Boats or Goats? (by Kate Allen)
Early on the morning of Saturday 7th February, to escape the heat radiating through the windows of my east-facing apartment, I retreated to my local High Street café. Although it has an airconditioner, the old device grunted and sputtered, struggling to cope with the rapidly rising temperature outside. I ordered coffee and spread the weekend broadsheet out on the table. Plastered in bold across the front page was a warning that, with a combination of 43 degree temperatures and gusty northerlies across an already dry state, this was to be a day ‘as bad as you can imagine’. The premier issued advice to Victorians not to go out unless absolutely necessary. We now know too well how justified the fears were, with temperatures soaring more than 3 degrees above the forecast, leading to the worst bushfires Australia has ever seen.
On that morning, still nursing a vague hope that the dreadful predictions might be overly pessimistic, I turned the page to read about the global economic crisis and the federal government’s proposed $42 billion stimulus package. A photographic ‘vox pop’ asked a range of Australians how they would spend the cash handouts that would comprise part of the package. Acknowledging the need to spend the money (after all, it was designed to ‘stimulate’ the economy) they responded with, “Pay off bills and credit cards, buy an iPod, a romantic dinner out, a new washing machine….etc.” If the proposal was approved, I realised, then as one of the multitudes of Australians earning less than $100,000 a year, I would be eligible for a payment. Unsure what to make of this, but inevitably imagining what I might do with the cash, I took another sip of my latte. The heat felt ominous.
Turning to the opinion pages, I came across a piece by Simon Moyle, a colleague of mine at Urban Seed. Reflecting on our work with people in the grip of drug or gambling addictions, his article posed that global warming, linked to our society’s dependence on cheap energy, might also be understood in terms of addiction. The same dynamic is at work. “Rudd’s recent ‘consume our way out of recession’ policies are a perfect example,” Simon wrote, referring to the cash handouts. “Despite the fact that we know our overconsumption is accelerating global warming, this Government, which was elected on taking “real action on climate change”, is encouraging us to buy more, consume more… Yet without the Earth there is no human life and no economy.” These words proved more poignant than on any other day.
Finishing my coffee, stepping outside the café, I was assaulted by a blast of suffocating, hairdryer-like air, I considered where I might go to spend the day in airconditioned comfort. The local shopping centre? Mea Culpa.
Over the next 24 hours, the surreal, horrific effects began to reveal themselves. I heard many people say that Saturday afternoon felt apocalyptic. By Sunday morning the cool change had well and truly arrived, but the wind change it brought with it did not bode well for the fires. I spoke to my friend Sarah who told me shakily that a close friend of her husband, who had been visiting his parents in one of the affected regions, had been missing overnight. She knocked on my door a couple of hours later, ashen-faced. “They found his body,” she told me. Without the Earth there is no human life and no economy. We hugged and wept.
During the terrible week that followed we were warned that, with global temperatures set to rise further, fires like these would only become more common during Victorian summers. I continued to return to Simon’s article. He is no more of an expert on global warming or economic policy than I am. But he is a passionate follower of Jesus who has sought to ‘be the change he wants to see’ in the world through slow, costly, patient action in his life. He is convinced of the power of symbolic action. His gut tells him that what we need are not policies to reinforce our destructive habits, but communities animated by hope, able to imagine an alternative future. Communities who remind each other not to put blind faith in any human-made economic system. Communities who remember that the only ‘real’ economy is the earth, to which we must pay the greatest respect.
A week later, the package to stimulate the economy was approved. After adopting the changes negotiated in the Senate, $12 billion was allocated for one-off cash bonuses. For example if you, like me, have a taxable income of less than $80,000, you will receive a payment of $900. There is wide disagreement on whether this is good economics, or good politics for that matter. Not many people remind us of what a letter from Tear Australia reminded me recently: that 40 million people worldwide are predicted to fall into dire poverty as a result of the global credit crisis. Most of them aren’t earning 40, 60 or 80,000 a year.
Well might we listen to advice that it is our civic duty to spend the money before “the global economic recession wreaks havoc” on our country. Yet as I understand it, the global ‘credit’ crisis is nothing more than a crisis of debt. A crisis brought about by an addiction to consumption. A crisis being tackled by a package that requires our government to borrow more money. Research released yesterday confirmed that more than a third of the payments made as part of the Government’s $8.7 billion stimulus in December were used for extra payments on credit cards. Is something wrong here?
I am part of Loam, a Seeds community in Preston. Like the other Seedy mobs, we believe enough in the Kingdom of God, or the Economy of God, to seek to embody it in our own small, faltering ways. I could never attempt to hold my own against the abstracted spin of Wayne Swan. Joe Hockey would tear me to pieces! But what I can do, with my community, is attempt to live out what I believe. So over the next few weeks Loam will be discussing this issue at a really practical level: what will we do with the money that the tax office will put in our bank accounts in April? I want to argue that this is a question that relates not to civic duty but to faith, morality and the guts of what we believe about the world we live in.
by Kate Allen
(posted on behalf of Tom from PWC)
Great post Kate.
I wonder, however, whether you may have misunderstood our PM (it is also very possible that I’ve misunderstood him – so I suppose we should assume the remainder of this post are my thoughts and not necessarily KRudd’s).
I think people who talk in economic language often do themselves a disservice in using words that mean different things to different people. The classic example here is the word ‘consumption’ – the thing that the Government ‘stimulus package’ is supposed to ‘stimulate’.
Economists talk of consumption as simply the other side of the coin to production; that is, someone produces something (a loaf of bread) and another, or the same, consumes (eats) it. Consumption need not be plasma screen TVs or iPods. Consumption covers all manner of end usages, including lunch at Credo Café or the use of mosquito nets to combat malaria. In addition, consumption need not be detrimental to the environment; this is a complex topic that I won’t comment on here except to say consumption includes purchasing a rain water tank or solar energy panel. 1
However, that’s not what most of us think of when we think of consumption. We often align consumption with ‘consumerism’; seeking happiness and satisfaction in the accumulation of many things.2 Many commentators (quite rightly) condemn consumerism. Consumerism does appear to be associated with plasma screens (my symbol of spending on meaningless items with apologies to those who have one), as well as with environmental damage and social inequality.
It appears however that they also label their criticism of consumerism at government measures to promote consumption. This, I believe, is a mistake.
My point: Your post poses a meaningful question – boats or goats? What should we spend our cash payments on? This is a question we should all honestly ask ourselves. However, for purposes of stimulating our economy, it simply doesn’t matter (the PM would probably wants you to spend it in Australia so perhaps substitute your presumably foreign goat for health care for indigenous Australians). The point is both are forms of consumption (economically speaking); both stimulate economic activity (jobs, trade, etc) and both are likely to flow on effects whereby the producer of your consumed good will, in turn, consume something themselves.
So, my encouragement to all is to spend your payment on something meaningful. You’ll be complying with Kev’s call to consume and doing something particularly useful at the same time. I only hope this post reaches you in time!
Footnote: I’m not in favour of the cash payments. I think it is a policy that is flawed on economic grounds. I write this to clear up a perceived confusion.
1 In relation to consumption and the environment, it remains an open issue in my mind as to whether or not consumption need necessarily lead to deterioration of the environment. On the one hand, a great deal of our consumptive practices involves using non-renewable environmental resources (fossil fuels, land use). However, we have also made relatively few attempts to change our means of consumption and production for the sake of the environment. Given the progress we have made in improving the efficiency with which we use other resources (for example labour and capital), I expect there is no reason why we could not use our environmental resources as efficiently. The trick is to give people the same incentives to be efficient in the use of the environment as there are to be efficient in the use of capital or labour; hence the case for an emissions trading scheme. It remains to be seen as to whether his expectation of mine is correct; that is, there are ways to enjoy the level of comfort people enjoy without placing the same toll on the planet.
2 I have no idea whether this is the universal definition of consumerism (it wasn’t in my dictionary). I understand consumerism to be a way-of-life or philosophy. It says something to the effect that buying and consuming things is the way to be happy. It is a dangerous worldview that, apart from being deeply untrue, ignores the issues of poverty and injustice that are very real. I think this philosophy is extraordinarily pervasive in our culture and needs to be addressed by churches and anyone else who can. However, given its personal nature, I don’t think it is a problem that can be defeated by government policy. Its existence does however add to my objection to cash payments.
Hi Tom. You’re right, we do tend to conflate consumption and consumerism. And on one level, consumption is as benign and necessary as you describe.
On another level, however, labelling consumption as a good in and of itself (which it seems to me is what is happening) only furthers the definition of a citizen as a consumer – one who consumes goods and services. The more deeply entrenched such a self-perception becomes, the more inherently benign overconsumption seems – and indeed, the more it is proclaimed as a virtue.
This is partly because we are increasingly an overeducated, underskilled society of people who have to pay for others to do things because we are incapable (or feel incapable) of doing them for ourselves.
When economists talk about consumption as the end use of production, they are usually talking about it in the context of “the economy”. They are not talking about bartering, or lending, or scavenging or freeganism. There is nothing of neighbourliness, or volunteerism, all of which exist largely outside the liquid or consumptive economy. As you rightly point out, these are also consumption, but they are rarely what economists refer to when they use the term consumption. If I grow my own food, I will consume the results, but it is not consumption which feeds or stimulates “the economy”.
In this sense it DOES matter to the government what kind of consumption I undertake.
So I don’t think it’s just “consumerism” that poses a problem – in fact, I think most of the reasons consumption is increasingly confused with consumerism is because they are increasingly aligned. Consumption (particularly OVERconsumption) within “the economy” can also pose problems which are unrepresented or underrepresented. There are numerous problems with it. They are problems of limits (ecological and otherwise), of character (neighbourliness and cooperation vs consumercitizen and competition), of unnecessary dependence on corporations and proxies to enable our lives. But most particularly, we are committed to a level of consumption which is literally costing us the earth. This is true whether we consider such consumption to be what will make us happy or not.
Hi Simon. Thanks for the comment.
Interesting thought to consider – the aligning of consumption and consumerism. It may well be that economists are confused themselves (or, of course, maybe I am)! And I take your point about what it may say about the relative value of people (ie the worth of a person to society being based on their contribution to the ‘economy’). Its something I have noticed, recalling the bizarre public debate about whether we allow the child of a doctor from horsham (?) whose son has downe’s syndrome to stay in Australia solely on the basis his dad is a doctor… awful stuff!). It is something to be strongly resisted.
However, I think it needs to be acknowledged that a high level of ‘consumption’ is needed in order for people in our world to have jobs and live the best lives they can. Consumption, or even consumerism maybe, is the reason for a lot of people’s jobs and, as a result, their ability to earn a living. And the real hope for a lot of developing economies is a transfer of wealth from the first world not entirely through aid, but also through trade – which relies upon people in the west paying “for others to do things because we are incapable (or feel incapable) (and I would add ‘simply don’t want to’) of doing…”.
It would be nice if the trick to growing jobs, wealth and health in the world, and in particular the developing world, was for people in the west to live subsistence lives and not ‘consume’ lots of things purchased from others. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the reality. The world needs people in the west ‘consuming’ lots of things produced by the developing world – to give them jobs and wealth.
I think the trick is to modify the consumption of the west – teach us to value things of meaning and things of value to others. Teach us to ‘consume’ by purchasing things for others or things that make our world a better place, things that improve the environment, etc. (By ‘things’ of course, they need not be objects at all. Paying someone to protect the Amazon rainforest also counts as ‘consumption’).
I fear I am rambling. Let me conclude: the distinction between consumerism and consumption sounds semantic but it may important. I think our world is not served by the wealthy reducing consumption and hoarding their money in the way our grandparents’ generation did (they had to, times have changed). Nor do I think the wealthy should close themselves off by being more self-sufficient. Consumption, via trade, is the most likely way in which those less fortunate will be able to participate in the increased wealth and standard of living of the west. By all means lets be generous, but generous consumers – consuming things that are good for ourselves or others or the world. (Having just written that sentence, I do acknowledge that it sounds a little strange – but I’m sticking with it!)
As for the environment, what we consume and how it is produced needs to change. But removing consumption, I think, throws out the baby with the bathwater. How to change the what and how of consumption is a topic for another day but an emissions trading scheme is not a ridiculous idea. This is a topic for another day.
Keen to hear your thoughts. Tom
Hey Tom. I’m finding this a useful discussion – thanks for the time you’ve put into it and the wisdom you bring to it. Here are a few thoughts I have in response to your thoughts.
I acknowledge I’m coming from the idealistic end – what I think society could (and perhaps should) be like, rather than from the pragmatic end of what is likely to happen in the short term. But then if we don’t change our habits in the short term we may not have an earth to live on.
So I’ll just respond to a few things you’ve said: “However, I think it needs to be acknowledged that a high level of ‘consumption’ is needed in order for people in our world to have jobs and live the best lives they can.”
In the system we have become used to, this certainly _seems_ to be true.
Personally I think the assumption that people need consumption in order to live the best lives they can is exactly the line we’re sold by manufacturers and corporations to keep us hooked. I wonder whether we’re amusing ourselves do death (most of what is considered ‘good life’ is connected to entertainment and creature comforts) because we’re so removed from ‘good work’ that is affirming of human worth and community. Good work is not necessarily easy or always pleasant – it can be physically hard, or repetitive, or require discipline. But it is work that is worthwhile, and affirming of health and wholeness.
As for jobs – well, this is precisely the problem with the liquid economy we are hooked into (like some kind of drug of addiction!). Jobs are dependant on our being helpless except for our particular specialisation. Industrialisation seems to have improved our lives, but has it really? For every machine we employ to do a worse job for cheaper, we leave more people unemployed and without purpose. Because we’ve devalued subsistence living and assumed farming work is drudgery, we have tried to escape by creating jobs that leave us with desk drudgery instead. So now we have to do sedentary work so we can afford the gym fees so we can spend an hour after work regaining some sense of the fitness we would’ve had if we’d remained doing manual labour. Industrialisation usually seems to take one neat solution and create two problems out of it.
As Peter Maurin (co-founder of the Catholic Worker) used to say, “No one is unemployed on a farm”. If you do work, you eat. If we returned to a system where we were closer to the means of production (local economies), people would value the materials they work with more, and would value the earth it came from and the people who produced it because they have control and personal connection to it.
All of this is a drastic truncation of how it could work, but hopefully gives the gist.
You said: “The world needs people in the west ‘consuming’ lots of things produced by the developing world – to give them jobs and wealth.”
As for subsistence living hurting people in the two thirds world – well, I think the opposite is true. Why are we wealthy, and why are others poor? We only need look at the history of colonialism to see why some are rich and some are poor (a problem that goes on in a different form with the US empire). What is happening is that the west is stripping the wealth from such people by slave labour, mining others’ resources and corrupt corporations. Globalisation is the problem, not the solution, because in a purely pragmatic sense people rarely care about communities other than their own. That is, they rarely see the actual consequences of their consumption (you can pay people to protect the Amazon, but when you’re buying the products produced as a result of the clear-cutting of it, what’s the point?). If people could develop their own local economies, on land which could support such economies (which is becoming more difficult due to global warming), there would be no need for aid or for help from the West.
I’m not talking about removing consumption altogether (we need to eat, live in dwellings, etc), but globalised industrial consumption is destroying the earth and the communities it supports. It’s been a long road into it, and it will be a long road out, but that’s the direction I’m moving in, and I’m encouraging (and hopefully enabling) others to do the same.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this too Tom (and others) – anyone want to join me on my farming commune (see http://www.catholicworker.org/roundtable/easyessays.cfm)?
Here’s one of Peter Maurin’s Easy Essays that sums it up pretty well for me:
What The Unemployed Need
1. The unemployed
need free rent;
they can have that
on a Farming Commune.
2. The unemployed
need free food;
they can raise that
on a Farming Commune.
3. The unemployed
need free fuel;
they can cut that
on a Farming Commune.
4. The unemployed
need to acquire skill;
they can do that
on a Farming Commune.
5. The unemployed
need to improve
their minds;
they can do that
on a Farming Commune.
6. The unemployed
need spiritual guidance;
they can have that
on a Farming Commune.
Hi Simon
Unfortunately I am writing this at a time when I don’t have a lot of time so this post will be brief. Apologies.
A couple of points:
Firstly, I’m sorry if I was unclear but when I suggested that – “consumption is needed in order for people in our world to have jobs and live the best lives they can” – I was referring to it providing jobs for others, the poor in particular, and those others would benefit and improve their lot. I wasn’t suggesting consumption was the key to happiness (I hope I have slander consumerism enough so that you’re aware I don’t think that). Rather that it generates jobs and economic opportunities for others including the poor.
Secondly, I would suggest that I understanding factually about how the west got rich. My understanding is that, while the west has exploited other countries, this was not the key to the west getting rich. The level of wealth worldwide is far too high for the west to simply have stolen it from the rest of the world or got it via exploitation.
Actually, I would suggest that one of the biggest drivers of the west getting rich was technological advancements, many of which come from specialisation. The economic benefits of specialising in something are pretty easy to imagine – making 100 or something isn’t 10 times as hard as making 10.
What I will suggest is that this technological advancement (which have included medicines, crop technologies, all sorts of good stuff) did not come from people living subsistence lives. Rather, their specialisation allowed them to focus of a particular specialty – and get very good at it. People are definitely a better off because of it.
I’ve got to run. My apologies for being brief.
I think my simple response is that I believe you are overstating the value of being subsistent. I don’t think there is enough intrinsic value in it to justify to cost to the world in people not specialising and growing efficiency and technology.
I am very happy our country is not 100% reliant on agriculture. I think that you’re description of farming is a little simplistic (“you do work, you eat”). A lot of people do work on farms that, for a number of reasons, don’t produce enough for them to eat. Diversification and trade seems a better option to me.
Apologies for being brief. Thanks. Tom
I also have too little time to proof read my work! The 3rd paragraph, first sentence, is particularly bad!
It should read something like: “Secondly, I would suggest that my factual understanding of how the west got rich differing significantly from yours”.
Apologies again. Tom
Thanks again Tom. I agree I’m being too simplistic…put it down to the nature of online comment conversation. I’d far rather do this over lunch…let me know when you’re coming in next!
But in the meantime I want to engage with a couple of your ideas, which undoubtedly are as limited as mine by time and space and such, but anyway.
I think it would be difficult to argue that colonialism wasn’t one of the key factors, if not THE key factor, to the current imbalance of wealth. Many other factors flow on from that, including technological developments, etc.
Some level of specialisation is necessary, but when specialisation goes mad (as it often does) it leaves those specialists disconnected from the implications of their specialty. Nuclear scientists are specialists. Weapons developers are specialists.
Making 100 of something isn’t ten times as hard as making ten, of course, but the problem with technology is that the job of making those 100 things will often be taken from ten people and given to one machine which will do a much poorer job of it. Thus culture, skill and purpose are lost, resulting in unemployment, mental illness, and boredom (and a corresponding massive drain on resources!), and all in the name of “efficiency” and “the economy”.
So the ability to do good work, worthwhile work, is much more important than efficiency.
Technological “advancement” is often no more than the science of speed and efficiency taken to its ultimate conclusion. It does not ask what is good for people, but what will make the outcome happen quicker and with less effort (read: human energy, which is often actually more efficient than fossil fuel energy, and is renewable).
Many of the medicines that has resulted from “technology” have been necessary because of the toxic chemicals in the pesticides and fertilisers in our foods, or other “by-products” of technology.
I am not saying technology is always and everywhere a bad thing (says he, typing on his computer), but that as it has historically been used – unreflectively – it has often caused much harm, and will continue to until we start asking what is actually good for us and for the earth (which are ultimately the same thing).
Much more to say…no more time to say it at the moment. Let’s have lunch!