works assuming that people can function with lower pay due to lower consumption. But how can you guarantee that consumption can be lowered to match the lowered pay? It seems that people who are already at their absolute financial limit, just paying for basic necessities, would be screwed with nothing more to cut.
If product drops 30%, so does employment and tax revenue.
The people hurt the most would be the working poor and those who need support – the elderly, the infirm, those unable to work.
The issue isn’t too much production. The issue is the inequal distribution of wealth – and power. The rich keep getting richer because they buy the politicians they need to keep taxes low and the stock market humming.
Or you could grow some of the food you already buy just sayin….
No expert but the quality of life will most likely decrease unless population also decreases by more than 30%
Only way it would work is if all the major economies in the world did it in lockstep. You leading the charge OP?
Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of this solution before? Oh, because we are currently stuck in a vortex of debt and society would collapse if revenues don’t continue climbing. If it could only be so simple as to just stop and take a breather! Oh yeah, and tax the billionaires (for real!).
If consumption dropped right away of course it will be a problem. Production can be slowed down to match it but it needs time.. production is always behind consumption
Until we focus on sustainability instead of unsustainable growth we will continue to have a volatile economy.
Everyone’s quality of life gets worse. Consumption is directly correlated with quality of life.
It’s a big fat “it depends” on what’s being cut. Ultra-high value real estate in blue states across the US collapsed amidst the rise of work from home with cities like since San Francisco seeing a 40 drop in value. While the cost of real estate across the United States in suburbia and rural America rose. Despite many homes increasing in price because of urban the flight the collapse of urban real estate skewed inflation results in giving the picture of real estate coming down in price.
If core needs are being met and over-priced goods and services are being cut then there is potential for living standards to remain the same.
But, if goods and services for core needs are being cut then it will cause a general decline in the overall welfare of the population.
Drop in production would need drop in growth. What I am wondering tho is are we going toward a production that does not necessitate materiel. Like digital product. If so the gap would grow but wouldn’t produce that much more consomption.