A couple of months ago, I received an email linking to this fascinating video titled The Story Of

Stuff by Annie Leonard. The video had received front-page coverage in the e! "ork Times on
#ay $%, &%%' (vie! the "T article online). It also has its o!n *ikipedia page (this is not
a very big deal, but the fact that *ikipedia considered it notable is notable).
I found the video interesting but, unfortunately, poorly researched and misleading in many conte+ts.
I,ll begin !ith a summary of the gripes I have !ith specific statements made in the video. I,m
using Annie Leonard,s footnoted transcript (-./).
ote0 I am not the first one to criti1ue The Story of Stuff. A blogger and video creator, Lee .oren of
the 2ompetitive 3nterprise Institute, !ho claims to be a libertarian 4epublican has produced a four-
part criti1ue of the Story of Stuff. *hile some of my criticisms overlap !ith his, the bulk are
different.
5-.AT30 Lee .oren,s criti1ues seem to have caught more media attention than mine. In
September &%%', he appeared on the 6lenn 7eck (/o+) and Lou .obbs (2) sho!s to opine
about the video.
6eneric -roblems
-oor sourcing
Leonard,s transcript is e+tensively footnoted, so at first sight, she seems to be providing sources for
all her assertions. A closer e+amination, ho!ever, reveals these poblems0
Leonard often links8cites friends and environmentalist groups that are not primary sources,
or even published or reputed academic secondary sources, even in cases !here perfectly
good primary sources e+ist and could easily be linked to. /or instance, footnote (9) on page
($) gives a link to a !ebsite called !arresisters.org (specifically, this page). /irst, Annie
Leonard,s o!n data doesn,t match up !ith !hat the !ebsite sho!s, for the simple reason
that the !ebsite sho!s data for the current year !hile Annie,s footnote refers to data
collected for her year. Second, !arresisters.org is not a primary source for such information.
3ven if Annie learned about the information from !arresisters.org, she could have spent a
fe! e+tra minutes going to the reliable source linked to from !arresisters.org and linked to
that. (She could additionally have credited the !arresisters.org !ebsite for highlighting this
information to her). There are many similar e+amples, that I talk about at different points,
!here Annie only credits the source from !here she got the information rather than taking
the effort to go to a primary source and verify the information.
4elated to the previous problem is the problem of not separating fact from opinion in her
footnotes. In other !ords, she makes no distinctions bet!een facts she is citing from public
data and numbers that others have pulled out based on their personal opinions. #oreover,
numbers tentatively put out by others and treated by Annie as solid facts (many e+amples of
this !ill be discussed).
4imanda a fonti che non sono primarie, come 1uelle dei gruppi ambientalisti, o a fonti
accademiche secondarie, an:ich; andare a vedere da dove 1uesti hanno preso i dati e
verificarle.
on separa i fatti dalle opinioni, proprie o altrui. on distingue tra i dati ufficiali e la loro
interpreta:ione da parte di altri. Inoltre alcuni dati estrapolati pi< o meno arbitrariamente da
altri sono presi come fatti puri.
Specific -roblems
To cross-check and verify everything I,m saying, please open the footnoted transcript (-./). I !ill
use page numbering and footnote numbers as given in the transcript.
ote also that there are many other minor areas !here I disagree !ith Leonard,s formulation or
consider it hyperbolic, but I have stuck here to cases that I consider problematic and !here I can
marshal clear arguments rather than =ust a sense of unease.
Military spending
The first page of Annie Leonard,s transcript is largely innocuous, though I do have some stylistic
gripes. #y main gripe is !ith the absence of a link to a primary source for the military spending
figure (as discussed above). This isn,t, ho!ever, a serious concern, because the page she links to
does provide links to primary sources.
Let me =ust make a couple of additional remarks here. /irst, concern about 5S military spending is
something common to both the libertarian8free-market end of the vie!point spectrum and to many
of the environmentalist groups such as 6reenpeace, for !hich she !orks8!orked. Libertarian think-
tanks such as the 2ato Institute and 4eason /oundation have advocated for reductions in military
spending and opposed interventionist !ars.
Second, the fraction of spending that goes to the military can be changed significantly based on
!hat one counts as spending. Leonard and *arresisters.org talk about >federal ta+ money?, and
hence get their >over @%A? figure, but a very different figure could be reached (as noted at
!arresisters.org) if one includes the many other ta+es levied on people, notably social security
ta+es.
Il link non B verso una fonte primaria, ma verso !arresisters.org, che comun1ue rimanda a tali fonti.
Le spese militari sono contestate da ambientalisti, pacifisti, libertari.
.ire che le spese militari sono oltre il @%A del gettito fiscale B fuorviante se tra 1uestCultimo dato
non ne vengono considerate alcune, come 1uelle per la sicure::a sociale.
Governments job
Duoting from the beginning of -age &0
It,s the government,s =ob to !atch out for us, to take care of us. 4eally, it,s their =ob.
This is again a (far from mainstream) opinion stated as if it is a !ell-established fact. The footnote
that Leonard provides here 1uotes from the preamble of the 5S constitution, talking about people,s
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that these rights are >unalienable?. 7ut saying
that the government has no right to take a!ay people,s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their
o!n happiness, is a far cry from saying that the government should >!atch out for us? and >take
care of us?, !hich could be interpreted as a call for government paternalism. There is a great
difference in spirit bet!een the libertarian ideal of the /ounding /athers, that often focused on
limiting the po!ers of government through a system of checks and balances, and the paternalistic
call made by Leonard.
La 2ostitu:ione 5SA dice che esiste un diritto alla vita, alla libertE e al perseguimento della felicitE
da parte delle persone, ma non significa che il governo debba prendersi cura di noi, 1uanto,
piuttosto, che non debba limitare tali diritti. Affermare il contrario B unCopinione o
unCinterpreta:ione, diversa dalle inten:ioni dei padri fondatori, che si sono spesso focali::ati su un
sistema di presi e contrappesi per limitare il potere del governo.
Running out of resources
5nder >3+traction?, Leonard says0
So here !e are running up against our first limit. *e are running out of resources.
This is an e+traordinarily s!eeping statement. /ortunately, she does provide a reference and a link,
but this link again goes to an advocacy !ebsite. *ell, fine, but this page doesn,t have the sentence
she 1uoted (!ell, right, !ebpages get updated). 7ut agreed, the data in the !ebsite support the
sentence she 1uoted from it, !hich says that in &%%F, the ecological footprint e+ceeded the
biocapacity by &@A. Go!ever, this is a far cry from the alarmist statement that !e are >running out
of resources?, !hich is a much much broader statement than one about ecological footprints and
biocapacity.
An analysis of long-term resource trends is e+tremely complicated, because of the very different
kinds of resources. /or instance, there are resources like oil and coal, that, once burned, are gone
forever. *e can >run out? of these, and if current consumption rates go on, !e might very !ell run
out of oil in the ne+t @%-$%% years. (2oal should last longer). 7ut then again, there are other forms
of oil (tar sands, shale oil) that are currently economically inefficient to use because petroleum is in
abundant supply. *hen petroleum is short, these forms of oil might become more profitable. (Of
course, it is possible that nuclear energy as !ell as solar, !ind and geothermal energy may also
meet an increasing fraction of energy needs, and rene!able biofuels may also be discovered).
If you think about metals, it is again unclear that !e are >running out? of metals. Of course, it may
happen in the near or far future that there are no longer any mines for profitable e+traction of some
of the metals. 7ut this is not going to happen all of a sudden H people can plan for it, designers !ill
start shifting production a!ay, recycling of that metal !ill take priority because the value of reused
and recycled metal increases !hen the original metal is scarcer, etc.
Studies about commodity price trends over @-$% year periods have been largely inconclusive.
aively, many of them appear to sho! that prices have been falling, but ad=usting for the relative
improvement in the 1uality of manufactured goods, there seems to be no clear trend. All I can say is
that if a commodity seems to be getting over, miners and industries using that commodity are likely
to become a!are and start planning accordingly !ell in advance. ("es, they care about running out
of it at least as much as #s. Leonard does, because after all they get their living from it).
LCimpronta ecologica ha ecceduto del &@A la biocapacitEI on significa che le risorse naturali si
stiano esaurendo.
on tutte le risorse si esauriscono allo stesso tempo e nello stesso modo. .i 1uali risorse parliamoI
Il petrolio prima o poi si esaurirE. Lo stesso il carbone. -erJ esistono fonti energetiche che al
momento non sono utili::ate perch; non economiche (costi alti, offerta di fonti tradi:ionali
abbondante). Si stanno giE cercando o sviluppando prodotti o processi diversi0 tar sands, shale gas,
energie rinnovabili, biocarburanti ecc.
Anche i metalli potrebbero esaurirsi. -rima che scompaiano le miniere le persone si prepareranno,
pianificheranno a:ioni correttive, il riciclaggio aumenterE perch; il valore del metallo riciclato
aumenterE via via che il metallo originale sarE pi< scarso e 1uindi pi< costoso.
I pre::i non sono cosK in crescita come si pensava. An:i. Sono in calo 1uelli del gas. In ogni caso se
i pre::i salgono, la gente penserE a delle alternative. Se i beni diminuiscono, i pre::i saliranno e
diventerE conveniente investirci. 3 coltivare cibo an:ich; biocarburanti. Lo sviluppo tecnologico, la
capacitE di utili::are meglio le risorse esistenti possono rallentare il processo di ridu:ione delle
risorse o incentivare le alternative. .i solito la gente va dalla campagna in cittE e dallCagricoltura
allCindustria. 6li agricoltori poveri dipendono dalla loro produ:ione e dalla bassa produttivitE. .i
solito abbandonano i campi per andare nelle industrie e spesso preferiscono le multina:ionali alle
imprese territoriali.
Le imprese terranno conto dei fatti e siccome vivono delle risorse, saranno interessate alle
alternative. Lo sfruttamento globale della stessa struttura comporta costi e spostarsi su un altro
terreno investimenti costosi che deprimono il corso delle a:ioni.
Land use: foreste
/inally, the area !here I think Leonard does have a point H land use. 7ut even !hile her concern is
valid, her figures are nonsense, !hich brings us to the ne+t point.
9A of our original forest coverI
At the beginning of -age F, Annie Leonard !rites0
*here I live, in the 5nited States, !e have less than 9A of our original forests left.
Go!ever, the 1uote she herself gives here belies her statement0
>inety five to ninety eight percent of forests in the continental 5nited States have been logged at
least once since settlement by 3uropeans.?
ote the operative !ord here0 logged at least once. but a forest that has been logged at least once is
not destroyed, simply because the trees can be replanted. /or instance, paper companies o!n paper
forests that they regularly log and replant. These people are not interested in destroying the forest
because the forest is their source of income. /urther, because they o!n the forest, they have every
incentive to replant as they reap the full benefits (this is actually a very important point that needs to
be understood by people !ho advocate reducing paper use to >save trees? H reducing paper use
does not save trees, at least in a direct sense, because paper use is !hat causes the paper companies
to plant trees. Of course, one might argue that the energy used in producing paper from the trees can
be eliminated if !e reduce paper-based products, though such energy use should be compared
against the energy that needs to be spent in recycling paper. 7ut that is an entirely different 1uestion
from >saving trees?.)
egli Stati 5niti abbiamo meno del 9A delle foreste originarie perch; sono state tagliate almeno
una volta. 2iJ siginifica che i singoli alberi sono stati tagliati, ma anche sostituiti. Le imprese
cartarie, per esempio, non sono interessate a distruggere le foreste, che sono la loro fonte di reddito.
Spostarsi da unCaltra parte significa fare nuovi investimenti, 1uindi sostenere dei costi e ridurre i
profitti e i dividendi, anche se nel breve termine, con possibili influssi negativi verso gli a:ionisti.
Se le imprese possiedono le foreste, sono anche incentivate a ripiantare gli alberi. In un certo senso
ridurre lCuso della carta non salva necessariamente gli alberi, se B proprio tale uso a incentivare
nuovi rimboschimenti. Ovviamente decidere di non tagliarli, an:i di lasciarli proprio stare, li salva
ancora di pi<, salve ovviamente le malattie naturali.
Si puJ argomentare che lCenergia usata per produrre la carta puJ essere eliminata riducendo la
produ:ione di prodotti cartacei, ma lCuso dellCenergia dovrebbe allora essere confrontato con 1uello
speso nel produrre carta riciclata.
#a se nessuno ha la proprietE delle foresteI
Land use: agricoltura, popolazione, ogm, deforestazione.
As the population gro!s, more forest land may need to be cleared for agricultural use, leading to a
destruction of animal habitats and ecosystems. This is a very real concern, but in fact, as any
=uggling !ith data !ould sho!, the amount of agricultural land that needs to be cultivated to feed
one person has dropped hugely in the last century. That is !hy today !e are able to support a
substantially larger population that any time earlier in history !ith only a small fractional increase
in cropland. In his book The Improving State of the *orld, in 2hapter L (Long-term environmental
trends), Indur 6okhlany looks at the issue in detail. Ge refers to Angus #addison,s page (follo! the
link >The *orld 3conomy0 Gistorical -erspective?) !hich has a graphical simulation using O32.
!ebsite data, for the population and affluence statistics, and to a 5S governmental !ebsite for land
uses.
6okhlany,s argument is that the substantially greater increase in agricultural productivity is due to a
combination of improvements in science and technology, a greater use of capital inputs, and a
substantial increase in !ater use (in other !ords, economi:ation on land at the e+pense of !ater,
perhaps due to subsidies for !ater use in the 5S). *hile agreeing that the increase in !ater use is
troubling in its o!n right, 6okhlany is grateful that technological advances have allo!ed for a
substantial e+pansion of human population !ithout natural habitat destruction in the 5nited States.
Ge also discusses the situation for the rest of the !orld, !here the picture, although not as good as
in the 5S, still sho!s increases in agricultural productivity. onetheless, the fact that increases in
productivity have not happened to the same e+tent (!hich may be o!ing to one or more of these
factors0 poor technology, poor market access, land cultivated by people !ith little stake in it (e.g.,
feudal8:amindari type systems), a heavy labor surplus that makes investment in capital-intensive
technologies unproductive, poor infrastructure (such as lack of access to electricity)) has been
responsible for the clearing of forests in many developing countries.
Go!ever, he is no !ild-eyed optimist about continued increases in agricultural productivity to meet
the needs of a population that is e+pected to gro! until &%@%. 7ut 6okhlany makes a strong
argument that some genetically modified foods may offer a !ay to offset, at least in part, the
gro!ing demand for additional cropland to feed this population. This, though, takes us into a
different topicM
The point I,m trying to make is that the story of ho! resource endo!ments are changing is an
e+tremely complicated one and does not benefit from generali:ations like Leonard,s. To summari:e,
some of the sources of uncertainty are0 the constant discovery of ne! resources or ne!, more
profitable technologies to e+tract hitherto unreachable resources, the constant discovery of ne!
technologies for better and more efficient utili:ation of e+isting resources, and the !ay market
incentives, social pressure, and some regulatory action can combine to shift production and
consumption patterns !hen the shortage of certain resources becomes acute.
A seguito della crescita della popola:ione, pi< terra forestale B necessaria per usi agricoli,
distruggendo gli ecosistemi e gli habitat degli animali.
3C vero, ma lCuso di terreno che B stato necessario coltivare per sfamare una persona B diminuito
enormemente nellCultimo secolo. Duesto perch;, almeno nei -aesi ricchi, oggi siamo in grado di
sostenere una popola:ione molto pi< ampia di 1uanto sia mai successo nella storia con solo un
incremento marginale dellCuso della terra.
Duesto a seguito di un grande incremento nella produttivitE agricola dovuto a sua volta a
miglioramenti scientifici e tecnologici, un uso pi< grande di fattori di capitale (macchine) e un
incremento nellCuso di ac1ua (1uesto ha elementi negativi, evidentemente, e comun1ue B stato
favorito da sussidi governativi.)
Na anche detto che dopo il &%@% la popola:ione dovrebbe stabili::arsi attorno ai dieci milioni.
on tutti i -aesi hanno avuto gli stessi benefici in termini di efficien:a agricola. Duesto B dovuto a0
tecnologie povere, scarso accesso ai mercati, eccesso di offerta di lavoro che rende gli investimenti
in tecnologie capital intensive non produttivi, terra coltivata con sistemi arretrati, possedimenti di
tipo feudale, corru:ione, infrastrutture povere, scarso accesso allCelettricitE ecc. Laddove sono
maggiori 1uesti problemi, pi< la deforesta:ione per usi agricoli B massiccia. Il tutto viene
amplificato in caso di forte crescita della popola:ione.
on B detto che istantaneamente a ogni aumento della popola:ione corrisponda un miglioramento
dellCefficien:a e che 1uindi il meccanismo si ripeta per tutti, subito. An:i. 3C chiaramente
impossibile. 3cco che, allora, pensare di tornare a sistemi arretrati implica un maggior rischio di
deforesta:ione, mentre solu:ioni tecnologiche 1uali gli ogm possono rappresentare una solu:ione,
se aumentano efficien:a e resa per ettaro. Inoltre possono ridurre lCuso dei pesticidi.
SullCuso delle risorse riprendi 7oldrin costi di produ:ione ecc.
5so delle risorse naturali0 sommario.
Il loro uso non B fisso nel tempo e nello spa:io0
Si scoprono costantemente nuove risorse oppure
si scoprono nuovi modi di estrarle o di usarle
si scoprono o si riescono a usare risorse finora non conosciute o la cui estra:ione era difficoltosa o
eccessivamente costosa in confronto ad altre (ecco lCimportan:a di lasciare fluttuare i pre::i.)
si scoprono nuove tecnologie che rendono lCuso delle risorse esistenti pi< efficiente.
Incentivi di mercato, pressioni sociali, leggi e regolamenti possono modificare la produ:ione e i
modelli di consumo 1uando la caren:a di certe risorse diventa acuta.
S !"!!# $%&S"M'SSR% $%M GL# S!'!# "&#!#...
If everybody consumed at 5.S. rates
Leonard makes a plausible point !hen she says on -age F0
If everybody consumed at 5.S. rates, !e !ould need F to @ planets. And you kno! !hatI *e,ve
only got one.
Thomas /riedman, a columnist for the e! "ork Times, has repeatedly made a similar point, as
have many others. Go!ever, !hat Leonard ignores here (and !hat commentators like /riedman
ackno!ledge as they discuss in detail) is that if everybody around the !orld today suddenly became
affluent and !anted to consume as much as the 5.S. did, prices !ould simply go up forcing the
5.S. people to consume less. There !ould still be a net rise in consumption, but it !ould not be a
proportionate rise.
7ut more tellingly, the !ay the real-!orld tra=ectory !ill (hopefully) move, by the time everybody
in the !orld !ill be rich enough to consume the amount the 5.S. does, technology may !ell have
moved to the point !here the same level of consumptive satisfaction can be achieved !ith
substantially less resource use. Of course, this is by no means certain. 7ut it is an important hole in
the >if everybody did this M? argument.
5ltimately, >if everybody did thisM? arguments are superfluous and misleading. /or instance, if
everybody traveled as much as the global !arming a!areness-generator #r. Al 6ore, carbon
dio+ide emissions (and hence, the global !arming effect) might be several times as much as !hat it
currently is. (I might be !rong about #r. 6ore, but I,m sure there are many similar arguments that
are valid).
Se tutti consumassero come gli Stati 5niti ci vorrebbe pi< di un pianeta, ma se tutti nel mondo
aumentassero la propria ricche::a a livello di 1uella statunitense e volessero consumare 1uanto
fanno gli americani, i pre::i semplicemente salirebbero, cosK che gli statunitensi consumerebbero
meno. 2i sarebbe alla fine un aumento netto dei consumi, ma meno che propor:ionale.
Inoltre B possibile, se non probabile, che per il momento in cui tutto il mondo sarE in grado di
consumare 1uanto fanno gli statunitensi, la tecnologia sarE avan:ata al punto in cui la stessa
soddisfa:ione dei consumatori puJ essere raggiunta con un uso minore di risorse.
LCargomento B superfluo e fuorviante. Se poi tutti volassero 1uanto Al 6ore, le emissioni
salirebbero.
(S$'
/isheries
O@A of global fisheries no! are fished at or beyond capacity.
/isheries is an e+cellent e+ample !here Leonard selectively 1uotes. The problem of overfishing of
fisheries is related to !hat economists call the >commons? problem or >the tragedy of the
commons? H !hen everybody can take freely from a commons, then even if it is in the collective
interest to ensure the gro!th of the commons in order to ensure a good take in future years, each
individual is being perfectly rational by overfishing, because if they don,t, somebody else !il ltake
the catch. 3conomists often contrast fisheries !ith poultry farming H nobody can argue that !e,re
running out of chicken, because there are none of these incentive problems !ith the commons.
#any have suggested privati:ing fisheries. There are other proposed solutions, including ta+es and
1uotas, !ith their respective merits and demerits, but the problem here is not a general problem of
resource greed (!hich surely also applies to poultry farming) but a lack of clear o!nership8property
rights and8or lack of trust and cooperation among the many different actors.
Il problema dellCeccesso di pesca B legato alla tragedia dei beni comuni. Duando si puJ prelevare
una risorsa condivisa con altri, laddove rischi che in futuro gli altri non te ne lascino nessuna, B
perfettamente ra:ionale eccedere nello sfruttamento poich; altri potrebbero farlo.
el caso delle fattorie o degli allevamenti di polli il problema non si pone perch; per effetto dei
diritti di proprietE sui polli, B conveniente permettere di farli riprodurre e non cCB il rischio di
estin:ione.
Il problema non B tanto lCavari:ia 1uanto lCassen:a di chiari diritti di possesso, nonch; di rapporti di
fiducia e coopera:ione tra gli attori coinvolti.
3SS5 T3ST A -4O.OTTI 2GI#I2II L3 I#-43S3 #3TTOO S2GI/3PP3
o testingI
Leonard says (-age 9) that0
There are over $%%,%%% synthetic chemicals in commerce today. Only a handful of these have even
been tested for human health impacts and O3 of them have been tested for synergistic health
impacts, that means !hen they interact !ith all the other chemicals !e,re e+posed to every day.
This is again a valid concern, but again it is best put in perspective.
In many parts of the !orld even today, cooking is done in the home by burning fuels like !ood and
coal, producing soot and half-burned gases. Apart from the e+perience of cooking being
claustrophobic, many of these particles have severe respiratory effects, causing lung problems and
asthma, and some of them, such as soot, are carcinogenic. In addition, soot is also a contributor to
global !arming. 3ver-so-occasional barbecues may be fun but cooking that !ay daily in an
enclosed space is not.
Looking at it historically, coal !as a significant improvement on !ood in many respects, but the use
of petroleum-based cooking fuels !as the real leap. Today, gas stoves or electric stoves are the
norm for affluent people.
Garmful synthetic materials are a threat. 7ut harmful natural materials are a threat too. It is true that
natural materials that !ere harmful have probably already been recogni:ed and identified as such,
!hile synthetic materials, being ne!, may have une+pected effects. 7ut, all said and done, both
market actors (the companies selling the synthetic materials) and governmental regulatory agencies
have incentives to ensure a reasonable amount of testing before products are put out to market.
Those !ho put out products that do damage suffer public ridicule and a loss of confidence for their
remaining products, and also fines and possibly punitive damages. .espite all this, they !ill not test
a product for all possible impacts before putting them out to market.
*hyI 7ecause not putting a product to market has its o!n costs. This is most obvious for drugs,
!here there is a cost to putting a drug !ith adverse side-effects on the market, but there is also a
cost to severely delaying the introduction of a ne! drug. The latter cost is all the people !ho could
have used the drug and didn,t because it !as not available in the market. There is a certain amount
of balancing that needs to be done. The real 1uestion is0 !ho does this balancingI Is it the
companyI Is it a governmental regulatory agencyI Is it Annie LeonardI If the company does the
balancing, is it taking all the costs of its actions into accountI If it isn,t, !hy notI Are fines and
penalties for the introduction of dangerous products not high enoughI Leonard may be right that
companies are able to get a!ay in some cases !ith consistently shoddy products that are not in the
public interest, but this is far from obvious in any !ay, and any accounting must take into account
the benefits of such products.
L,argomento B che ci sono centomila prodotti chimici sintetici in commercio, mai adeguatamente
testati per valutarne la sicure::a sulla salute, anche tenendo conto delle intera:ioni gli uni con gli
altri.
-rendiamo il cucinare. /arlo usando legno o carbone, specie in ambienti chiusi, provoca problemi
respiratori a causa della produ:ione di gas e soot (cancerogeno e dannoso per il clima). In molti
paesi poveri B normale 1uesto tipo di cucina. 5na volta lo era anche nei paesi ricchi. -oi il legno B
stato sostituito dal carbone e 1uindi dal petrolio0 fornelli a gas e poi elettrici hanno migliorato le
condi:ioni di vita ed evitato 1uei problemi. Duindi i materiali naturali possono essere dannosi
1uanto 1uelli sintetici.
-erJ sono stati testati, nel senso che si conosconoI 5n,impresa o un governo non hanno interesse a
mettere in commercio prodotti pericolosi. 5n ragionevole livello di esperimenti devono garantirlo
perch; altrimenti potrebbero esporsi al rischio di ridicolo, perdita di fiducia, san:ioni, danni di
immagine.
2ertamente le imprese a un certo punto smetteranno di fare prove e metteranno i prodotti sul
mercato. Ga un costo ritardare la commerciali::a:ione, anche in termini di costo opportunitE0 un
farmaco analogo potrebbe essere commerciali::ato da un concorrente oppure le persone che
avrebbero potuto essere curate con un,immissione tempestiva sul mercato non possono esserlo pi< a
causa dei ritardi.
Il punto B che occorre mettere sul piatto costi e benefici dei prodotti in commercio, ma un altro
punto B0 chi dovrebbe farloI -erch; proprio luiI In base a 1uali criteriI
34OSIO3 .3LL3 32OO#I3 LO2ALI
3rosion of local economies
On -age L, Annie Leonard talks about the erosion of local economies H ho! governments often
confiscate local land and resources forcing these people into menial =obs by depriving them of the
resource system they,ve used for years. This is something !here I almost agree !ith #s. Leonard.
6overnment e+propriation of land and resources from people, claimed to be in the >public interest?,
is a recipe for corruption. Some people get benefited and others lose, but if those !ho lose lack the
legal rights to negotiate, then it may very !ell happen that the costs to these people far out!eigh the
benefits. In other !ords, the use of force as opposed to negotiation !hen taking land from one use
to another could lead to outcomes that are both inefficient and unfair. (ote that it may still be the
case that the benefits created from e+propriation e+ceed the costs, but if this !ere the case, I think
governments, or corporations operating via the government, should be able to achieve the same
result by buying the land in the marketplace, because benefits e+ceeding costs implies they,ll still
turn a profit). So, e+propriation of land makes me deeply discomfited both on moral8philosophical
and on practical grounds. And again, !e find that many free-market proponents such as #ilton
/riedman have been very critical of government e+propriation.
7ut Leonard makes a lot of mistakes, !hich may have been influenced by the selection of people
she has talked to. If one goes to places that have suffered the most damage of dislocation, one gets a
very one-sided picture. 7ut my o!n impression is that people aren,t moving from villages to cities
because the villages that al!ays sustained them !ell have suddenly stopped !orking that !ell for
them. 4ather, people have been moving from villages to cities for a long time, at least in India.
Some of the reasons for the move to cities include more opportunities in cities, less chances of
dying of starvation because of more =obs and higher !ages, and less discrimination. "es, there are
cramped urban conditions, but having enough food to eat may !ell be !orth it.
If there is an increase in city!ard migration, I suspect that (again, at least in the case of India) this
has a lot more to do !ith the rapid e+pansion of opportunities in cities than !ith the decline of
villages due to their natural resources being destroyed or depleted. Go!ever, this may vary from
country to country and region to region, though I suspect a similar truth holds in a lot of other
developing countries.
I governi possono confiscare le terre e le risorse ai locali for:andoli a cambiare lavoro e sistema di
uso delle risorse. Spesso l,esproprio in nome del pubblico interesse B un ricettacolo per la
corru:ione. Impedire a delle persone il diritto di nego:iare sulle proprie proprietE fa sK che per
1ueste persone i costi potrebbero superare i benefici. In caso contrario basterebbe ricorrere al
mercato da parte di imprese o governo e i proprietari venderebbero volentieri la terra.
L,emigra:ione dalle campagne alle cittE B storicamente avvenuta ovun1ue non per le espropria:ioni
for:ate. (-olpot, piuttosto, fece il contrario col mito della crea:ione della societE giusta ed etica,
mito aberrante e risultati pure.) La gente che si sposta lo fa anche per le maggiori opportunitE che
trova in cittE. #inori probabilitE di morire di fame, pi< possibilitE di lavoro, stipendi pi< alti,
discrimina:ioni minori, disponibilitE di cibo maggiore a pre::i minori.
Ovviamente i casi andrebbero poi anali::ati regione per regione.
.3LO2ALIPPAPIOI
.irty factories out
Larry Summers, a Garvard economist !ho is no! part of the Obama administration, got a lot of flak
for making a remark that moving dirty factories overseas is a good thing. Apparently, many !ere
offended at the idea that the 5.S. !as cleaning its act by dirtying that of others.
7ut Summers !as simply articulating a basic commonsense notion that many economists and
analysts !ould agree !ith. A much more elaborate notion has been developed in 6okhlany,s
bookThe Improving State of the *orld, mentioned above. 6okhlany outlines, and provides
substantive evidence for, the environmental transition hypothesis. This says that societies initially
try to gro!, even at the e+pense of degrading the environment. *hen they become richer, they are
able to shoulder the costs of cleaning up the environment, and do so, leading to a decline in the
degree of pollution8degradation. The secular (long-term time-based) trend is thus that of an inverted
5-shaped graph. (6okhlany discusses a large number of caveats). *ith this vie!, !e see that many
developing countries, such as India and 2hina, are still on the gro!th plus degradation side of the
environmental transition. One might argue !hether they !ill get to the other side of reducing
degradation fast enough, but it is by no means obvious that they !ill not. 2hina, and to a lesser
e+tent India, have already started taking into account the environmental conse1uences of their
actions and looking at ho! to minimi:e them.
Larry Summers0 I benefici delle delocali::a:ioni. Anche voltremont.
3nvironmental transition hypothesis. La societE cerca di crescere fregandosene delle conseguen:e
ambientali. Duando B sufficientemente ricca, puJ sostenere il costo della tutela dell,ambiente e
1uindi l,in1uinamento si riduce.
3, evidente che oggi i paesi ricchi siano meno in1uinati di ieri.
3ST34ALITAC
3con $%$0 3+ternali:ed costs
On -age O, Annie Leonard talks about e+ternali:ed costs. Also called >e+ternalities?, these are costs
of an activity that are not incurred by the people undertaking that activity. In other !ords, they are
imposed on innocent bystanders. This is a classic concept of basic economics, !ith the te+tbook
e+amples being !aste disposal and pollution.
/irst, Annie Leonard misunderstands e+ternalities. She thinks that underpayment of !orkers is an
e+ternali:ed cost. 7ut it simply isn,tQ 5nderpayment of !orkers may be a problem in some
industries, !here there is singificant market po!er for a small number of market actors !ho can
dictate terms. 7ut think about the average supermarket or restaurant in a city. *hat kind of scarcity
po!er does it haveI Almost noneQ At any rate, even if Leonard believes that !orkers are paid less
than she,d like them to be paid, this is not an >e+ternality?.
There are a lot of proposed solutions to e+ternalities, t!o of !hich are0 the creation of a rights
market for that cost, and the imposition of -igouvian ta+es. /or instance, the problem of air
pollution can be done by vesting the right to the air !ith somebody (!hich could be a private
individual, a nonprofit collective representing a community, the government). Then, anybody !ho
!ants to do anything !ith the air (like pollute it !ith gases, burst firecrackers) has to get permission
from that somebody, and getting permission entails making a payment.
The -igouvian ta+ is a ta+ levied to account for an e+ternality. So, if it is computed that a unit of
carbon dio+ide released into the atmosphere costs a certain amount of money to society, the ta+ is
set at that amount of money.
In any case, e+ternali:ed costs are not the !hole story. Any reasonable mention of e+ternali:ed
costs should mention the flip side of the coin0 e+ternali:ed benefits. -eople doing things that are
good for others, even others they don,t kno! or care about. 2lassic te+tbook e+amples are getting
vaccinations for contagious diseases (reducing the possibility of their spread), and mo!ing my la!n
and painting my house (!hich improves the vie! for passers-by). #entioning only e+ternali:ed
costs seems to imply that people !orking in their o!n self-interest harm society, but looking at both
sides of the picture sho!s that it could !ork out either !ay.
Le esternalitE sono costi legati ad un,attivitE, ma che non vengono sostenuti da chi svolge
1uell,attivitE. Duindi 1uei costi colpiscono ter:e parti. 5n esempio classico B l,in1uinamento.
La Leonard fraintende il concetto di esternalitE. on B da sola0 lo fa tutta la sinistra italiana. -agare
poco I lavoratori B un giudi:io morale e puJ essere un problema in mercati dove pochi attori hanno
un grande potere di mercato. In altri casi i bassi stipendi possono essere dovuti a di offerta di lavori
de1ualificati (tipico esempio0 I cassieri dei supermercati.) -ensare che i lavoratori siano pagati
meno di 1uanto ci piacerebbe non rende tale fatto un,esternalitE (sempre a meno di trovarsi dalla
parte dell,imprenditore, come dimostrano e+ sindacalisti diventati imprenditori tirannici).
-er risolvere il problema delle esternalitE le solu:ioni tipiche sono due.
2reare un mercato di diritti per il costo. -er esempio attribuire a un governo, un privato, un ente no
profit una sorta di diritto sull,aria. 2hi vuol fare 1ualcosa con l,aria, come in1uinarla o bruciare
firecrackers deve ottenere il permesso dal titolare pagando.
La tassa pigoviana B una tassa che permette di tenere conto dell,esternalitE. 2osK se una unitE di co&
emessa ha un costo per la societE, chi emette c%& paga un 1uantitativo di tasse pari al costo
generato.
3sistono anche benefici dalle esternalitE. Le persone fanno cose a vantaggio di altri0 i vaccini
aiutano anche chi non li produce (a parte le puttanate sull,autismo), sistemare il mio giardino o
pitturare la facciata della mia casa produce benefici anche sulla vista degli altri. Avere modellato il
2hianti, distruggendo il paesaggio di 1ualche secolo fa, ha permesso di goderlo da parte di chi oggi
intende tutelarlo. #en:ionare solo le esternalitE negative implica pensare che le persone che
lavorano per il proprio interesse facciano solo danni.
Tra le esternalitE positive possono rientrare i sussidi alle rinnovabili.
7ASSI -43PPI
4adio Shack0 radio for R9.''
I !as thinking about this the other day. I !as !alking to !ork and I !anted to listen to the ne!s so I
popped into this 4adio Shack to buy a radio. I found this cute little green radio for 9 dollars and ''
cents. I !as standing there in line to buy this radio and I !ondering ho! R9.'' could possibly
capture
the costs of making this radio and getting it to my hands. The metal !as probably mined in South
Africa, the petroleum !as probably drilled in Ira1, the plastics !ere probably produced in 2hina,
and maybe the !hole thing !as assembled by some $@ year old in a ma1uiladora9% in #e+ico.
R9.'' !ouldn,t even pay the rent for the shelf space it occupied until I came along, let alone part of
the staff guy,s salary that helped me pick it out, or the multiple ocean cruises and truck rides pieces
of this radio !ent on. That,s ho! I reali:ed, I didn,t pay for the radio.
ot only is this completely speculative, but it completely misunderstands production and supply.
Leonard looks at all the different people and resources that !ent into the making of a radio, and
concludes (!ithout any attempt at calculation) that R9.'' is !ay too small for a radio. 4ather than
being grateful for the beauties of the supply chain system that got her such a cheap radio, she !ants
to see a hidden hand of e+ploitation.
Ger language is misleading for many reasons. /irst, she makes it sound like every step in the
construction of that radio !as e+clusively devoted to creating the radio. *rong. obody booked an
ocean cruise e+clusively for the radio. -robably thousands, may be even millions, of other items
!ent in that same ocean cruise. Similarly, I can assure #s. Leonard that no trucker drove around
e+clusively !ith her green little radio. o. The truck probably had thousands of other items as !ell.
As for the metal mining, no, nobody said that they need to mine these many grams of metal for #s.
Leonard,s radio, so let,s set up the machines and stuff for it. o. All these activities !ere done on a
large scale.
o!, I have no idea !hat the total of all this should be. 7ut I,m assuming that, if 4adio Shack is
selling such radios regularly for R9.'', then they don,t cost more than R9.''. Of course, I may be
!rong0 it may so happen that 4adio Shack is discounting the radios because they have e+cess
inventory and nobody buys those radios at higher prices. Or, may be the radio is a loss leader. Still,
the fact that, as Leonard !ill have no doubt admitting, 4adio Shack is in it for the money, should
make her doubtful of her o!n instinct that it should have cost a lot more.
/inally, Annie makes an unconvincing argument that people every!here are subsidi:ing her radio
by !orking for lo!er rates. 7ut !hy !ould they !ork for lo!er rates if they can get higher rates
else!hereI -eople !ould generally !ork for the highest paying =ob relative to the !orking
conditions. 5nless she assumes that people in 2hina, Ira1, South Africa, and #e+ico are very
interested in making sacrifices to help her, this makes no sense.
At the end of the day, her only point is this0 lo!er !ages in these countries relative to those in the
5S, at current e+change rates, make this radio cheaper than it !ould have been if !ages !ere
higher. This is true, but that !ould get one into the 1uestion of !hy such !age differentials e+ist in
the first place. This is a fascinating 1uestion, but not one that Annie either states clearly or provides
an ans!er to. #oreover, Annie confuses this even further by e+plaining the discrepnacy of already
high e+plicit costs (!hich is her o!n creation) using e+ternali:ed costs (betraying a complete lack
of understanding of mathematics, logic, accounting, and economics).
-er fare una radio e farla arrivare nelle mani di Annie, dice lei, saranno stati usati metallo estratto in
Sudafrica, petrolio trivellato in Ira1, plastica prodotta in 2ina, assemblaggio effettuato da un
1uindicenne in #essico. 9,'' dollari non bastano a pagare l,affitto dello spa:io occupato nei
maga::ini, lasciamo perdere lo stipendio degli addetti alle consegne e i costi del trasporto via nave
e camion. >In realtE non ho pagato la radio?, conclude.
2osK lei specula su globali::a:ione e diritti e an:ich; notare i vantaggi della catena del valore
(supply chain system), cerca la mano nascosta dell,e+ploitation.
essuno dei passaggi da lei citati B servito solo per la radio. La nave e il camion contenevano
migliaia o milioni di altri articoli. Il metallo e il petrolio utili::ati sono una minima parte di 1uelli
estratti. Tutte le attivitE sono state fatte su larga scala. Si puJ essere sicuri che se la radio B venduta
a 1uel pre::o, B improbabile che il suo costo di produ:ione sia inferiore. aturalmente B possibile
per varie ragioni0 eccesso di scorte, domanda scarsa a pre::i pi< alti, strategia di con1uistare 1uote
di mercato vendendo sotto costo, motiva:ioni di marketing. 3, proprio perch; l,impresa vuole fare
soldi, che dire che la radio costa troppo poco B contro intuitivo.
5n argomento non convincente B che ci siano tante persone che vengono pagate poco per
sussidiarle l,ac1uisto della radio. In generale la 1uestione riguarda la domanda e l,offerta di lavoro
nei -aesi produttori. Se hanno la possibilitE di guadagnare cifre pi< alte da altre parti, le persone lo
fanno. 3, insensato pensare che cinesi, messicani ecc.si stiano sacrificando per lei. -iuttosto si
sacrificano per migliorare le proprie condi:ioni di vita. Duesto permette ai consumatori occidentali
di pagare meno 1uei prodotti, ai lavoratori che perdono 1uei lavori di passare ad altri mercati se
sufficientemente 1ualificati e di investire 1uanto speso di meno in altro0 messi in banca vanno a
finan:iare le attivitE produttive oppure viaggi nei paesi produttori.
Alla fine il punto, secondo lei, B0 salari pi< bassi nei paesi poveri rispetto a 1uelli americani, ai tassi
di cambio correnti, rendono la radio pi< economica rispetto a 1uanto sarebbe successo se i salari
fossero stati pi< alti. La scoperta dell,ac1ua calda. Annie non spiega il differen:iale di salario e si
dimostra confusa cercando di spiegare la discrepan:a di costi espliciti di sua crea:ione (ma
comun1ue espliciti) usando il concetto (sbagliato) di esternalitE (1uindi costi nascosti.) In tutto ciJ
riesce a mostrare lacune di matematica, logica, contabilitE ed economia..
2O#-4AT3
Shop, please
2ome to -age ', 2onsumption. This is !here Annie makes some of her most serious errors and
misleading statements. Let,s 1uote0
That is !hy, after '8$$, !hen our country !as in shock, -resident 7ush could have suggested any
number of appropriate things0 to grieve, to pray, to hope. O. Ge said to shop. TO SGO-IQ
/irst, -resident 7ush did ask Americans to >pray? for those !ho >grieve?.
Should -resident 7ush have asked Americans to shopI I don,t kno!, but it doesn,t seem like bad
advice. In fact, given my general opinion of the 1uality of 7ush,s advice to the nation, this might
1ualify for some of the best advice he has givenQ
There is room for disagreement here, but at any rate I don,t see it as outrageous to tell people to go
about their life as usual, not to tighten their belts or get scared as a result of '8$$. I think this is a lot
better than the many things politicians (including possibly -resident 7ush) do to make their people
paranoid about >national security? and >terror? and use it to e+pand their o!n po!ers and curtail
civil rights. Also, telling people to shop seems better to me than telling them to >pray? H I see it as
no business of presidents to be donning the mantle of spiritual and moral guide and leader to a
nation in distress (again, something that many politicians try to do, !hen they,re not dealing !ith
scandals that reveal their o!n moral failings).
La prima cosa che 7ush disse l,undici settembre fu di pregare, ma in realtE non c,B niente di male a
suggerire agli americani di tornare a comprare. .ire, cioB, di tornare alle loro vite normali.
#eglio che ergersi a guida morale o religiosa o far diventare paranoici sulla sicure::a na:ionale o il
terrore.
APIO3 .I 2OS5#ATO4I
ation of consumers
-age '0
*e have become a nation of consumers. Our primary identity has become that of consumer, not
mothers, teachers, farmers, but consumers. The primary !ay that our value is measured and
demonstrated is by ho! much !e contribute to this arro!, ho! much !e consume. And do !eQ
There may !ell be truth to this, but it overlooks the basic fact that the primary reason people
consume things is because that consumption is an indirect route to happiness. #ore on this in a
momentM
One per cent still in use after si+ months
Annie Leonard 1uotes from a book to argue that only one percent of goods bought are still in use
after si+ months. I do not have full access to the book she 1uotes from, but the passage she 1uotes
does not seem to be saying that it limits itself to durable goods. /or a family !hose main
consumption is food and toiletries, obviously, most of !hat they buy !ill not be there after si+
monthsQ These goods get eaten and rubbed8poured on the body (thus contributing to se!age and
drain !aste). At any rate, if the only thing a family consumes is food and toiletries, and they have
$A of !hat the consume less after si+ months, I don,t think that,s bad at all, even from Leonard,s
vie!pointQ
Second, as Annie clarifies in her o!n footnote to the transcript0
This statement is not saying that '' percent of the stuff
!e buy is trashed. Think beyond your household to the upstream
!aste created in the e+traction, production, packaging, transportation
and selling of all the stuff you bought. /or e+ample, the o .irty
6old campaign e+plains that there is nearly & million tons of mining
!aste for every one ton of gold producedS that translates into about
&% tons of mine !aste created to make one gold !edding ring.
2OS5#IS#O
.riving consumption
This is the most hilarious and depressingly misleading of Leonard,s pieces.
/irst, a decision to emphasi:e on consumer goods as the gro!th engine of the economy is not at all
the bad thing that Annie Leonard makes it out to be. *hat are the alternativesI I can tell you some.
An alternative !ould have been a focus on large scale industries, that largely =ust provide goods for
each other and !here consumers are completely out of the loop (The kind of thing !e see in Soviet-
style central planning, !ith huge amounts of production but consumers getting nothing). 6iven the
criticisms made by Leonard, I,m sure she,ll find such a system even !orse. Or, it could be an
economy !here the driving engine of demand is the military, !here most production happens as
inputs for the military. This is again something I,m sure Annie !ould detest. These are e+amples of
production systems !here more and more is produced !ithout >consumers? being richer.
The choice of being a consumer-driven economy is thus a choice, ultimately, to be an economy
giving people !hat they !ant (the flip side is that it sometimes involves making people !ant things
they didn,t !ant, but this does not negate the point).
The second, and more grievous, mistake made by Annie is in this passage0
ot provide health care, or education, or safe transportation, or sustainability or =usticeI 2onsumer
goodsI
Actually, education is a consumer good, or rather, it comprises a lot of individual consumer goods
(schooling, te+tbooks, educational videos (such as hersI), college education). .itto for health care.
One might argue that these are >services? rather than physical goods, but they do involve a lot of
physical goods as intermediaries0 first-aid kits, medicines, hospital e1uipment, and !hat not.
Transportation is also a consumer good, !hether it is private automobile transit or mass transit. In
the sense that individual consumers decide !hether and ho! much of it to buy. o!, it may be the
case that the government subsidi:es many of these activities, but that doesn,t make
them not consumer goods. An e+ample of a good that isn,t a consumer good is a nuclear bomb.
2OT3STO .3LLA 64A.3 .3-43SSIO3
As an additional aside, this e+traordinary focus on consumer demand might !ell have been
influenced by the events of the 6reat .epression. At the time, Teynesian ideas of the .epression,
!hich said that a decline in aggregate demand !as the main cause of it, !ere still in vogue. After
*orld *ar II, there !as great concern about getting economic gro!th up on a solid ramp. There
!as paranoia about the Soviet 5nion and the 2ommunist system. There !ere many vocal voices
saying that the government had a role in stimulating .emand. A lot of these plans, silly as they may
seem today, should be seen in that conte+t.
O7SOL3S23PA
Gere, at last, !e see some good research by AnnieQ
"es, some industrial designers !anted to accelerate product usage to get people to buy more.
Obsolescence is a !ay to achieve this.
7ut !hat industrial designers !ant and !hat they are able to achieve are not the same. There are a
number of moderating forces, such as market competition, and people not being very stupid.
/irst, people !ould typically factor in ho! long something !ill last !hen they pay for it upfront.
This means that a company that makes products that are >made to break? e+pects to sell its products
for less. If, for instance, it makes the product break t!ice as fast, then it may e+pect to make half the
money. -erhaps, due to future discounting, people,s short-term memory, or lack of complete
information, it may actually be able to charge something like O@A of the cost for something that last
half as much. 4ipoffI
7ut if the production cost to the company !ere the same (i.e., it didn,t save any money !ith the
>break? feature, !hich is !hat made-to-break is all about), then it is spending the same in
production cost and making only O@A of the money. 3ven though it is doubling its sales (people
buy the good t!ice the number of times) it is lo!ering the profit margin on each sale. It is
conceivable that the company still benefits, but it is much more likely that the company does not
benefit from the break feature. In fact, a company can profitably benefit from break features only if
its production costs are very lo! compared to the price at !hich it is selling the good, so changes in
the number of times they produce stuff have no impact. (.o the math for yourself to =udge).
All this is assuming that the company does not have competition. 7ut as soon as a competitor steps
in, they can cut through this immediately. Go!I Simply offer something that lasts a year, and
UadvertiseU that it lasts longer, possibly offering !arranties or money-back guarantees.
So, planned obsolescence may !ork in a handful of situations, but most of the times, it doesn,t.
#oreover, a look at the durability of goods !ould probably find that goods have been becoming
more durable over the years, !hich means either that planned obsolescence hasn,t been on the rise
or that it has been d!arfed by technological innovations and greater competitions.
e+t, !e come to perceived obsolescence.
This is again a valid point made by Annie. Teeping up !ith the =oneses and conspicuous
consumption are valid reasons !hy people buy ne! stuff, and creating a perception of obsolescence
is a po!erful tool.
7ut I suspect that there factors are marginal or incremental. The main reason !hy ne! products are
introduced, especially in the technology sector, is ne! technological innovation that has driven
do!n cost. Ger o!n e+ample of flat-screen monitors illustrates the points. /lat-screen monitors are
much more convenient to use and take less space than the big bulky monitor sets used in the past.
There !as good reason for introducing them. It is not merely a matter of >fashion?. I can guarantee
#s. Leonard that !e !ill UnotU see the bulky curved-screen monitors become fashionable in the
future.
4endere i prodotti obsoleti presto puJ indurre le persone a comprarne di pi< nellCarco di un certo
periodo di tempo. -erJ non B detto che le imprese che intendono puntare sullCobsolescen:a
programmata riescano a raggiungere i risultati voluti. 2i sono delle for:e, come la libera
concorren:a e il comportamento tenden:ialmente ra:ionale delle persone, che vanno considerate.
La gente considererE 1uanto dura un prodotto tra i fattori che incidono nellCac1uisto. Se unCimpresa
intende dime::are la durata, dovrE dime::are anche il pre::o di vendita per evitare che le persone
smettano di comprare il prodotto. /orse lCimpresa potrE diminuire tale pre::o di meno della metE,
secondo il suo potere di mercato, le sue abilitE pubblicitarie, la mancan:a di memoria a lungo
termine delle persone, lCassen:a di informa:ioni complete da parte dei consumatori, il valore del
denaro nel tempo che B variabile. In ogni caso, se il costo di produ:ione resta lo stesso, a fronte di
pre::i di vendita inferiore, saranno ridotti i margini di profitto. Se sono stati accantonati dei fondi,
saranno comun1ue presumibilmente inferiori i profitti o 1uantomeno i dividendi per gli a:ionisti.
Dualcuno nellCimpresa sarE comun1ue scontentato. Anche se tutti i consumatori ricomprassero lo
stesso prodotto, 1uindi due volte an:ich; una nel periodo di tempo considerato, lCimpresa
raddoppierebbe i ricavi, ma ridurrebbe i profitti derivanti dalla vendita del singolo prodotto.
3C comun1ue possibile che i vantaggi per lCimpresa siano superiori ai costi in una misura tale da
rendere 1uesti ultimi non significativi. -er esempio puJ essere che il pre::o di vendita sia cosK pi<
alto rispetto al costo di produ:ione che lCaumento dei volumi prodotti non incida che marginalmente
sui profitti. La Apple potrebbe puntare su 1uesta cosa anche in virt< del potere di mercato e
dellCimmagine che ha.
.Caltronde entra in gioco la concorren:a. 2osa costerebbe alla Samsung dimostrare che il suo
prodotto dura molto di pi< e costa molto meno, a paritE di condi:ioneI Oppure potrebbe tenere i
pre::i allo stesso livello della Apple, ma dare garan:ie sulla durata o formule di restitu:ione dei
soldi in caso di rottura anche dopo la fine della garan:ia. 3 se le a:iende si accordasseroI Il
problema sarebbe la forma:ione di meccanismi anti concorren:iali, ma in un mercato libero ci sarE
spa:io per nuovi entranti che potrebbero puntare sullCaspetto della durata. Se lafor:a di alcuni
produttori fosse legata solo allCimmagine, sarebbe facile almeno togliere a 1uei produttori i clienti
che puntano su altri valori al momento dellCac1uisto. Ad esempio le caratteristiche tecniche.
Inoltre siamo sicuri che un tempo i beni duravano di pi< di 1uelli di oggiI O che i loro componenti
erano pi< resistentiI Se penso alle auto, direi proprio che non B cosK.
I nemici dellCobsolescen:a programmata sono la concorren:a e lCinnova:ione tecnologica., che sono
anche gli amici della crescita economica e pure del rispetto dellCambiente (utili::o di meno risorse
per ottenere pi< prodotti.)
3siste anche un fenomeno di obsolescen:a percepita. 2i possono essere mille motivi per cui alla
gente (termine che andrebbe segmentato in pi< e pi< target di mercato, come fanno le a:iende
efficienti e grandi) piace comprare oggetti nuovi anche prima che 1uelli vecchi smettano di
fun:ionare. -ensare che il modello sia obsoleto, anche solo perch; gli altri girano col nuovo, o
ritenere che dopo un anno si debba cambiare cellulare, sono fenomeni che riguardano il
comportamento dei consumatori come 1uello delle a:iende.
ei settori high tech, perJ, B soprattutto lCinnova:ione tecnologica che spinge alla crea:ione (e al
desiderio da parte dei consumatori) di nuovi prodotti. La stessa innova:ione permette di avere
prodotti pi< performanti a pre::i uguali o inferiori a prima. Duando si afferma che i nuovi prodotti
vengono comprati solo per moda si rischia di fare unCafferma:ione superficiale. I monitor lcd hanno
sostituito 1uelli a blocco anche perch; sono di 1ualitE costruttiva migliore, sono pi< sottili,
occupano meno spa:io, possono affaticare meno la vista e cosK via. Si dice la Apple0 gli imac hanno
da sempre uno o due elementi integrati, laddove i vecchi pc fissi avevano e hanno una caterva di
hard!are0 monitor, computer, tastiera, mouse, fili, masteri::atori, lettori separati, hd esterni e cosK
via.
e+t, to the fashion industry. It is true that changing fashions is a strategy to get people to keep
buying ne! stuff. 7ut Annie e+aggerates the conse1uences of such a strategy. 2onsider her simple
e+ample of thick-soled versus thin-soled high heels. If the fashion keeps oscillating bet!een the
t!o, !omen !ho !ant to keep up !ith the latest fashion simply have to buy pairs of both types
(!hich is !hat a lot of !omen do) and !ear the ones that are fashionable.
This does UnotU double the number of heels they buy, because the main reason to buy a ne! pair is
not an old one getting out of fashion but rather an old pair having been used for a long time (do the
math yourself). "es, there is an increase, but it is not a doubling.
/3LI2ITAC APIOAL3
Duoting from -age $&0
So, in the 5.S. !e have more stuff than ever before, but polls sho! that our national happiness is
actually declining. Our national happiness peaked sometime in the $'@%s, the same time as this
consumption mania e+ploded. Gmmm. Interesting coincidence. I think I kno! !hy. *e have more
stuff but !e have less time for the things that really make us happy0 family, friends, leisure time.
*e,re !orking harder than ever. Some analysts say that !e have less leisure time no! than in
/eudal Society.
If one believes the assertion that the goal of progress is to make more people happier, then this is
one of the most important passages. I !as interested to kno! ho! she made the assertion, so I
looked up the footnotes. I !as very disappointed to see that, once again, she did not link to a
primary source but rather to a book that in turn discusses some polls conducted by some other
agency.
#easuring >national happiness? is e+tremely tricky. /irst, nations aren,t happy or sad, it,s people
!ho are happy or sad. So the 1uestion might be0 is the average person on the street happier than
beforeI 7ut then again, !ho is the average person on the streetI Go! representative are these polls
of average peopleI Since I do not have access to the details of the polls, I make a fe! con=ectural
remarks.
/irst, it !as around the end of the $'@%s that civil rights agitation began in good force. The ma=or
legal breakthrough !as in $'L9, but there !ere many other things happening at the time. The L%s
!ere dubbed an era of hippies and rebellion. Since the polls !ere taken in the $'@%s prior to civil
rights agitation, do !e conclude that civil rights agitation is responsible for a decline in national
happinessI
In the $'@%s, the American economy !as largely a national economy, not integrated into the !orld.
There !ere many big businesses and relatively less competition. There !as the concept of the
>organi:ation man? (note the gender bias) !ho =oined a =ob at a young age and rose through the
ranks. This !as a satisfying and secure time.
2ivil rights, increases in !omen seeking =obs, and increasing integration !ith and competition from
the !orld economy led to more competitive pressure. Organi:ations had to painfully restructure,
people moved from one =ob to the other both because of more opportunities and more layoffs.
2ouples started divorcing more. There !as an increase in crime rates around the O%s and V%s. The
economy !ent through many boom and bust periods. So, one could make a case that civil rights
legislation and improvement in the position of !omen !ere largely responsible for a decrease in
happiness. (A position that might be similar to some segments of the conservative movement).
7ut this is only partially true, and even if so, is meaningless and could be e+aggerated in polls.
*hyI An >organi:ation man?, once settled into a =ob, !hen asked !hether he is satisfied !ith his
=ob, isn,t thinking about alternatives much. Ge,s already settled. So, he may report a high level of
satisfaction simply because of that, not because the =ob provides great pay or great stimulation and
satisfaction. Similarly, a !oman asked !hether she,s happy !ith her marriage may report higher
happiness if the possibility of divorce =ust hasn,t occurred to her, because such things are looked
do!n upon by society.
/inally, self-rating is notoriously difficult for this and other reasons. Asking people !hether they are
>dissatisfied, satisfied, or very satisfied? !ith their =ob does not give meaningful, measurable and
comparable results. A person living in non-grinding poverty may feel >satisfied? !ith life in a third-
!orld country !here people around her starve every day. 7ut this same person may be very eager to
move to another place that offers a better standard of living. Another person en=oying the higher
standard of living may report feeling >dissatisfied?. The real test of !ho is more satisfied comes by
looking at !ho moves !here. .o people from India migrate to the 5nited States, or vice versaI .o
people from rural India migrate to urban India, or vice versaI
/inally, Annie,s =udgmentalism about !hat >really matters to us? strikes me as disgusting. *hat,s
!rong !ith preferring to !atch a movie (or a documentary such as Annie,s) all alone rather than
spend the evening chatting !ith friendsI *hat is !rong !ith a person choosing to slog day and
night to become rich (or help society, or become famous, or simply for the stimulation) rather than
choose to spend an evening rela+ing and admiring natureI The best =udge of !hat >really matters?
may be ho! people voluntarily choose to do stuff, but Annie,s suggestion that for fifty years, people
have voluntarily chosen to do stuff that doesn,t really matter to them is too radical to be made
!ithout substantial =ustification.
Like this:
Like
7e the first to like this post.
2
Share this:
Share

omments ($@)
$@ 2omments W
$.
ice one, Nipul. There is much to be said about environmentalism, but people need to have
better arguments based on proper economic theory.
2omment by Trishna H Xuly $L, &%%' Y O0@& pm
4eply
&.
Thank you for this criti1ue. I have found most criti1ues are based on =ust as fanatical
ideological positions as Annie has and try and criti1ue absolutely everything. "ou have
rightly focused on facts and reason and her most blatant misrepresentations. I 1uite agree
!ith Annie on some things but she !ay overstates things to the point of simply lying !hich I
do not like at all. I do not like ho! so many people are =ust s!allo!ing her polemic !ithout
critical thought.
2omment by .r Attila .anko H August $F, &%%' Y O09$ am
4eply
F.
suggestion that for fifty years, people have voluntarily chosen to do stuff that doesn,t really
matter to them is too radical
.oesn,t almost every philosophy make this claimI
2omment by Shreevatsa H September L, &%%' Y @0$$ am
4eply
9.
A very confusing criti1ue.
I don,t !ant to embark here on a criticism of your specific logics and standpoints, !hich I
!ill prefer doing on a private email. Like about all your over-the-board praise of
consumerism and people !orking for self-interest someho! magically resulting in global
development and complete trashing of the role of governments, all these opinions need re-
thinkingQ
Let me here state some of my general 1uestions regarding the tone of your blog.
Shouldn,t you give credit to Annie for raising good 1uestions even if she didn,t have great
ans!ers to themI
Go! easy do you think it is for the maker of the video to get the main concerns out to the
public and also simultaneously be able to give the subtle research based logic and facts
!hich are very often not obviousI
.o you see the difference bet!een !riting research papers and public communicationI
If these t!o could be merged I am sure people !ould have preferred to have only one mode
of dissipation of thoughts and not these & different !aysQ
Lastly I think you should do some reality check before going gaga about your hopes that
technological revolutions in the future !ill enable us to generate more consumables from
less resourcesQ
2omment by Anirbit H September &L, &%%' Y O09@ pm
4eply
o
"ou say0 >Shouldn,t you give credit to Annie for raising good 1uestions even if she
didn,t have great ans!ers to them.?
There are plenty of other people !ho raise the same good 1uestions but don,t provide
completely !rong and misleading ans!ers. I highlighted some of Annie Leonard,s
most blatant errors, such as her completely misleading statement about forest cover.
If the problems she points to are as severe as she believes them to be, she can surely
get more convincing and correct statistics about them.
"ou say0 >Go! easy do you think it is for the maker of the video to get the main
concerns out to the public and also simultaneously be able to give the subtle research
based logic and facts !hich are not very obviousI?
I have no idea ho! easy it is. 7ut I can say this0 if it is very difficult, may be she
doesn,t have a case after all. If it is easy, then she should have done a better =ob.
"ou say >.o you see the difference bet!een !riting research papers and public
communicationI?
Of course I do. 7ut =ust because you,re communicating publicly doesn,t give you the
license to blatantly mis-state facts. To say that the 5nited States has lost 'LA of its
>original forest cover?, !hen the forest cover has hardly changed in the last hundred
year and changed by a marginal fraction over the previous centuries, goes !ell
beyond simplifying facts for >public communication?. And this is not the only
instance of falsehood in the video, though it is the most blatant one.
2omment by vipulnaik H September &L, &%%' Y '0@& pm
4eply

It,s probably =ust an error. Interestingly, your post doesn,t say anything about
the forest cover eitherS this comment is the first place you,ve mentioned that
the forest cover has >hardly changed? or changed by a >marginal fraction?.
Independently, some people might have problems !ith forests being logged,
!hether certain trees are replanted or not. (Xust as some people have problems
!ith animals reared specifically for food, and the argument that those animals
!ould not have been born if not for the food is not convincing.)
"our post has its o!n share of misleading statements, like the false choice
implied bet!een consumerism driving economy and other >alternatives? you
make up H the absence of consumerism doesn,t imply >Soviet-style central
planning? or most production being for the military. The rest of the post is
similar, clutching at stra!s and finding holes !here there are none, and !ith
statements like >a look at the durability of goods !ould probably find that
goods have been becoming more durable over the years?.
2omment by Shreevatsa H September &O, &%%' Y $&09% am
4eply

I think the criti1ue e+pose here is !eaker than the ideas e+posed by
Leonard. 3specially Zcasue you are focusing on selecting specific
sentences and refuting the ideas instead of giving your ideas that !ill
rebate the ones e+posed by her.
One e+ample is !hen you say about a >paternalist government? !hich
is not true. A paternalist government >protect and care of people? but
limiting people,s right covered by moral ideas (like 2hina). She is
certainly not proposing that. She is suggesting a government that
protect from unfairness actions and promotes efficiency in our system.
"our are leaving a lot of decision to the idea that !e have to !ait for
thing to come, like >!hen oil scarce !e !ill change to another thing
that is cheaper? (that a really !eak argument and some kind of
mediocre) but the idea should be that !e should start no! to do that.
The invisible hand of the market is not the panacea to solve all our
resource problems.
Also, the thing about !ages. 7elieve her !hen she says that those
!orkers are subsidi:ing the price !ith their =ob. *ill you live !ith $F@
dollar monthlyI 7ecause that,s the price of a plant !orker in a
manufacturing company in my country (.4) !here the price of food
is similar to those in 5SA, and other thing involving electronics are
more e+pensive. In a country !here there,s a &@A of unemployed you
have to take !hat they pay you, and there is not an union to see after
you and protect your rights.
I recommend to everyone to read >2radle to cradle?, a great book.
And there you can see more about chemicals and those stuff that are
hurtful for people but !e don,t really no! ho! much because some
tests are run for a period that may not sho! us the real effect to long
term and across generations.
Sometimes those e+aggerated calls have the ob=ective of catch
attention and get people involved. Of course she is not right. I,ve lived
in the 5SA, and my family, and I,ve sa! ho! is the consumption
there, and is not healthy. I,ve seen ho! Americans thro! a!ay things
that are perfectly ok =ust to buy a ne! things. It,s not bad to !ant a
ne! thing, but it,s bad to treat that old thing as a trash. *ith food, my
mon used to buy a lot of things =ust because is on discountS 7ut in .4,
my country, she only buys things she is going to use. 7ut those
unmeasured actions !here learned there from the culture she sa!,
immediately back in .4 she !ent back to her normal customs.
I !ant to buy a lot of things, but I !ish they !ere more recyclable,
more prompt to be upgraded than replaced.
I did not understand !hen you said she did not used a primary source
to support her ideas because in a video you !on,t see the !ork she did
to check if those facts are truthful or not. Also, about happiness and all
that, the important thing is to be happy !ith your achievement, and it
doesn,t matter if you have a lot of money or not, it =ust matter to be ok
!ith !hatever it is your reality.
I !ill support you as long as your support more efficiency. *e should
improve in everything, no =ust in big R,s numbersS and !e should start
yesterday. I don,t agree !ith not producing for consumer as you do,
but producing less and producing >rene!able? goods. I,m ok !ith
companies mining for resources, but I e+pect them to do their =ob
completely and restore everything else they broke. I agree !ith closing
the loop. If !e live in a kind of closed environment, !e need a kind of
closed system.
2omment by Xose H August &, &%$% Y F09@ pm
4eply
@.
#y post not only talks of the forest cover, it also gives links to independent !ebsites !here
this data can be checked (including a !ebsite run by the 5.S. government). -eople !ho are
interested in figuring out the e+act numbers can click through those links.
Annie Leonard may have problems !ith forests being logged even if the trees are replanted,
but she didn,t state it as such. Also, this is the most egregious of her errors, but it is hardly
the only one (I !on,t repeat them because you have my post above).
4egarding alternatives to a consumer-driven economy, I actually can,t think of any. The
Soviet-style central planning and production for the military came to my mind as some
plausible-sounding things that could be done instead. .o you have any othersI If you aren,t
producing stuff for consumers, !ho are you producing stuff for any!ayI #ay be she,s only
trying to say that you should produce less >stuff?, but >consumer-driven? isn,t a 1uestion of
[ho! much[ but [for !hom[.
#y statement >!ould probably find? indicates only my personal perception. #ay be I,m
!rong, but I think the first burden of proof !ould be on Leonard. onetheless, if you kno!
of a certain type of good has been becoming less durable over time, do tell me.
2omment by vipulnaik H September &O, &%%' Y $0%V am
4eply
o
I guess her point is really (and fails to make this) that it,s not an economy driven as
such by consumers, but by consumption. Lots of consumption. The thing is that
!hilst it !ould make more real sense perhaps for companies to manufacture less, at a
higher cost, but better 1uality- instead, it relies on people producing cheap rubbish.
this doesn,t necessarily mean the less !ell-off financially !ould be prevented from
affording things- to take that e+ample #s. Leonard used, instead of buying a cheap
R@ radio no! (!hich !ill probably break in short order, or !on,t get very good
reception), you could save up and buy a much better radio for R@%.
This is not the !hole thing, and there is a problem here- even taking the cheap
rubbish out of the e1uation, you still have the problem of !hether people being
encouraged to buy things they don,t need, but might !ant if you convince them !ith
your marketing, is helping prop up business and the economy at large. The thing is,
can you avoid this in any possible alterative system, !ithout having a communist-
stlye planned economyI ( I !ould suppose so, but you,d probably have to outla!
advertising and agressive selling techni1uesM)
2omment by 4ichard H August &$, &%$% Y $&0%% pm
4eply
L. \...] /iled under0 5ncategori:ed H vipulnaik Y '09% pm In a comment to an earlier post of
mine, my friend Anirbit !rote0 >M your over-the-board praise of \...]
-ingback by 2onsumerism ^ Thinking 7eyond 2ompetition H October 9, &%%' Y '09% pm
4eply
O.
The Story of Stuff changed my life. As an evangelical 2hristian pastor, I am called to love
6od and love my neighbor. As I !atched the Story of Stuff, in my heart I really hoped the
facts I learned !ere not true, because being convicted of my sin is really hurts.
*hen I ceasingly consume, I sin against my neighbors on the other side of the !orld, and
against 6od. I !orship my stuff, find my indentity in !hat I o!n. This is classic idolotry.
3ven if the severity of every stat presented !as half true, a 1uarter true, even one percent
true, it does not get me off the hook for being responsible for the part of the arro! to !hich I
contribute.
If I ignore, or rationali:e or diminish the overall message that I got from this video, !hich is
so congruent !ith the 6ospel, loving our neighbors as ourselves, I must not really love 6od
as I claim.
2omment by 1uinn s!oboda H /ebruary $@, &%$% Y O0F9 pm
4eply
V.
.ear vipulnaik,
If you are so sure, !hy don,t you tell the person you are critici:ing all thisI
I am sure she !ould !ant to kno!.
#aybe then she could combat you !ith >some? real sources.
#aybe this should be a more publici:ed argumentI
Oh and, !hat about &,%%% trees lost per minute in the Ama:onI Sure they could replantS but
can they replant &,%%%_ trees fast enough to get results. 3veryone need treesQ
2omment by kallie H #arch @, &%$% Y F0$' pm
4eply
'.
I kne! this !as a propaganda piece as soon as I heard the government,s =ob !as to take care
of us. Thank you for the rebuttal, I =ust !ish the schools !ould teach both sides and 1uit
trying to push an agenda on our children.
2omment by Xeannie H #ay $9, &%$% Y 90@& am
4eply
o
The governemt is supposed to be there for the public good- other!ise there !ould be
no la!s to protect people from other people, to keept the peace, defend the country,
maintain essential infrastructure, and so on. At least that,s ho! it,s supposed to !ork
in a modern democratic state. In the distant past, govenrment might have been
around largely to protect the interests of a small elite, but not no!.
So !hy is it so !rong to suppose the government is not supposed to >take care of?
peopleI I !ould imaine the 5S healthcare system is pretty scre!ed up as it is, and at
least here in the 5T, the GS may not be brilliant but it provides some sort of
service free at the point of need- no having to fork out for private insurance schemes
!hich only sometimes pay out, or hope your employer provides a decent one. And if
you can,t do that, !ho can you turn youI #adiccare or medicaid, !hich are provided
by guess !hoI The government. D3..
2omment by 4ichard H August &$, &%$% Y $$09O am
4eply
o
"our argument is, sorry to say, self-defeating.
"ou,ve =ust pleaded to our public schools to take care of teaching our kids to look at
both sides of this argument.
"et, you argue that it,s not the government,s =ob to take care of us, and to think so is
propaganda.
-lease look critically at the piece, and at your o!n motivations in grasping for a
reason to dismiss it.
The concept of the government taking care of us does not mean !e can feel entitled
to going on !elfare.
Our government !as formed to protect our rights.
I !ould actually think you !ould agree !ith Annie Leonard, had you not shut do!n
so 1uickly. She doesn,t think that government has taken care of us, and hopes to rally
all of us to take care of ourselves, !hether the government =oins in or not.
o
Should kids !atch itI
-erhaps the best place to begin is to try and defuse some of the bombs that have been thro!n in this
debate already. I am not here going to argue that The Story of Stuff should be sho!n in classrooms
in the 5S or the 5T. Some of the facts in the video are overstated. *ith younger kids this !ould
give me cause for concern.
Gaving said that, I don,t like it !hen my young children !atch TN ads ` they are slickly presented
to use psychological and social pressures to influence children. -resumably critics of The Story of
Stuff are =ust as tough on this kind of moulding of young mindsI
Simplicity
I said in my original post that The Story of Stuff (SOS ` is that deliberateI) !as simplistic. I stand
by that =udgement. The criti1ue video (SOSA2II) rightly takes Annie Leonard to task on her over-
long and over-reactive section about to+ins (I !as !orried about this). 7y the same token, though,
simplicity is a feature of mass communication ` !hich is, if !e think about it, a dra!back of our
media-driven society.
Ironically, the criti1ue video is no different. I !as interested, for e+ample, by the comment0 Z-eople
!ho eat meat do it to increase their standard of living,. *e !ill come to this theme again. The
statement is true only up to a point. #eat eating does indeed provide en=oyable cuisine, occasion for
feasting (at least, it did until it became so common), and certain nutrients. I eat meatS I,m very
thankful to be able to do so. 7ut if !e =ust keep on eating more and more food (including meat) our
standard of living does actually begin to decrease due to obesity and other hyper-consumption
disorders. Lee .oran is a fan of graphs, but his video misses the point that in the 5S and 5T there
are no! serious concerns that life e+pectancy !ill start to fall.
2an !e please move on no!I
I en=oyed the passion for debate in the criti1ue of SOS, and I !as grateful for it setting some facts
straight. 7ut as the video progresses it becomes ever clearer that !e are straying into a right-left
Zbig government, debate.
Is it =ust me !ho !orries that this is unhelpfulI Isn,t there a risk that bringing right-left battles into a
debate about natural resources and consumer culture is =ust going to stir up a set of old rivalries and
tired argumentsI The reference to communism at the end of the final part brings back the reassuring
enmities of the cold !ar. 2an !e get beyond that no!, pleaseI Aren,t the issues of consumerism,
lifestyle, the environment, trade =ustice and the poverty of billions enough to prompt us to address
this 1uestion in a fresh and open !ayI
A fe! responses on specific points are in order.
3fficiency
One of .oran,s points is that as !e get more efficient, the harnessing of the earth,s resources and
the creation of !aste is not so much of an issue. There,s al!ays more !e can utilise and !e are
getter better and better at making the most of it and then disposing of it efficiently.
There is mileage in this. 7ut only so much. The criti1ue states0 Z#ining has been going on since the
4oman 3mpire,. Sounds great. It implies that mining could go on forever. 7ut in terms of normal
fossil fuels I think most people !ould doubt this.
Again the criti1ue states0 Z*e haven,t scratched the surface, (accompanied by a picture of the !hole
globe, chopped open so !e can see the crust, mantle, outer core, etc). Is this a little optimisticI It,s
an argument from possibility. Some efficiencies and ne! technologies !ill undoubtedly come to our
aid. 7ut is it !ise to ignore the !arnings from a ma=ority of scientists about resource depletion in
the hope that Zsomething !ill turn up,I -erhaps Lee !ould like to take a lead in being more creative
!ith the earth,s resources by setting up home in the outer core of our planetM
-rices
A little economics can be a dangerous thing. And students of economics !ould be !ise to 1uestion
some of the dogmas they imbibe (isn,t that part of the purpose of educationI). .oran rightly points
out that the market can, in theory, self-correct as things become scarce (is he accepting then that
things are becoming scarceI). *hat he doesn,t say is that Zthe market, doesn,t kno! or care !hat
the cost of this might be to the actual people !ho are living on the earth.
Z-eople self-ration their resources, he states. .o they reallyI If prices spike (e.g., food prices across
Africa &%%O-V) many people !ill not be able to ration their resources.
Sometimes they die. *here does that fit on the graphI
It doesn,t.
I !ould be suspicious of basing an entire social order around a mathematical construct that takes no
note of !hether people live or die. 3conomically speaking, if people die the demand curve !ill
lessen leading to a drop in prices. Thank goodness there are more !ays for human beings to speak
than simply in terms of economics.
aivet; and turning a blind eye
.oran seems to believe that prices al!ays capture the real cost of a product. This is a literalism that
economic theory cannot bear even on its o!n terms. -rices, in pure theory, are simply !here supply
meets demand. They reflect !hat people !ho have money are prepared to pay for something.
3conomic theory !orks !ith this notion as the definition of Zprice,. 7ut this system is ill-fitted to
embrace all that !e mean by the Zcost, of producing something.
I am astonished by the faith some economists place in the market. If I trusted in 6od half as much I
!ould be a saintQ
At the end of the day, there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the proper constraints of a free
market and the role of government. There are reasons to entertain the point attributed to 2hurchill
ZIt has been said that democracy is the !orst form of government e+cept all the others that have
been tried,. -erhaps this applies to capitalism too. -erhaps. Though there is more than one !ay to
run a capitalist system. Go!ever there is a level of naavet; that is unacceptable.
The criti1ue of SOS remarks0 ZI,d love to find the central planners in a free market society,
assuming that there are none. Gas he never heard of #ilton /riedmanI .oes he think that
politicians make no decisions at allI
The criti1ue says0 Zthe point of an advertisement is to make the citi:enry a!are of the goods and
services in society, (I detect the troublesome symptoms of a s!allo!ed te+tbook). Advertising is
simply about raising a!arenessI This is incredibly naave. o! !hose head is in the cloudsI I doubt
any advertiser !ill offer him a =ob soonQ
The criti1ue says0 *e go to other countries for production because of Zeconomies of scale,.
2ertainly this is true. 7ut only because of thatI Are there no other reasons !hy production is
cheaper outside the richest nationsI *hat about the greater concern for human rightsI *hat about
the fact that communities are strong enough to protest against developments they don,t likeI *hat
about imbalances of po!er that make poorer nations indebted to rich nationsI *hat about the fact
that international trade bodies are !eighted not according to population (as if people mattered most)
but according to political po!er and !ealthI Is .oran ignorant of the political deals that are struckI
*ho o!ns the land and resources that change handsI Go! do !e kno! such transactions are
legitimateI
I remember once living in a !orld !here economic theory governed things so simply. 7ut I =ust
don,t recognise it anymore. The constant recourse to simple models, and the shrill repetition of
financial dogma makes me begin to !onder if the criti1ue is trying to hide from a comple+ !orld
behind the simplicity of economics.
7ut naivet; is more dangerous than merely being intellectually unsophisticated. .oran,s video
defends that fact that corporations have such huge resources at their disposal. This is not a problem
to him. 7ut it should be. Any lover of pure economic theory kno!s that monopolies distort price
curves. Any realist kno!s that !ith such huge figures at stake companies !ill be tempted to use all
manner of means to further their interests. Some of these, like unofficial cartels, !ill illegally distort
the marketS others the market may allo!, like lobbying overseas governments to allo! dangerous
!ork practices that !ould never be allo!ed in the 5S or 5T, but they still !ork against human
flourishing.
The po!er of the corporations is one aspect of the real politik that !e may have to live !ith. 7ut to
argue that it is not a problem opens the door to the !orst kind of abuses. *hat initially sounds like
an enlightened, balanced re=oinder to The Story of Stuff ends up encouraging us to turn a blind eye
to some of the most po!erful human organisations on the planet !ho need the accountability a
!atching public can provide.
The rigid assertion made in the criti1ue (Zonly capitalism is sustainable,) makes sense on the lips of
a !ealthy corporate advocate, or indeed any member of an elite country !ith immense political and
military po!er. It might even turn out to be true. 7ut I !ould be !ary of !hat else gets smuggled in
under such a certain guise.
Opening up the debate
*here do !e go from hereI
At the end of the day, !hat frustrated me most about the criti1ue of The Story of Stuff !as the !ay
it seemed to close do!n debate. At one point, the video presents a simple choice0 either live an
impossibly poor life in grinding poverty O4 get a crap =ob to make cheap goods at the !him of the
market. I accept that for many people on the planet, this choice is a real one.
7ut is it really the only optionI Actually, no. There is /air Trade, !hich provides a more secure
income and a premium to invest locally (no, I am not suggesting that if the !hole !orld !ent /air
Trade this !ould be a good thing). 6overnments, 6Os and charities intervene to improve health,
education and employment opportunities. #icrofinance initiatives encourage grass roots
entrepreneurship (several friends of mine are doing this right no! around the !orld). The concept
of human rights has lifted many people out of ab=ect !orking conditions (I don,t think it,s a cheap
shot to point out that economic arguments !ere once made against the abolition of slavery). There
is a serious campaign to lo!er unfair trade tarriffs ` perhaps this is an issue !e could unite on
across the political spectrum.
In other !ords, there,s more than one !ay to develop a healthy economy.
/or instance, to take up the analogy used in SOS and its criti1ue, !e can save R@ by getting a cheap
radio so !e can pay the ne!spaper boy, thus stimulating the economy. O4 !e can pay R$% for a
better-made radio because !e make things to last, refuse to be so !asteful and enter into trade
agreements so !e kno! that the people !ho made our products are better treated. The R$% !ill still
trickle do!n through our beloved economy. 7ut it !ill trickle do!n much further than =ust our local
paperboy (!ho !ill probably survive =ust fine). It stands a much better chance of getting to the
people !ho need it most.
So here,s the big 1uestion0 .o Lee .oran and my intemperate blogging friend Zclancop, believe in
creativityI .o they believe in providing ne!, better options and the surprising resourcefulness of
humanity to find not =ust ne! resources but better !ays of !orking !ithin a broadly capitalist
systemI Or is this a done dealI
In a !orld !here it is estimated that $ billion people are going hungry I don,t think !e have the
lu+ury of closing the debate do!n. I,m not convinced that this is the moment for un1uestioning
trust in corporations and blind application of economic theory.
The best traditions of the liberal democratic spirit (not to mention the solemn in=unctions of the
2hristian faith) lead us to a different approach. They lead us to a realistic appraisal of political
po!er and the inherent dangers of human nature left to its o!n devices. And they lead to a tireless,
open, constructive debate on ho! best to ste!ard and develop the resources !e have.
.oran,s video is concerned about guilt, and this is understandable !hen thinking of children
!atching The Story of Stuff. 7ut he seems to imply that !e should all think about this less. I don,t
!ant to think about this less. I !ant to think about this more. I don,t !ant to close do!n options. I
!ant to hear from creative people !hose eyes are open both to the benefits of capitalist
consumerism and its current costs.
If you,re interested in that endeavour, then I,d like to hear more.
Like this:
Like
One blogger likes this post.

Pass it on:
Twitter
Facebook
Email

from business, environment

b eed moreI
Top Ten 7ooks on 2onsumerism c
F9 2omments leave one c
$. c
lancop -34#ALIT
October V, &%%' L099 pm
I can,t disagree !ith you enough. "ou try to mediate bet!een t!o vie!s, one supported by facts,
the other !ell-funded propaganda !hich its creator has put out to t!ist the facts. .id you not notice
ho! she purposely misstated certain pointsI Like ho! there is supposedly only four percent of the
original forests leftI Lee .oren and other have pointed out that in her on footnotes, this point is
contradicted by the source she cites. That isn,t all thoughM
/or commercialsI I doubt !atching an advertisement for the ne! television sho! on 72 or an
advertisement for that ne! movie is theatres has as serious an impact as the Story of Stuff. In the
e! "ork Times, article on this piece, they discuss ho! 4afael de la Torre 7atker, a ' year-old-boy,
is terrified that !anting to get a ne! set of legos !ill destroy the 3arth. 3+plain to me ho! this is
the same againI "ou can,t. The movie is specifically targeted at young children to guilt them into a
lifestyle >Little Annie Lunatic? !ants them to live. Aside from commercials generally pushing one
product or another on a consumer, there is nothing there that needs a sit-do!n talk or therapy to deal
!ith.
Increasing your standard of living by eating meatI Go! don,t you understand thisI #y time spent
in antong, 2hina sho!ed me that this makes much more sense than you !ould !ant to admit. I
took my students to #c.onalds one day to find out that they don,t usually eat beef, they can,t
afford it. 7eef is a lu+ury, one the average 2hinese person cannot afford. 3ven 2hicken is used
sparingly outside the ma=or cities. As funny as that might sound to you, but meat is generally only
something those !ith money can afford to have on a regular basis. *ithout meat, there gro!th is
stunted, they are thin and poorly nourished, as !ell as a sle! of health problems !e don,t deal !ith
here because of our lifestyle. That graphI Look up the stra! man fallacy. "ou !ant to debate,
debate the points.
On efficiencyI "ou come off once again as an ass. Setting up a house on the outer coreI "ou
2O#-L3T3L" ignored his point on oil byproducts, along !ith his points on the discovery of
different materials and fuels. The more and more I read this article, the more and more I see it as an
attack on those !illing to do the research you refuse to. As for your point on coal mining going on
forever, that isn,t !hat he said. >Little Annie Lunatic? !as purposely trying to link coal mining !ith
our modern !ay of life, !hen in actuality, it has been going on for centuries. I made a point about
this myself, attacking her !hen she tries to pin the materials economy to the $'@%s. She purposely
t!ists the facts to push an unapologetic propaganda piece. If she really cared about all these
materials, !hy publish a .N.I The disc, the bo+, the art!ork, the packaging, etc all uses up
materials rightI Go! about transporting those discs across the countryI If you really !ant to split
hairs, she is a hypocrite of the first order. There are rene!able and non-rene!able materials,
something !hich is 2O#-L3T3L" ignore by you and Leonard !hen you push this argumentM
-atheticM
A little economicsI "a, in your hand that is a dangerous thing. "ou are a t!it you kno! thatI I,m
going to educate you because it is obvious you need to be. There are elastic and non-elastic goods,
things that,s demand !ill be or !on,t be affected by price changes. If the price goes up on 2.s and
.N.s, demand drops, meaning fe!er and fe!er people !ill buy it. This is an elastic good. If the
price of food goes up, !hile people !ill buy less of the >lu+uries?, their demand for the basics !ill
not change much. This is an inelastic good. Same goes for oil. *ithout a proper substitute, demand
drops slightly !hen prices rise. 7efore you critici:e >2orvan? (I corrected it, his name is .oren) for
not e+plaining this, be sure to read up on the steady decline in tourism follo!ing the spike in oil
prices. .emand doesn,t shift much for enough oil for basic uses, it does affect !hether or not the
family decides to go on that trip to /lorida to see 6randma or to .isney *orld. As for your
discussion on theory, L3A4 ITQ 3conomics isn,t a soft social science like politics or sociology, it
is ground firmly in history and mathematics. I spent four years of my life getting my degree, not
four minutes on 6oogle. "ou don,t debate these hard truths like supply and demand you t!it. It
doesn,t take into account the effect to people living on the 3arthI Last time I check, capitalism !as
raising the standard of living, TG3 D5ALIT" O/ LI/3, for everyone !ho partakes in it. .on,t
believe meI Ask the 2hineseM
"ou !ant to continue insulting my education, you !ant to continue thro!ing around nonsenseI
Okay, fineM.
#ilton /riedman is OT a central planner. A central planner you idiot is someone !ho !orkers to
plan and run an economy under a central po!er, meaning the government. This is ho! countries
like Soviet 4ussia and 2ommunist 2hina 5S3. TO run their economiesM 4I6GT ITO TG3
64O5.Q The economy is more like a living and breathing being than a mathematical formula,
mainly because at its core, the economy is simply the gather of people to buy and sell goods and
services. It usually follo!s the basic theory, but various outside forces, like natural disasters and
social8political circumstances, can cause it to behave differently. o! #ilton /riedman, like others
before him, !as an economic adviser to the -resident of the 5nited States, at the time, 4onald
4eagan. The president asked /riedman and others !hat the government could do to help the
economy, to fi+ the problems that the prior administration left, like double digit unemployment,
interest rates and inflation. /riedman didn,t plan anything, he simply advised 4eagan to take certain
actions so that the economy could gro!. If he planned it, there !ouldn,t have been some the issues
>4eaganomics? created, like the continuing gro!th of inflation. 6et that through your head you
t!itQ
3conomics being simpleI *here did you get that idea, on the back of a cereal bo+I 3conomic
theory has 3N34 been simple. The 7ullionist practices of the Spanish brought their country into
economic collapse, the fur trade in 2anada !as crippled by changing fashion trends in 3urope, the
mismanagement of the investment and banking sector in the $'&%ds gave birth to the economic
depression the the $'F%ds, etc "ou talk, like Leonard, as if all this is ne!. IT IS,TQ 2artels e+isted
long before O-32, and government itself is the most insidious form of monopoly, especially !hen
it comes to health care and food production. "ou talk as if people going poor and hungry is our
fault, but last time I checked, these poor areas are usually consumed by civil !ar. #oney given to
buy food ends up in the hands of dictators looking to improve their military arsenal. It !as only
eight years ago, but I guess you forgot the Oil for /ood program !ith Ira1 didn,t youI Once again,
you don,t kno! !hat you are talking about, but a little economics is truly a dangerous thing isn,t itI
As for debateI There is no debate !ith falsities. Ger facts are !rong, .oren and others have
provided evidence to prove this, even Leonard,s o!n footnotes do damage to her nonsensical
argument. "ou act as if do!nright lies and slander are simply the other side of a one-sided issue.
/acts are facts, and no stra! man argument you concoct !ill change that. As for your many appeals
to emotion, I am not someone !ho is going to feel bad that I have !hat I have and someone else
does not. I !ork hard, !hether it be in school, around the house, etc for !hat I have. I !orked far
harder than any of my co!orkers in 2hina to make as little as I did, but you kno! !hatI I felt good
about it. "ou !ant to truly end povertyI 63T -3O-L3 XO7SQ "ou !ant to sit around discussing
ho! !e shouldn,t en=oy our lu+uries, tell you !hat, ho! about instead of buying a ne! laptop, ho!
about you instead donate that money to the needyI After all, !ith your lack of a proper education,
you !on,t be needing to it debate people like .oren and myself. "ou !on,tI Of course not,
hypocrites like you never !ant to make the sacrifices you demand !e makeM
I do !ant to think about this nonsense less, since thinking about the lunacy you and >Little Annie
Lunatic? push angers me. "ou are talking about denying economic progress to those !ho truly need
it, you talk about keeping the poor on the farms, condemning them to a life of servitude to you and
others !ho ignore their struggle and are obsessed !ith romantici:ing peasant life, etc I !ant to
think about this less because obviously thinking about it more has given voice to the uneducated
radicals in our society. "ou !ant to think about somethingI Go! about ne! !ays of mining ore,
more environmentally friendly A. economically viable !ays to improve our standard of living (I
included the A. because people like you and Leonard purposely ignore that), etc because that is
!here time should be spent. "ou !ant to live the >environmentally friendly? life you preach, fine,
but don,t e+pect the rest of us !ill follo! suit.
"ou kno! very little about the environment, even less about economics, and you ask me !hy I am
vociferousI "ou insult my education, my father,s education, the millions of hard !orking orth
Americans !ho participate in our system, the million more in developing countries !ho !ouldn,t
achieve our standard of living if >Little Annie Lunatic? got her !ay, etc and you e+pect me to be
okay !ith itI o, no I !on,t be. 6et informed and stop >drinking the Tool-Aid?, you,ve had
enoughM
7y the !ay, I copied and pasted my response because all of you drones are alike. "ou hold the same
nonsensical beliefs, from the same uneducated sources, so !hy should I bother debating each and
everyone one of youI Like I copied my response, you are simply a copy of the ne+t drone pushing
the garbageM
-atheticM .o!nright patheticM
43-L"
&. #
ark -34#ALIT
October ', &%%' $&0@9 am
Gi 2lancop,
*ell, I,m glad you couldn,t disagree !ith me more. I !as starting to !orry !hat it might be like if
you didQ
-oint taken on Lee,s name ` I have changed this.
I didn,t intend to insult you !ith the post. The tone of the criti1ue and of your o!n posts is sharp, so
I thought that you !ould be happy to receive comment in kind. Apologies if this caused offence.
I take your point about economics up to a point. I am not a specialist ` you have studied it more
than me. I am frustrated by the lack of gracious and intelligent debate on this issue, but I do not
retract my vie! that the criti1ue video !as simplistic.
On specific points0
I do not defend factual inconsistency. I !asn,t convinced by all of .oran,s re=oinders to Annie
Leonard, but on the !hole you are right to be angry about errors in materials used in schools.
On commercials, my concern is broader than the immediate effect of putting a given child into
therapy. /or !hat it,s !orth, a book like Oliver Xames, ZAffluen:a, links consumer culture !ith
several issues of mental health and 1uality of life. 7efore you accuse him of being some kind of
eco-freak, my point is simply that as a clinical psychologist he is concerned.
On meat, I don,t think !e have understood each other. I do not contest that meat is a good and a
privilege (resource implications aside ` grain, !ater, etc). As I understand it, though, over-
consumption of food is increasingly causing obesity-related illnesses in the 5S and 5T. The
hyperlink in the te+t demonstrates that this could !ell have an effect on life e+pectancy. .oran,s
point seemed to me to be that living standards tended to rise !ith increased
consumerism8consumptionS the issue of obesity sho!s that this is only true up to a point. (The same
point is often made about the link bet!een money and happiness ` it seems only to correlate
statistically up to a given point. "our point about 1uality of life under capitalism is broadly correct
for many people, but in this area I !onder !hat global research you are basing it on. If you 1uote
only financial figures in reply, that !ould seem to beg the 1uestion about !hat constitutes 1uality of
life. There are plenty of detailed psychological studies that paint a more comple+ picture).
On demand, I do recall the difference bet!een elastic and inelastic goods. I !asn,t thinking of a
!estern conte+t at all in my point. In !ealthy countries a spike in oil prices may !ell lead to a
decline in tourism. #y point !as that in the African food crisis a sharp hike in food prices led to
severe shortages and, at the very least, the risk of death.
I like your definition of the economy as a living breathing being. I am dra!ing attention to !ays in
!hich the market is distorted, imperfect, and sub=ect to a host of political and military pressures. I
!asn,t at all implying that cartels and suchlike are ne!. On the contrary, they surely have been at
!ork in one form or other since the beginning of trade. This is my point ` trade doesn,t al!ays
follo! Zthe rules, (even of sophisticated economic models) due to the imbalance of po!er bet!een
various parties involved.
On #ilton /riedman, I kno! that he !asn,t a central planner in the sense you describe. 7ut as you
say, his theories (by no means the only possible theoretical approach to the discipline of economics)
had a strong influence on government policies. *e,re back to the idea that the free market doesn,t
e+ist in a vacuum and that economic theory, despite being distinct from softer social sciences, is not
uniform.
I,m not sure !here in my post you got the idea that I !as asking people to stay on farms or
romanticising peasant life. -erhaps !e could make a deal !hereby I try harder to deal !ith
ob=ective facts (point taken) and you avoid lumping me together !ith other people you disagree
!ithI
I like your idea about mining ore. Invention, industry, endeavour, concern for the environment (!e
could call it long-term efficiency) and a desire to see people earn a decent living. These concerns
can live together. -robably they must.
#ark
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October ', &%%' O09L am
I critici:e you because you refuse to listen to reason. *hy I continue commenting is
beyond me, but I see a !rong, and I feel a need to right itM
SimplisticI Ge !as simply pointing out serious problems in Leonard,s argument. If
you !ant to talk about simplicity, !hy not look at >Little Annie Lunatic,s? videoI She
ignores the rene!ing of forests, the recycling plants in orth America, etc Last time I
checked, the 5nited States still gets the ma=ority of its ra! material imports from
2anada, not from the third !orld as she implied. She also puts fi+ed numbers on
resources !e can,t even measure. Go! many trees !ould have to be chopped do!n
before !e look else!here for lumberI In actuality, forests in the !estern !orld have
gro!n, the 1uality of life has gone up, the 1uality of air has improved. 2ase in point,
!e no longer hear of the London Smog !hich !as a serious health risk for Londoners
during the Industrial 4evolution. Ger logic is far too simplistic on this issue, and Lee
.oren simply e+plains these comple+ities in simple terms.
As for commercialismI So !hatI I see a commercial for a ne! movie, I kno! right
a!ay that the company pushing that ad has paid for air time. #oney given to
broadcasters !hich is used to pay salaries and hire ne! !orkers. I go and partake in
that good or service advertised and my money, !hich I am freely spending (if I buy
something, it is because I !ant or need it, not because someone is forcing me to buy it)
is going to !hoever is providing that good or service. I take my disposal income,
>invest it? and that puts money in the pocket of another person !ho can do the same. It
keeps the system gro!ing, and this brings prosperity to more and more people. The
Story of Stuff is the anti-ad, its purpose is to stop the machine from moving, to scare
children into accepting radical beliefs that they cannot understand at their young age. I
am sick and tired of hearing ho! profits are evil, especially !hen it is that >evil? that
allo!s small and large companies to raise !ages and hire ne! !orkers. 5nderstandI
And !hat !as that nonsense about free markets don,t e+ist in a vacuumI *hen is any
science truly uniformI Like economics, scientific theory is constantly changing and
correcting itself. Take climate change science for e+ample. 3ven the name itself !as
changed from >global !arming? only a year or t!o ago, !hich !as changed from
>global cooling? a fe! years before. Xust like science, basic economic theory can be
proven through simple tests and e+amples.
The imbalance in the economy can be corrected either by invoking ne! government
policies or by removing older ones. #ilton /riedman pushed !hat is kno!n as
>laisse:-faire? economics, a purely free market ideology. *hile farther more
preferable than !hat !e see no! in the 5nited States, it has a fe! fla!s. The
>invisible hand? can sort out most of the problems an economy can face, but !ithout
restraint, such unrestrained competition encourages monopolies and oligopolies,
creating an imbalance in the markets. A guiding hand of government can control this,
but only !hen it isn,t !rapped around the throat of the economy. #aintaining balance
is the key, and if it !ere as easy as Leonard and you have suggested, !e !ould have
central planners. Advisers are nothing like these foolish central planners in Soviet
4ussia or 2ommunist 2hina, people !ho blindly follo!ed Tarl #ar+,s teachings,
ignoring common sense. Look up .eng eiaoping, the man !ho moved 2hina to!ards
the market economy. Gis re=ection of central planning got him thro!n out of the
2ommunist -arty t!ice by #ao Pedong, and for his >blasphemy?, he still is hated by
the hard line 2ommunists !ithin 2hina.
As for the food shortages in the third !orld, !ho is to blame for that latelyI The push
to!ard bio fuels have drastically raised the price of !heat. 4isks of deathI Go! about
the resurgence of malariaI ..T nearly !iped it out, but environmentalist radicals
prevented that. Those living belo! the poverty line around the !orld have more to
!orry about that the ice caps melting. "ou !ant to actually help these peopleI 6et out
of their !ay, let them develop. "ou !ill see their 1uality of life improveM
And as for ho! I kno! their 1uality of life !ill improveI I LIN3. ITQ I !as going to
let it go, but you act as if my kno!ledge on this sub=ect doesn,t matter !ithout a chart
to back it out. I could point to 6.- gro!th rates in 2hina, I could point to the urban
development in both small and large cities, but seeing as ho! I lived in
underdeveloped antong, I am pretty sure I kno! !hat the truth is. Other than
camping in your backyard and going on protest trips, !hat have you done !ith your
lifeI *here have you beenI o!hereM I have climbed the 6reat *all, been to the
tombs of the 3mperors, shopped in Shanghai, etc and all that time, I sa! ho! the
country !as changing. In antong, T/2 is every!here, #c.onalds can be found
do!nto!n and -i::a Gut is =ust a short !alk from there. .oesn,t sound impressiveI
*ell !e take those restaurants for granted, !e don,t understand that to a country that
has kno!n real poverty (their homeless don,t have clothing, let alone cellphones), to
be able to en=oy a 7ig #ac is considered a lu+ury. 7ecause of >evil? corporations,
2hina has become the second largest consumer market in the !orld, and as their
1uality of life continues to increase, it !ill surpass the 5nited States in that regard.
These people can afford to purchase !hat they make for us, they can en=oy the very
same lu+uries that !e have taken for granted for far too long.
e+t time you .A43 to 1uestion that truth, I !on,t bother being nice, I !ill do more
than call you out as a naive environmentalist !ho has no understand of economics or
ho! your arrogance is hurting those you claim to !ant to helpM 3n=oy your laptop,
en=oy your Starbucks 2offee, etc and kno! that of the O@%_ students I taught, 3A2G
A. 3N34" O3 O/ TG3# *O5L. T4A.3 -LA23S *ITG "O5 I A
G3A4T73ATQ 6ro! upM
43-L"
F. #
ark -34#ALIT
October ', &%%' L0$F pm
Gi clancop,
I don,t dispute many of the things you say here. It,s a shame, really, that !e,re not discussing proper
books on either side of the issue. The reliance on youtube videos is a real !eakness, as the issues
you are addressing in your replies are comple+ (even this e+change of posts is helping me to see a
level of detail in your argument that my engagement !ith the criti1ue video did not).
I don,t kno! ho! to respond to your concern about profits being evil or corporations being evil. I
haven,t made that allegation, so I don,t see ho! I can respond. I,m sure corporations, like
governments and individuals, are capable of evil or in=ustice. I,m not looking either to demoni:e or
fully absolve corporations en masse. I think there is credit due in cases like 2hinaS in other instances
there is a need for greater accountability.
On the science of economics, I,ve found The e! 3conomics /oundation a helpful stimulus. It
seems that you,re coming from a modified Zlaisse: faire, approach. I !ouldn,t put myself in Annie
Leonard,s camp, but I,m interested in the spectrum of options bet!een /riedman and !hatever
Annie Leonard represents.
The point you make about 2hina is clearly a strong e+ample of the po!er of the market.
2onse1uently, you and I might both be strong supporters of a fairer balance of po!er in trade
negotiations and a reduction of tarriffs on imports from developing countries.
Again, no!here in the posts above have I argued that 2hina, for instance, hasn,t benefitted from
freer markets and consumerism. I ackno!ledge your e+perience of real improvements for the
2hinese ` personally speaking I !ould find this a stronger argument if it accompanied an
ackno!legdement of some of the potential do!nsides of global consumerism. I,m not saying this
!ould mean !e have to someho! Zput the brakes on, the market ` the do!nsides might be an
unavoidable ` but still it !ould make it easier to face the comple+ realities of the situation. *ho
kno!s, !e might find !ays to continue to contribute to the economic development of poorer
nations but !ithout some of the do!nsidesI
At the end of the day, for me !estern consumerism is not a straightfor!ardly good system that I
dare not 1uestion. I have concerns about obesity, erosion of community, environmental limits of
consumption (if the science is right), in=ustice and a self-centred culture. At the same time I do feel
profoundly grateful for the many privileges I en=oy and I agree that billions of people !ould change
places !ith me in an instant (!hich makes this discussion an important one). 7y the same token,
I,m a!are of much good that has come through the e+tension of global capitalismS but this doesn,t
mean that I !ant to ignore the various financial, political and military forces that sometimes !ork
against the poor.
*hether I am a hypocrit or not is (mercifully) not for you to =udge, as you do not kno! me or my
life. 7ut this is my e+perience of consumerism. I think that any fruitful discussion needs to be able
to !ork !ith that ambiguous e+perienceS and I don,t think I,m alone in that.
Thank you for taking the time to comment though, and for bringing a perspective from 2hina that
gives your vie!s genuine support.
#ark
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $%, &%%' V0%F pm
"ou don,t have to make your beliefs on profits kno!n, your original support of >Little
Annie Lunatic? tells me that you at first believed this nonsense about profits ignored
people. 3very time I hear a supporter of Leonard,s beliefs open their mouth, they say
something to the affect that our system e+ploits the !orking person for profits, or that
!e our >raping nature? for profits, or that !e are >murdering innocents? for profits, etc
Same nonsense from identical drones. I am not telling you to accept Lee .oren,s
criti1ue or any other criti1ue !ithout 1uestioning it, but I am saying that do your
research to find out !hy it is right and Leonard is !rong.
#ilton /riedman !asn,t !rong. #uch of !hat he believes is right, that the economy
!ill correct itself, etc but I disagree that >laisse:-faire? economics is the best system. I
disagree !ith other conservatives on this because of their belief that government
invention in the economy can only create problems. The problem is that !hen
governments do intervene, they usually go far beyond !hat is necessary. Look at the
2ommunity 4einvestment Act for proof of this, since it goes far beyond simple
regulations and pushes a policy that cannot be maintained because it !ould and .I.
cripple the banks. Leonard,s beliefs, on the other hand, aren,t even !ithin the bounds
of reality. but !hat do you e+pect from a radical like herI She is an anti-human, anti-
progress nonsense that got her >education? (and I use that term loosely because she is
ignorant) from groups like 6reenpeace, and organi:ation !hich its co-founder, -atrick
#oore had to leave because it had radicali:ed.
6ive the video a !atch, he discusses the rise of >anti-humanism? !ithin the
movement, something !hich forced him to leave.
2hinese development, as !ell as the development of other poor nations, is usually not
environmentally friendly, but !ho are !e to =udgeI London !as a breeding ground for
sickness and disease during its early years, 6ermany had stripped its land of forests
(not all mind you, but enough to be noticed), etc but look at them no!. The latter is
considered the driving force in 3urope for environmentalism. As I told my students,
>you don,t clean the kitchen until you are done cooking?. *e cannot force these
regulations on developing nations until they can even afford to implement them.
4adicals like Leonard believe that, because of the environmental damage done during
the early stages of economic development, that these underdeveloped nations should
not be allo!ed to achieve it. 4adicals like her romantici:e peasant life so that they call
get people to believe this nonsense. If you ask me, it borders on racism, that because
you aren,t among the developed !orld, you shouldn,t be allo!ed our lu+uries, !hich
is based on !here you are born, and !hat racial group you =ust happen to fall under.
As for consumerism, it is all personal. Obesity is the result of personal choices, not
because the economic system added more food to your plate. Xust because you can
afford to eat more, doesn,t mean you should. If you do, !hy not hit the gymI *hy not
e+erciseI These are all personal choices, and because of our system, !e do have the
time to make them. Once again, returning to >Little Annie Lunatic?, these radicals
advocate returning to peasant life, !here entire families had to !ork t!elve hours a
day for very little. o time for education, let alone a variety of other activities and
hobbies. These people in developing nations !ant our lifestyle because it offers
personal freedoms. Xust because some people don,t make the right personal choices, it
doesn,t mean that the system they are part of is someho! fla!ed.
As for the erosion of community, it is a matter of opinion. 7ecause you and I are
having this discussion, it sho!s that communities are actually e+panding. Look at
*orld of *arcraft, 7li::2on, bringing together people !ho !ouldn,t have even
kno!n each other if not for a simple computer game. 2ommunity is redefining itself,
no eroding, but even the traditional definition of community is seeing e+pansion.
eighbourhoods are much larger, more people are into politics, etc "ou have to be
careful !hen you discuss these issues since it paints you as =ust another Leonard.
This isn,t about environmental limits, this isn,t even about the environment, it is about
politics. >6reen is the ne! 4ed?, and much of the policies radicals like Leonard push
are simply socialist in nature. .oes it strike you as odd that at the end of the video she
discusses uniting the !orkers of the !orldI That is right out of #ar+, and more than
anything, should tell you to disregard !hat she is preaching. o political or economic
system has done more to create poverty than #ar+ism, and !hile !orking to!ards a
cleaner environment is important (I plant trees and recycle myself), that isn,t !hat
>Little Annie Lunatic? !ants.
7e careful, educate yourself, and stay a!ay from these >!ell meaning? radicalsM
43-L"
9. X
eremy -34#ALIT[
October $%, &%%' $%09' am
I,m afraid, clancop, that you,ve s!allo!ed the neo-liberal theories !hole, !ithout 1uestioning
them. Gave you read /riedrich List or Xoseph SchumpeterI Xohn Tenneth 6albraithI ot to mention
3 / Schumacher, or the ecological economics of German .alyI
2onsumerism is all pervasive, the sea !e s!im in. #ost people don,t even think to 1uestion it, so
it,s no surprise that you haven,t either. There is a huge !ealth of alternative economic theory, going
right back to the $L%%s, that they !on,t teach you in a four year degree. "ou should read some.
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $%, &%%' O0$O pm
eo-liberal theoriesI 3+cuse meI ot at all. I do preach about taking a hands off
approach to economics, read my blog, but the problem is that you cannot maintain an
economy by letting it govern itself. Xust like society at large, there are la!s !hich must
govern it. >Laisse:-faire? economic plans have lead to the gro!th of monopolies and
oligopolies, !hich !ere reigned in through government intervention. It isn,t that the
economy should have the government regulating it, especially !hen it is easy to see
ho! anything more than a guiding hand !ill lead to serious economic problems, but a
completely free system is not !hat I support or !hat I preach. So I honestly don,t get
this nonsense about neo-liberal theories since economics, but nature, is very
conservative.
Xoseph Schumpeter !as *4O6Q The only thing he got right in his theory of creative
destruction !as that entrepreneurship and innovation are destructive, in that older and
obsolete goods and services, even business methods, are discarded and replaced. It is
the very nature of competition, and because it IS continual, Schumpeter !as !rong,
but than again, his choice of political ideology has also failed every!here it !as tried.
Xohn Tenneth 6albraith didn,t abandon capitalism, /riedrich List,s ideas of
protectionism doomed Xapan to years of economic stagnation, and 3 / Schumacher
re=ected capitalism and materialism. "ou !ant to argue !ith a man !ho has a four year
degree, 63T O3 "O54S3L/Q
As for alternative economic theories, I guess you !eren,t listening. 7ullionism !as the
economic policy !hich drove 3uropean colonialism. It failed !hen it !as reali:ed that
maintaining colonies instead of simply looting them !as far more profitable.
2entrali:ed planningI Something an uneducated socialist like you !ould support, lead
to economic destruction in Soviet 4ussia and 2ommunist 2hina. .eng eiaoping
moved to!ards *estern capitalism since it proved superior in that it lead to economic
gro!th !here the other simply draining resources, shrinking the economy. I could go
on about the numerous ideas that !ere floated by various different theorists, all !hom
!ere proven !rong and have been forgotten by most because of their failures, but I
suggest you get a degree in economics.
"ou !ant to talk about !ho s!allo!ed !hat nonsenseI I am not the one clinging to a
failed political and economic systemM -atheticM
7y the !ay, your picture gives you a!ay. Only an uneducated t!it like yourself !ould
think the scruffy look !ith an unmarked cap is anything but socialist !ear.
43-L"
X
eremy -34#ALIT[
October $9, &%%' L0%@ pm
It,s a shame they didn,t teach some basic manners as part of that much
vaunted degree, but there you go. "ou,ve been 1uick to slap do!n any
talk of socialism or central planning, !hich I don,t actually advocate.
either I, nor any of the others on this site are socialists. *e,re all part of
a consumer society !hich has brought immense good as !ell as great
harm. There,s no need to destroy it, that !ouldn,t get us any!here. *e
=ust think it ought to be fairer, more geared to!ards the needs of people,
rather than !ealth for the sake of !ealth.
*hich is !hy I can be inspired by 6albraith ` because I haven,t given up
on capitalism any more than he did. I =ust !ant it to !ork better.
I could point out that if protectionism is so terribly bad, !hy did the 5S
put up the steel tarriffs last monthI 7ut then again, !hat,s the point in
arguing !ith someone !ho thinks they can read someone,s politics from
their choice of hatI
c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' O0&$ pm
*hat the 5S did !ith steel tariffs *AS 7A.. Xust because the 5nited
States does it, doesn,t mean it is a good thing. As a >defender of the 4ed,
*hite and 7lue?, I !ould usually be the first one pointing out the
benefits in follo!ing the lead of America in most fields, but this !as a
7A. #ON3. -rotectionism breeds more protectionism, but not only
that. 4aising the costs of imports raises the cost of operating businesses.
The implementations in 7arack Obama,s 7uy American policy is
disastrous on both side of the border (the man obviously didn,t spend
four years studying economics). Imposing tariffs on steel of all things
!ould further hurt the struggling auto industry in both 2anada and the
5nited States. "ou drive up their costs, and they !ill be back in
bankruptcy very soon. /ree trade is AL*A"S the ans!er, especially
!hen it increases competition, driving do!n prices, etc 7y pushing this,
he is giving the shaft to 2anadians, something I have blogged about
previously, so no, it isn,t a good thing.
As for your economic credentials, you picked a handful of discredited
theorists as the foundation for your argument to discredit my four year
degree. School might not have taught me manner (yours are lacking as
!ell), but it did provide a solid foundation for my beliefs on economics. I
can tell you that the pursuit of !ealth for the sake of !ealth is a 6OO.
TGI6, as it means that more money is being put into the system. *ho,s
ta+es !ill pay for all the social programs you advocate for like !elfareI
The !ealthy rightI After all, they pay far more than their share !hen it
comes to ta+es. *hy shouldn,t those !orking hard enough be re!ardedI
*e should encourage everyone to strive for these higher goals. Their
success is our success, their !ealth brings ne! =obs, ne! !ealth for other
individuals. Go! is this a bad thingI
/inally, your appearance, the hat, etc says a lot not =ust about !ho you are
but !hat you believe. A lack of logo, sports team or simple corporation
tells me that you have a problem !ith supporting these businessesM
A. I A# 4I6GTQ "ou preach about the problems !ith the !ay our
consumer based economy !orks, proving that my first impression !as
indeed right. The a!k!ard facial hair also tells me that you pride
yourself as an anti-institution (even if only slightly) kind of guy, !hich
you proved !hen you said, >I,m afraid, clancop, that you,ve s!allo!ed
the neo-liberal theories !hole, !ithout 1uestioning themM There is a
huge !ealth of alternative economic theory, going right back to the
$L%%s, that they !on,t teach you in a four year degree.? It is the 2he
6uevera fau+-beard that usually people !ith similar beliefs gro!. .o you
o!n a 2he 6uevera T-shirt or posterI 2ome on, be honest no!M
"ou actually can =udge a book by its cover, but instead of taking that
impression alone, I !anted to hear you out a little, rattle your cage and
see ho! you !ould reactM *hich you did, in a predictable fashionM
@. -
hil *hittall -34#ALIT
October $%, &%%' V0%% pm
Gi 2lancop,
*hile debate on this blog is totally !elcome, courtesy is also appreciated. -lease try and keep your
comments polite. Thanks for taking time to post your thoughts.
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $$, &%%' 90FL am
-oliteI It is a matter of opinion. I !ill not put up !ith someone insulting my
intelligence, even politely. As for your comments about consumerism (I have seen
your o!n blog), if you !ish to >preach? about my conduct do so, but if you are a
-astor, I find it silly that you !ould get involved in such affairs.
>6ive to 2aesar !hat is 2aesar,s, and to 6od !hat is 6od,s.? ` #atthe! &&0&$
Seems you STILL need to study the bibleM
"ou =ustify your position on political issues !ith the fact that you are a -astor at orth
Shre!sbury 2ommunity 2hurch (once again, I have seen your blog), an act !hich
bothers me. "ou are supposed to be a >shepherd to your folk !hen it comes to affairs
of 6od, but don,t you dare use his name to push your misguided politicsM
It is pastors like you that force good 2hristians out of the churchM
43-L"
L. -
hil *hittall -34#ALIT
October $$, &%%' '0$O am
Actually 2lancop, it,s not your opinions I,m talking about. So far in your comments you,ve called
peopleS Zan ass,, Zpathetic,, Za t!it,, Zuneducated,, Zhypocrites,, Zdo!nright pathetic,, Za drone,,
Zarrogant,. All of !hich maybe your opinion but in those cases are opinions that are best kept to
yourself.
*e,ve appreciated you bringing a robust defence of consumerism to the debate, but in order for the
debate to be genuine, it doesn,t help !hen you take the position that those !ho disagree !ith you
are Zinsulting your intelligence,, as if posting their thoughts on this blog !ere designed to insult you
personally.
As for my position ` !ell as a pastor I kno! and care for people !hose lives are made less not more
happy by !hat I understand to be consumerism, so I don,t see as silly of me to care about that.
I,m not sure !hat you mean by the #t &&0&$ reference, but !ould be happy to discuss !hat !e
think Xesus meant then. I also don,t =ustify my personal vie!s on politics through my position as a
pastor. I,ve never told people !ho to vote for, never used the pulpit to favour one political party
over another and have no intention of doing so in the future. In blogging on politics, I,m hoping to
encourage people to think through ho! their faith and politics mi+. And I think for the record, that it
is 6od,s affair ho! people treat the poor, the environment, carry out =ustice, education,
immigration, foreign policy, economics so I,m happy to keep talking about such things.
Thanks again for contributing to the discussion.
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $$, &%%' $$0@L pm
2lose, but completely off baseM
#y mention of opinions !as about !hat !as being said about me. o need to be polite
!ith those !ho are refusing to do the same. 2omments about me being >vociferous? or
that my four year education didn,t teach me !hat I should really kno!, are directed
comments directed at me as criticism. There is nothing polite about insults, no matter
ho! politely they are said.
About my opinions, I don,t lie about ho! I feel, I don,t try to hide my feelings about
!hat I find offensive and do!nright stupid. It is a blunt form of honesty I cling !ith
because I al!ays !ant those !ho I speak !ith kno!ing !here they stand !ith me.
o! #ark has earned at the very least the smallest amount of respect for listening to
!hat I have to say, on top of keeping the comments up on his site. Though naive,
especially !hen it comes to economic matters, he should be commended for being
honestM 7ut you on the other handI
I !ish I didn,t feel the need to really tear you out, mainly because I believe those
spreading the !ord of 6od and the teachings of Xesus should be respected, but I am
dumbfounded about !hy you do it. Although I am 2atholic, I have sat do!n !ith
pastors having many enlightening conversations about 6od,s message and the
meaning of certain passages, but never did any of them push their social8political
beliefs. #atter of fact, I sat do!n !ith a 2hinese 2hristian pastor having Thanksgiving
dinner at his ne! place !hile !atching the 2anadian /ootball League (2/L) game on
his ne! TN. All I can see from !hat you !rote is that you have t!isted religion to fit
your o!n political beliefs.
>MI kno! and care for people !hose lives are made less not more happy by !hat I
understand to be consumerismM?
Are you disturbedI Xust because they are having trouble in their lives and come to you
to seek S-I4IT5AL 65I.A23, you tell them that they are consuming too muchI
That is t!isted. If there problem is over shopping, then yes, there problem is
consumerism related, but it isn,t consumerism. Those !ho shop do so to fill a hole in
their lives, !hether it be due to physical or mental trauma, and not because of the
nature of the market economy. This is -543L" -OLITI2AL, you have turned their
personal issue into a rallying cry for your misguided political beliefs, so I repeat
#atthe! &&0&$, !hich you seem not to understand.
Xesus himself said this because he !anted to ensure his critics that he had no political
aspirations, that he !asn,t there to challenge the 4oman 3mperor. 3arth !as 2aesar,s
domain, and as ruler of this land, he !as to be respected, meaning that ta+es should be
paid (the 4abbis !ere 1uestioning him on !ho the piece of gold that !as stamped !ith
2aesar,s mark). This passage is pointed to as proof of Xesus, belief of the separation of
2hurch and State. -olitics has no place in religion, and religion has no place in
politics. Sure religious beliefs have influenced our legal system, they influence our
political beliefs, but they have no place in dictating political policies, no one is to rule
!ith one religious book or another.
"ou are abusing your position as pastor to push political vie!s. If you are saying these
things as a common man, that is okay, even religious figures have political beliefs
(-ope Xohn -aul II for e+ample), but you =ustify your back!ards political beliefs by
stating you are a pastor (I have read been to your blog O23 A6AI). 6od teaches us
to be kind to our fello! man, to be charitable, but that .O3S,T #3A he demands
2hristians votes for socialist policies and push !ealth redistribution. There is
OTGI6 in the 7ible that !ould =ustify any of those positions, especially
immigration, the environment and economics. "ou don,t need to tell people !ho to
vote for, not !hen you fill their heads !ith such far left ideology, so don,t try that
nonsense !ith me.
"ou are arrogant, a hypocrite, and a misguided drone trying to push idiotic beliefs
from the pulpit. "ou haven,t =ust offended me !ith your politics, you have insulted my
faith by abusing the teachings of 2hristM .isgustingM
43-L"
O. -
hil *hittall -34#ALIT
October $&, &%%' V0$O pm
*o! ` it,s hard to kno! !here to start, it,s a long time since I,ve been called an Zarrogant
hypocrite, Zmisguided drone,, idiot,, Zdisgusting,, Zdisturbed,, Zback!ards, Zabusing the teachings of
2hrist,, Zabusing my position as a pastor, and even !orse a Zsocialist., "ou,re Zblunt honesty, has
been effective, I think I kno! !here I stand no!.
"ou,re !elcome to come and talk to the people in my church -!e have the full spectrum of political
beliefs. /or e+ample until they moved back to the 5SA !e had some 4epublicans in the church,
some friends of mine are standing for election for the 2onservative party in the 5T and I have a
friendly relationship my local 2onservative #-. I,m 1uite happy for people in my church to vote
differently and they do, that after all is democracy (!hich =ust to be clear I,m in favour of). So I,m
!ith you on not demanding 2hristian votes for socialist policies. I don,t demand that either.
I can,t agree !ith your interpretation on #t &&0&$ but at least no! I understand !hat you meant by
the reference. Thanks for the e+planation.
As for some of your other points it,s food for thought ` so in the spirit of healthy debate, here,s my
re=oinder. I,m not sure !hat position you think I,ve taken up on immigration, the environment and
economics but you,re 1uite !rong if you think the 7ible doesn,t mention those topics. Xe!ish la!
has plenty of references to resident aliens (3+odus &&0&$ for e+ample) !hich is immigration. The
e! Testament teaches that it is 6od,s intention for his creation to be liberated from bondage to
decay through the actions of Gis people (4omans V0&$ for e+ample) !hich is connected to the care
for the environment.
Lastly economics. As a business o!ner, I,m not against profit far from it. I don,t think business is
bad and I don,t think the 7ible is against business, trade, or making a profit. 7ut from the year of
=ubilee in Leviticus, to la!s of gleaning, to 6od,s concern over the oppression of the poor by the
rich, 6od calls for =ustice in economics. It,s fair game to argue over the best method of bringing
about =ust economics, hopefully a good debate !ill help produce some better solutions. 2an !e
agree that 6od is concerned about the plight of the poor in the !orld and that 2hristians should be
tooI
In the hope that on this blog !e can have an enlightened conversation. Thanks again for your reply.
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $F, &%%' F0&' am
o, you,re !rongM So N34" !rongM
The conte+t of those references to resident aliens is far divorced from !hat !e have
no!. /or you to even suggest that 3+odus &&0&$ !ould support giving access medical
care, !elfare, etc is =ust stupid. Also, that isn,t about illegal immigrants, that !as about
the nature of the Xe!ish community to turn a!ay >gentiles?, non-Xe!s. Once again you
t!ist the !ords on 6od to push politics.
4omans V0&$ is about slavery, but of course a socialist like you !ould 1uote #ar+ to
prove that those of modest income are in fact slaves. Slavery, in the *estern !orld,
has ended long ago. "ou !ant to talk about the e1uality of all men, look at the
underground railroad, the path for the slaves to 2anada. Go! about the 2ivil *arI
Gundreds of thousands died to free slaves, don,t you think that that kind of sacrifice is
enoughI o, you,re the kind of t!it !ho !ould label me a slave driver if I didn,t pay
my employees !ages you deemed >fair?. This doesn,t even make sense, if you are in
fact a business o!ner. I run a blog, does that make me a business o!ner tooI
6od has no place in economic, he doesn,t. "ou t!ist passages relating to charity,
ignore #atthe! &&0&$, and suggest that someho! 6od !ould endorse a political
ideology !hich cripples progress by controlling the economyI Once again you ignore
the conte+t of these 1uotes. In 4ome, slaves !ere property, not people. If you !ere
!ealthy, you had slaves. It is this of !hich Xesus speaks. Ge isn,t discussing ho! the
market system >enslaves? people, but of course you kno! that. "ou 1uote these
passages because they are so very easy to misrepresent. It is the same !ay people
point to #atthe! $%0F9 and say that Xesus !as a violent !armonger. I kno! ho! you
play this game, and it is disturbing.
I have friends !ho are liberals, environmentalists, etc but that doesn,t mean my vie!s
are any more correct or less correct because of that. On that sub=ect, don,t point to a
small number of 4epublicans and 2onservatives and say your political vie!s are
balanced. /or all I kno!, those are 4IOs, and last time I checked, the 2onservative
-arty in 2anada !as anything but (did you see the budget proposalI). In any event,
you 1uoting your >friend,s list? is like a racist saying >I have coloured friends?. I don,t
care !ho attends your 2hurch. As much they may like you, they have come to hear the
>good ne!s?, not your back!ards political vie!s.
"es I agree that 6od is concerned about the plight of the poor, as he is concerned !ith
the sins of the rich, as he is concerned !ith the lives of the sick, etc *e are all 6od,s
children, and being disenfranchised doesn,t put you higher on the list. It is call charity,
it is !hat 2onservatives do, as in 6INI6 TO IT. The >evil? .ick 2heney, former
Nice -resident gave OOA of his income in &%%@ to charity. /orcing someone to give up
money makes you no better than a slave driver yourself, and, as you said, 6od doesn,t
look too highly on thatM
So I repeat, you are a hypocrite. #ore so, you are t!isting 2hristianity to push your
back!ards politics, something I find revolting. I might respect #ark for his
understanding, but I !ould have to be a saint to forgive your >sins?M -atheticM
43-L"
V. -
hil *hittall -34#ALIT
October $F, &%%' V0@@ am
*ell, I don,t think I need to say very much. I,ll =ust let you keep putting !ords in my mouth and
argue !ith yourself.
D0 *ho said anything about illegal immigrationI
A0 "ou
D0 *ho said anything about giving illegal immigration medical care, !elfareI
A0 ot me. "ou did
D0 *ho brought #ar+ into thisI
A0 That,s right 2hristopher, you did.
D0 *ho,s calling you a slave driverI
A0 I haven,t. 7ut thanks for suggesting it
D0 *ho,s forcing anyone to give up moneyI
A0 ot me.
D0 *ho brought .ick 2heney into this or called him evilI
A0 I haven,t.
So if !e,re going to debate our vie!s, at least do me the courtesy of letting me e+press my vie!s
and disagree !ith the things I,ve said, not the things you make up.
I,m not talking about my blog, I,m talking about a bookshop and a coffee shop -that,s the business I
o!n. I hope you,ll agree that selling books 1ualifies as a business.
So unless !e can have a substantial discussion, I,ll make this my last reply. 7ut thanks again for
taking the time to comment.
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' $&0$$ am
Gmmm, got under your skin did II I can play this game very !ellM
D0 *ho said anything about illegal immigrationI
>Xe!ish la! has plenty of references to resident aliens (3+odus &&0&$ for e+ample)
!hich is immigration.?
The only reason you !ould bring up this passage is to discuss your vie! on
immigration, and seeing that no one has problems !ith immigration itself (!e are all
immigrants to this land in one !ay or another), it is obvious that you !ere discussing
illegal immigration. "ou try and t!ist the passage into saying that 6od !ould approve
of amnesty because >!e should all be kind to resident aliens?.
D0 *ho said anything about giving illegal immigration medical care, !elfareI
"our constant references to >plight of the poor?, discussing >=ustice in economics?, etc
tells me that you don,t have a problem !ith giving illegal immigrants access to this. As
stated above, !ith reference to kindness to resident aliens, I have heard this argument
before. *here does kindness stopI It doesn,t for youM
http088thesimplepastor.blogspot.com8&%%'8%'8!hats-important-to-me-politically.html
>I,d like to see some genuine commitment to closing the ine1uality gap, it,s not good
enough for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer or only marginally better
off.?
A real >money 1uote? I think. *ealth redistributionI If you believe in that, then I find
it hard to believe that you !ould be against putting illegal immigrants into our social
systems. In this article you demand that !e should be giving more to international aid,
ignoring the fact that if the millions !e are giving isn,t !ork, one reason being
because it slips into the hands of tribal leaders !ho !ould rather spend money on
!eapons than food (Oil for /ood anyoneI), giving more !on,t help. They need =obs,
not hand outsM
6ive a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him
for a lifetime. ` Old 2hinese -roverb
D0 *ho brought #ar+ into thisI
>Mas a pastor I kno! and care for people !hose lives are made less not more happy
by !hat I understand to be consumerismM?
>The e! Testament teaches that it is 6od,s intention for his creation to be liberated
from bondage to decay through the actions of Gis people.?
*hile the second is a misrepresentation of bondage, applying the term slave to the
poor in society, you might as !ell have taken those 1uote from #ar+,s 2ommunist
#anifesto itself.
The slave frees himself !hen, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only
the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarianS the proletarian can free
himself only by abolishing private property in general. ` 3ngels, -rinciples of
2ommunism
3ngels !as the man that !orked !ith #ar+ on political theory. There is little
difference in the debate on consumerism and the debate on private property, matter of
fact, one could argue that they are the same. "our criticism of the prior is that !e don,t
need to shop, and that buying unneeded goods is someho! bad reeks of further steps.
If consumerism is evil, than the possession of other goods, like private property, is bad
too. This is al!ays ho! the debate begins on this issueM
http088thesimplepastor.blogspot.com8&%%'8%'8consumerism-animated.html
Also, you talk of socialism and freeing the poor of >bondage?, so it doesn,t take a
genius to figure out !here your political beliefs are centered. Xust for the record, #ar+
!as an athiest, he not only didn,t believe in 6od, he constant ranted about those !ho
did being stupid. I find it rather silly a pastor !ould use the bible to push his politicsM
D0 *ho,s calling you a slave driverI
>The e! Testament teaches that it is 6od,s intention for his creation to be liberated
from bondage to decay through the actions of Gis peopleM?
I should have to pay royalties for using that 1uote as much as I do. In our society,
!here is the bondageI Are you speaking of lo! !agesI Are you speaking of your
hatred for consumerism (I have been to your blog, I have read !hat you !rote)I The
fact that I don,t believe in minimum !age hikes or because I celebrate consumerism,
does that make me a slave driverI *hy did you even bring up slavery if you didn,t
intend to discuss !hat you perceived as such in our societyI
D0 *ho,s forcing anyone to give up moneyI
>I,d !ant a clear commitment to reach the 5 target of %.OA 6.- being given in
international aid not sometime in the near or distant future but tomorro! and that,s a
minimum.?
.emanding that 2anada give more money to the international aidI Sure sounds that
!ay to me.
>2an !e agree that 6od is concerned about the plight of the poor in the !orld and that
2hristians should be tooI ?
I !ill agree !ith you that something has to be done, but not hand-outs. *e have tried
that, it hasn,t !orked, let,s take an approach !hich is far more active on their part, but
of course you don,t !ant that do youI
http088thesimplepastor.blogspot.com8&%%'8$%8government-responds-to-trade-
badger.html
Trade =usticeI "ou don,t understand the damage you do to the people you say you are
helping by demanding !e not buy their products at those prices. This >fairer trade?
nonsense is hilarious, especially !hen you are inflating market prices of basic
commodities. -eople !ill buy less at higher prices, meaning the farmers sell less. ot
only do you give them the shaft, you turn around and shaft orth American coffee
drinkers. *onderfulM
D0 *ho brought .ick 2heney into this or called him evilI
I brought him up, but you ignored the point. Those on the left, like you, have
constantly pointed to him and said that he !as >evil? and he !as to blame for the
>evils created by the 7ush administration?, but my point !as that he donates to
charity. Oh yes, even the >evil? .ick 2heney donates to charity. o! !hy is thatI Ge
is a 6od-fearing man, and because of his faith, he believes in charity. o! I made this
point because encouraging charity, not demanding higher ta+es, is the !ay to go.
-ointing to your comments about demanding 2anada give more money to international
aid, I find it troubling you !ould advocate such a socialist position. *ealth
redistribution doesn,t !ork, especially since those demanding it don,t donate
themselves (I gave a fair bit of money to the 2hinese 4ed 2ross after the &%%V
earth1uake). Allo! people to do it themselves, don,t force them, and they !ill do it.
As for your business, I don,t have a problem !ith you selling books or coffee, good
for you, but don,t go demanding that people follo! your business model. If you !ant
to pay your !orkers more, your customers !ill have to pay more, unless you are
running it to barely make a profit (!hich is good for you, but not for everyone else).
Seeing ho! you do sell such goods, I find it silly that you !ould be against
consumerism especially since your business depends on itM Silly hypocriteM
I might not be the !orld,s best 2atholic, but that is not !hat I am trying to do. I
believe in 6od, I am eternally grateful to the /ather at my parish for allo! me to finish
2onvocation and be a full member of the church, but that doesn,t mean I am free of
sin. /or a pastor, ho!ever, I thought you !ould kno! ho! to turn the other cheekM
Seems you are =ust as imperfect as IM
43-L"
c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' $&0$F am
-.S. As for your post on 6un 2ontrol, educate yourselfM
http088!!!.latimes.com8ne!s8opinion8commentary8la-oe-
!ilson&%apr&%,%,O&VLFV'.story
6uns don,t kill people, people kill people and people !ith guns are killed
by people !ith guns more than people !ith guns themselves.
'. -
hil *hittall -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' @0%V pm
o you didn,t get under my skin ` I !as =ust frustrated !ith being talked at instead of being talked
to. And all the name calling of courseM
Any!ay, thanks for taking the time to read some of the posts on my blog. 3ven if I think you,re
misunderstanding me (!hich I do), you have taken the time to do that and that,s appreciated.
Gere are a fe! clarifications0 if I,m trying to shaft anyone in asking for fairer trade practices, it,s the
7ritish. I,m 7ritish, I live in 7ritain. The orth Americans are currently free from fear of my
Zsocialism,.
So I,m not demanding more money from 2anada, although I,m sure it !ould be appreciated if they
like most other countries follo!ed up on promises to give %.OA of 6.- to international
development. (http088!!!.unmillenniumpro=ect.org8press8%O.htmf%9)
As for forcing people, I,m simply asking my government to make this area a budget priority. I,m
asking them to use our ta+es to do this. And I,m very happy for ne! !ays of helping the poorest if
as you put hand-outs aren,t !orking. Of course there is a difference bet!een relief aid g
development. I,m assuming its the second that you feel is !asteful and goes to line the pockets of
corrupt officialsI *hich of course is partly true. I,ve !orked in emergency relief and have some
first hand e+perience of both the good that is done and the harm and the corruption.
I,m glad .ick 2heney is generous, I,m glad you are too. I,m glad that people give of their money
generously to causes that help the poorest. I,m all for that, I also think that government has a role to
play too in ho! it spends my ta+es.
And I make a distinction bet!een capitalism and consumerism. 2ontrary to !hat you may think I,m
not against capitalism. Like I said, I,m involved in business. I think consumerism is something else
entirely.
http088en.!ikipedia.org8!iki82onsumerism
http088en.!ikipedia.org8!iki82apitalism
I too am not free from sin, fortunately for me 6od is gracious and continually e+tends forgiveness. I
entirely agree !ith you that I am imperfect. ever claimed other!ise.
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' L0@V pm
I apologi:e for the misunderstanding about your nationality. "our mention of
4epublicans and 2onservatives in a previous post made me think you !ere on this side
of the pond. I !as mistaken for assuming you mean 2anadian conservatives,
especially !hen discussed visiting Americans. *e have so many crossing the border
here I had forgotten about other countries !ith other conservative partiesM As for
7ritain,s problems (socialism being one of them),
http088!!!.nationalpost.com8ne!s8!orld8story.htmlIidh&%'L&LO
The article doesn,t make mention of problems !ith businesses, problems trade and
political short comings, but it still does a good =ob of comparing the plight of the
7ritish to their 3uropean neighbours. I took a class on the history of the 3uropean
5nion, and aside from the fact that /rance (more specifically 2harles .e 6aulle) !as
demanding that 7ritain be kept out of the groups early incarnations, the 7ritish took no
steps to make a serious push for economic reform until it !as too late. #uch of the
country,s economic problems have to do !ith thisM
As for government giving international aid, !here do you think they get their moneyI
A party that runs on a platform of spending a fair percentage of its 6.- else!here
might have problems at the polls, and !ith all the spending 6ordon 7ro!n has been
doing lately, such a >humanitarian gesture? might =ust run him out of office. Think
about the political implications. It isn,t simply corruption that costs money, it is the
bureaucracy that drains it too. "ou have to pay a percentage of the money given to aid
to every person !orking on each level bet!een the man at the top signing the bill into
la! and the people at the bottom distributing the funds. Little by little that money is
depleted until finally the donation to charity is only a fraction of the original amount.
*hy not put the money in the hands of local business or help them construct ne!
onesI Ask the poor country for a plan, or provide them one, provide them the funds
!ith restrictions, goals they have to meet for continued funding. Teep an eye on it,
ensure that it is being spent the !ay it is intended to, there is no use in simply handing
over money to people !ho might take it and run. And finally, keep the number of
bureaucrats to a minimum. *e don,t need forty different departments !orking on this,
draining resources for little !ork. 2reate a ne! department addressing this sole issue
and !ork from there.
I kno! they are different concepts, but to be against consumerism is to be against
much of !hat capitalism stands for, TG3" A43 IT34T*I3.. *e have money, !e
spend money on goods and services and that allo!s others to have money and spend it
according to their o!n !ishes. -urchasing of !ants, not needs, is a driving factor in
*estern economic progress. Look at the economic boom !e had !hen !e brought
!omen into the !ork force. They had money, they spent money on their numerous
!ants, and there !as this significant economic boost. 2onsumerism has been the
driving force behind orth American success, the increase in the standard of living.
.emand drives supply, !hich drives prices, !hich in turn helps lo!er costs for the
average person. #oney received from consumer spending is reinvested into the
company to produce ne!er and 73TT34 products. If !e !ere to give up on shopping,
if !e !ere to adopt the philosophy of >3noughism?, !e !ould see a significant change
in our o!n economic fortunes. *hy should a pharmaceutical company produce ne!
medicines if, according to the teachings of an uneducated fe!, consumers already have
the medicines they needI It is, after all, a >lie to sell you happiness and security? isn,t
itI *hy should car companies build ne!er, more environmentally friendly and safer
cars if !e already have !hat !e needI *hy should musicians make ne! music if !e
!on,t buy their 2.s because it is truly !rong to indulge in this kind of spending. I
en=oy going out to shop, it is something !hich I find rela+ing. I go shopping !ith
friends, I go shopping alone, I go shopping =ust to get out of the house. Also, !hen I
go shopping, I usually don,t shop. There are people !ho use shopping to fill a void in
their life, but instead of attacking their escape, !hy not deal !ith the real problems
they are facing. Aside from having less money from spending on a sle! of cheap
figures and movies I haven,t !atched more than a fe! times, I don,t see any serious
issues here. If I didn,t spend my money on these things, I !ould have spent it on
something else, that is ho! .IS-OSAL I2O#3 !orks. -utting small amounts of
money back into the system actually helps someone elseM
As for being free from sin, as a pastor, you are supposed to set an e+ample. "ou are
supposed to be better than us. #y priest makes an effort to live according to 2hrist,s
teachings kno!ing that his effort !ould encourage us to make an effort ourselves.
.oes he e+pect us to live as he doesI o, he understands that !e are imperfect, =ust as
he is, but it is his lot in life to strive from the perfection 2hrist preached. As imperfect
as you are, you are supposed to be a pastor, you are supposed to be 73TT34 than the
rest of usM
That is !hat I find most upsettingM
43-L"
$%. c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' O0&& pm
2an I =ust say thisI I am thinking #ark is loving this back and forth banter, at least because it is
kicking his hits upM Am I right, yes or noI
43-L"
$$. -
hil *hittall -34#ALIT
October $9, &%%' '09O pm
Thanks for the reply. Actually the ational -ost article is really helpful, because it highlights the
issue !e,re most concerned about. /or e+ample it says,
>There is more to good living than money and this report sho!s !hy so many 7rits are giving up on
the 5.T. and heading to /rance and Spain,? said Ann 4obinson, .irector of 2onsumer -olicy at
uS!itch.com. >*e have lost all sense of balance bet!een !ealth and !ell-being,? she said.
It,s a 1uote I completely agree !ith. Ironically enough, 7ritain is the least Zsocialist, economy in
3urope. Although I agree !ith you the causes are not that simplistic.
On international aid, of course money comes from our ta+es. I,m not sure they,d have to rise, =ust
be spent better and more !isely. And I,m not in disagreement !ith some of your proposals. There is
a need for that budget to be delivered better to meet the goals of helping countries economically
develop. I,m !ith you on that and that being driven by businesses.
On consumerism and capitalism -they are intert!ined in our modern economies but I,m not sure
they GAN3 to be they !ay they currently are. There isn,t =ust one form of capitalism and !hile all
are fla!ed, not all of them have the same conse1uences on !ell being as your article helpfully
pointed out.
4emember I,m not against people buying things, I,m not against the replacement of the old by
something ne!er and better. I,m not against musicians creating, artists performing, authors !riting
or the development of technology. 7ut in consumer cultures (!hich I,d argue is a product of the last
@% years and in some countries more than others ` unlike capitalism !hich is of course much older)
there are dra!backs and do!nsides.
It,s those that !e,re trying to address ` !here people get their identity from is a spiritual issue,
because our contentment and purpose comes not from !hat !e buy but from !ho !e are. As your
article implied here in 7ritain (and evidence suggest the 5S too, I,m not sure about 2anada) !e,ve
lost sight of that.
Lastly, on the issue of my imperfections ` I hope I set an e+ample, I,m a!are that it isn,t al!ays
!hat it should be. I hope I,m humble enough to admit that I,m not perfect and that I need 6od,s
help and Spirit to !ork in me on that one. So I do make an effort, even if my politics are all !rong.
(Ironically enough, one of the strongest critics of materialism has been the -ope, so although I,m
not catholic, I,m !ith Gis Goliness on that score.)
43-L"
o c
lancop -34#ALIT
October $@, &%%' $&0%@ am
Least socialisticI A manner of opinion either !ay, but there is something to be said
about the country,s leanings. 7ig labour has a more than respectable position in the
counrty,s political arena, having nearly destroyed 7ritain,s auto industry and
protecting their control of the no!-ruined health care industry. 4ecent comments made
by #3- .aniel Gannan about 6ordon 7ro!n,s handling of the country,s finances, as
!ell as comment he made on /o+ e!s tells me that it might be one of the leading
voices for socialism. I do apologi:e, I had forgotten about a fe! other 3uropean
countries in 3astern 3urope, former satellites of the Soviet 5nion. *henever I think
3urope I think primarily of /rance, 6ermany, 7ritain, the historical 3uropean po!ers
(my 3uropean history studies mostly consists of apoleon to Gitler). That doesn,t
mean I agree that 7ritain is any!here near the least socialist, but I see I made a
mistake in making that statement !hen I had forgotten about other smaller countries in
3urope.
As for average 7ritish income, I have my o!n story on this. I sometimes kick myself
for taking the position in 2hina, especially !hen I could have taught in (South) Torea.
It all has to do !ith cost of living. o! you compare Torea to Xapan, or Torea to
2hina, or 2hina to Xapan, you !ill see !hy I say this. The average income in 2hina is
lo!er than that of Xapan, but it also has a lo!er cost of living. Xapan has a much higher
average income, but a much higher cost of living. 7ecause it is an island nation, much
like 7ritain, it relies heavily on imports !hich drives up the price (shipping in food
costs more than driving it across a border as !ell). The average cost for the basic
necessities is much higher in Xapan, aside from the cost of housing. *hen compared to
Torea, you have a much lo!er cost of living as it is landlocked and importing good
from neighbouring countries doesn,t cost as much. If I had !orked in Torea, I !ould
have had the best of both !orlds, higher income and lo!er cost of living. *ith 7ritain,
as I =ust mentioned, it has to ship in basic staples !hich dramatically increases the cost
of living. The higher income in 7ritain !hen compared to its landlocked neighbours is
a useless statistic because it doesn,t take into account this cost. To say that it is right
because money isn,t important is !rong though.
Income, !hen discussed !ith cost of living, demonstrates that it is probably the key
factor in determining ho! !ell one lives. A higher income means that you have access
to a better education, better food selection, better doctors, etc and no!here is this more
true than in the developing !orld. Take 2hina for e+ample, !here a middle class is
beginning to gro!. Gaving far more income than necessary to meet basic needs, these
almost >nouveau riche? can en=oy the lu+uries that !ere once only available to those
in the 2ommunist -arty. These lu+uries include dinning out at >fancy? restaurants (no
kidding, -i::a Gut is very much a 9 Star e+perience, far classier than the ones you
!ould find else!here) as !ell as the money to pay for better medical care and better
schooling. Those !ith a serious level of income can even afford foreign tutors for
themselves or their children. *hen you think of 1uality of life, think about ho! much
someone earns because it isn,t about ho! much =unk they can buy, it is actually about
access to services.
On international aid, it isn,t that I am against it, it is that thro!ing more money at a
problem !on,t solve it. After all the Africa Aid concerts and the millions of dollars
pumped into these countries by numerous governments, !hat are !e seeingI There is
no definite progress, there is nothing you can hang your hat on, not !hen these
countries fall into civil !ar on an almost constant basis. #y issue here is that until
there is a good method of getting our money to them and producing results, I don,t see
the reason to !aste more money.
There isn,t =ust one form of capitalism, yes, but the form used in orth America is far
superior to even 2hina,s booming >4ed 2apitalism?. "es there does have to be
LI#IT3. (and I can,t stress that !ord enough) government intervention, that doesn,t
mean !e apply socialist policy to the market. Trying to fight the >in=ustices? only
leads to more in=ustice, mainly on the part of those doing the fighting. I am sure that
even in 7ritain you have heard about the fallout over A2O4 rightI Their fight !ith
the banking system has caused serious problems for America,s money lenders. It is the
!ork of organi:ations like A2O4 that helped fuel the housing market collapse. *ith
reference to consumerism, trying to regulate !hat people can and can,t buy !ill only
lead in imbalances. ot =ust that, the instant you start taking money out of the
economy, you shrink it. If you don,t support the average person,s desire to go out and
buy !hatever they !ant, !henever they !ant, !hat do you advise they do !ith their
moneyI The only thing I could think of is investing it, but seeing ho! !e sa! a
collapse of such markets !ith the collapse of the banking industry last year, I have a
hard time believing someone is !illing to forgo even the smallest satisfaction they
gain by buying that ne! movie, game, shirt, skirt, etc they had their eye on to do that
instead.
*ith reference to the -ope,s beliefs, !hile I do respect the position, I have a hard time
listening to his personal gripes. I am a 2atholic, yes, but that doesn,t mean I have to
agree !ith the -ope on everything. As damning as this might be to say, I have my
concerns on abortion. I don,t condone the abuse of it, but I have done the research on
!hy the church took the stand it did under -ope -ius II or III (I can,t remember !hich
one), as !ell as !hat happens !hen a country bans it outright. I can tell you my time
in 2hina, as !ell as other e+periences, have put me in a !eird place in this debate. I
!ould like to say -ro-2hoice, but I am leaning to -ro-Life, especially since -ro-
2hoice these days usually means -ro-Abortion. Is it a!fulI "es, but I don,t see ho!
!e should condemn someone !ho had an abortion because of S34IO5S personal or
health reasons. As for Xohn -aul II,s rant about television, or the ne! -ope,s stand on
materialism, I have a hard time taking it seriously especially since 2hrist never said
anything like >Thou shall not en=oy 27S, prime time line up? or >.on,t take your hard
earned money and spend it on ne! shoes, for it is sinful?. And if I am !rong, !ell 6od
hates the sin and loves the sinner rightI
43-L"
$&. 7
en 6rigg -34#ALIT
ovember $F, &%%' '0%% pm
Xust !anted to say thank you to #ark for his e+cellent response to Story of Stuff,s 2riti1ue.
4egarding 2lancop, I stopped reading his comments as soon as he started using insulting language.
Ge appears to be a grumpy fello!.
43-L"
o #
ark -34#ALIT
ovember $@, &%%' L0%9 pm
Thanks 7en, I,m really trying to get my head round the economic stuff, so I,m grateful
for the chance to debate it ` even if it means a little learning on the hoof. /or !hat it,s
!orth, there,s a really thought provoking book called The 4ebel Sell !hich steers an
interesting middle line (i.e., there,s no point in =ust protesting against consmerism in a
trendy, ineffective !ayS !e need to be realistic and consider decent political !ays
for!ard). I,m also keping a close eye on !hat comes out of the e! 3conomics
/oundation. *e,ll get there in the endMQ
43-L"
$F. S
ean ollett -34#ALIT
.ecember $F, &%%' L09% pm
2lancop0 brilliant. Tepp knocking these dreamy liberals. I liked the /riedman !as a central planner.
Oh their ignorance is ama:ing.
I =ust dropped in here because I am searching for a decent hatchet =ob no the /air Trade movement.
.on,t htink I shall find it hereQ
43-L"
$9. X
ason Tyne -34#ALIT
April &L, &%$% @0FV pm
*o!M2lancorp is certainly fired up. I,m sorry to enter this conversation so lateMand perhaps I
shouldn,t fire it up months later. So far I,m standing in the middle of Lee and Annie. I find both of
their films suspect and their facts overly simplistic, but I do understand that they are presenting their
theses in a you-tube format and not in a several-hundred page book, so I understand the need for to-
the-point presentation of their ideas. Instead I,m looking at their basic theses that they present.
#y 1uestion to Annie-haters is, >*hy are you so upsetI? There are so many things in the !orld to
be upset by, !hy choose to funnel so much time and anger to a video !hose basic thesis seems to be
>Take ste!ardship of your planet and responsibility to your consuming.? I disagree !ith many of
her facts and the !ay they are presented, but I,m not sure !hat harm it could do to sho!ing this to
our children. Lee seems offended that children might start buying less Legos. *ould this be so badI
43-L"
$@. X
ackson -34#ALIT
Xune F, &%$% O09V pm
Interesting. There,s so many books that basically echo The Story Of Stuff premise, certainly
gathering momentum.
I,m particularly interested in !hat .aniel 6oleman has to say in 3cological Intelligence. Seems to
me there,s potential there for real common ground bet!een a lot of people so far polari:ed.. but I
have my doubts. -eople tend to use po!erful arguments, logic, so long as they are at an advantage
but !hen that is threatened they,re often 1uick to take measures that are contrary to their supposed
ideals ` in fact, they usually have Zportfolios, of complicity, and that,s !here original sin can really
become devisive, for are !e not all ultimately complicitI
Lord I am not !orthy to recieve you, only say the !ordM
Any!ay, I,d like to recommend a book The #aster And Gis 3missary ` Iain #c6ilchrist.
43-L"
$L. 7
yron Smith -34#ALIT
Xanuary &V, &%$$ '09L pm
Thanks for the post.
I,m afraid I stopped reading each of clancop,s comments !ithin the first paragraph due to his
refusal to engage in the discussion !ith some basic level of respect for fello! human beings. I
actually felt rebuked, humbled and encouraged by the patience and graciousness sho!n by his
interlocutors.
43-L"
$O. -
atriot -34#ALIT
#arch 9, &%$$ $&0@L am
I,m going to have to agree !ith 2lan2op. It seems like this topic !as posted for a criti1ue and then
!hen the criti1ue they heard !asn,t the one they !anted, they got scared and tried to make 2lan2op
and egotistic idiot !ho brings up irrelevant thoughts to a simple matter. Go!ever, there are a lot of
good points brought up in 2lan2op,s posts and if a fe! people !ould get off their high horse and
listen !ith an open mind, they might see that there,s a point to this and even a simple solution to the
untrue facts that are brought up in The Story of Stuff.
If something here is truly pathetic, it,s people,s reactions to any opinion that doesn,t fit into the
narro!-minded story !ritten in black and !hite that they think rules the !orld.
43-L"
$V. .
7 -34#ALIT
September F, &%$$ $&09' am
*o!, 2lancop is incredibly rudeQ