Good article. Its amazing how the Labor Party and those on the wealthy Left cannot see themselves as part of the elite. Simply by sympathising with and encouraging protest from those who feel hard done by seems to make people like Swan believe he is one of them.

I like this article in that it exposes the ideology of austerity that's currently being foisted in some parts of the world, and the fact that the austerity is being paid by the least well-off while the rich are largely immune. But I suspect the author's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I for one will never seek to reduce my carbon footprint while the rich live so outrageously beyond anything sustainable or conscionable. I'm all for cutting consumption and its polluting by-products, but I'm damned if I'll ever seek to reduce my environmental footprint before the wealthy cut their's (preferably at the neck). What the world is yet to wake up to is that austerity should be imposed from the top down!
Where I disagree (vehemently) with the author is on the notion, the endless/mindless refrain, that economic growth is the cure. I also find his central contention--that governments are preferring austerity over growth because they're gloomy, rather than confronted by harsh realities--ludicrous. Economic growth hitherto, or for the last few decades, has been fabricated from a breath-taking credit binge (public and private) who's debts now preclude any hope of "healthy" growth born of production or innovation (no growth is healthy for the environment but that's another topic).
It's certainly true that austerity imposed on the poor, a la King John, is never going to restore "prosperity" (i.e. profits for the rich), but growth can no longer be conjured up with credit either.
This bloke's selling snake oil.

But, Squeers - we in the West "are" the rich people.

Squeers - we in the West "are" the rich people.
Poirot,
This one of your more profound rose-coloured statements. This is not the sort of idealistic nonsense we need to combat the crisis.
Are you saying that the multi billionaires & other obscenely rich of the East with their fleets of planes, ships & cars are part of the West ? The West which has millions of people just making enough to get through the day ? Those whose labour for peanuts keeps so many useless bureaucrats in a comfortable existence ?
You really are in great need of a dose of reality.

True Poirot, but then all things are relative and there's a wealthy elite presiding over every impoverished nation, just as there is every wealthy nation. And it's not just about money and power; our very worth is gauged by our material footprint, such that greenies are doubly, neigh triply, cursed; they take on the mantle of brainless idealists, worthless bludgers, and Christ-like dupes to the Romans, who continue on regardless. I'd rather go down with the wealthy than effectively be of their working-class martyrs. That's why the world over the working classes accept the ongoing con-job that keeps them in check, meekly being punished for the excesses of the money manipulators; because they've got not dignity that's not vested in real estate or blue chip stocks, and thus no balls.

individual,

You're the one who could do with a dose of "reality".

To be underprivileged in the West is worlds away from third world impoverishment. Although not having enough to pay for all the stuff you've been encouraged to buy on credit is definitely painful.

Who starves to death or dies from a preventable disease in rich industrial nations?

Yo, Squeers - I get where you're coming from.

No doubt, we'll all go over the cliff together.

Sorry Poirot, I must be feeling my revolutionary oats tonight. But it's not only just and right that the wealthy should lead the way--"Just as ancient peoples had above all need of a common faith to live by, we have need of justice" (Durkheim)--the situation demands it.

A quote from a new essay by Wolfgang Streek:

"...a break with the self-destructive mass consumerism that currently has the world in its grip will only be possible if greater sacrifices can be extracted from those who have profited most from the recent transformations of the capitalist economy, as opposed to those who have seen their life chances decline during decades of liberalization and globalization.
... Better living and working conditions for the great majority would alleviate the need for yet more consumer toys to compensate for status anxiety, competitive pressure and increasing insecurity.
... Only if the trend towards deepening social division--the signature of capitalism in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--were reversed would it be conceivable that modern society could free itself from the compulsion to assure domestic peace through the unchecked production of toxic assets assets to engineer synthetic growth".

The irony is that it's often the exploited of the system who brainlessly defend it.

Squeers,

I think too that the very wealthy should lead the way - but they won't of course.

And they won't be pressured to do so by the working class because the system is set up to keep them diligent and curiously content with their consumer desires.

I'm interested in this portion of the quote you posted:

"Better living and working conditions for the great majority would alleviate the need for more consumer toys to compensate for status anxiety, competitive pressure and unceasing insecurity...."

But our whole system is predicated on and nurtured by status anxiety, competitive pressure and unceasing insecurity. It would take a whole new dimension of thinking and behaving to even scratch the surface. What would "better living and working conditions" consist of, and what difference would it make to consumer desire if "growth" remains the key principle for human ascendancy?

Dear Poirot,

"But our whole system is predicated on and nurtured by status anxiety, competitive pressure and unceasing insecurity. It would take a whole new dimension of thinking and behaving to even scratch the surface. What would "better living and working conditions" consist of, and what difference would it make to consumer desire if "growth" remains the key principle for human ascendancy?"

You have hit the nail on its head!

Growth will forever remain the key principle for human ascendancy.
We must ask ourselves, however, is it not time yet to let go of human ascendancy?!
That will indeed require a whole new dimension - a spiritual dimension.

I do agree with Squeers that growth is not the answer, but there are more options besides either growth or pain - which is not the answer either.

Let me remind you that Daniel mentioned the word "growth" only once in his article and that was in "politicians who have little confidence in their ability to encourage economic growth": it is important to retain our confidence in being able to encourage growth, because it's only what we have that we can let go of. Knowing that we can generate more and more if we wanted, but consciously choosing not to do so, preferring the spiritual over the material, is the dimension shift that you referred to.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Daniel on his excellent article and tell him, Yishar Koach (=may your strength be further directed into good projects).

Who starves to death or dies from a preventable disease in rich industrial nations?

- The homeless
- Elderly people neglected and not fed properly in UK hospitals
- People in the US who don't have health insurance
- Children with asthma and allergies
- Others with industrially caused lung cancers
- Indigenous communities eating fish poisoned by tarsands in Canada

Poirot,
Judging by your post you yourself fall into the category of the wealthy West. How much then are you forfeiting for the poor ? No need for actual figures but a percentage of your wealth would suffice.
Most of our wealth is not worked for by us. It's provided by taxpayers on lower pay that all public servants & useless bureaucrats.
Also, what are you doing to stop all these warlords & religious morons from ripping off those who can't escape ? Are you doing it by constantly excusing these morons & blaming the West for everything ? Those whom you afford more benefit of the doubt than your own people ? Those whom you don't object to taking even more from our poor ?
If you weren't in a privileged situation you wouldn't state the comments you do. It's so much more fashionable & easy to condemn those who do likewise.
We could solve many of the problems if it weren't for you do-gooders preventing us from helping.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. - Confucius

What would these blokes know?

My two bob’s worth is as follows.

Without production money has no value! Money is a standardized promissory note that can be traded for stuff or services. If the lawyer, advertiser, real estate agent, accountant, journalist and the salesperson (to name a few) were the only individuals on the planet and they invented a system of promissory notes so they could use them to purchase each other services, it would not work because they produce nothing. They would have nothing to eat, nowhere to live, would be naked and have to walk. Their services and accumulation of wealth can only be ancillary to production.

Again I don’t wish the reader to take the above literally. A complex society requires some essential none productive services to function. We need to question the balance and degree of these activities and the reward (proportion of productivity) a particular activity attracts.

When we spend more than we produce it is called debt! When parasitic activities increase productive activities decrease, it is called inflation!

Too many none productive parasites being rewarded with a disproportionate and undeserved amount of our productive wealth!

The solution (very condensed version) – Personal income per annum (from all sources including fringe benefits) should be limited to a range from not only a minimum, but also to maximum linked to sustainable GDP. Income goes up goes up and down with productivity. We share the pain and the wealth. I call it Productionism.

I reckon Gina should use her influence in channel 10 to have “mining magnate” become next years Biggest Loser theme. Nathan, Clive and Gina’s egos going head to head would be a great watch and give them something meaningful to do. I bet Twiggy would go on a binge to get on the show.

individual,

"If you weren't in a privileged situation you wouldn't state comments like you do..."

But you have no idea why I state comments like I do - or why I might judge "poor" differently from you.

I am in a privileged situation. I live in the West.

I don't think it's helpful for me to disclose the extent of my charitable endeavours, suffice to say that I try to put my money where my mouth is.

You seem to think that I'm preaching from beyond a familiar experience. Not so. I've known what it's like not to possess shoes or a jumper. I remember, at one stage when I was young, piling up the bed with any old thing to supplement a threadbare blanket.(I still wake up some mornings and consciously acknowledge the fact that I'm lying in a nice bed with a warm quilt)

I understand why you might think of me as you do, but really, I don't need a lecture on pauperism.

Thanks for sharing poirot, I'll pass your notes onto any paupers I happen to meet.

I agree with Squeers on one point. And that is that we are sold austerity by those least likely to adopt it themselves. Rich movies stars, wealthy liberal elite such as the Warren Buffets of the world and Left wing academics and Politicians, all of whom have carbon footprints like King Kong and live very priveleged lifestyles.

I fear the new austerity being imposed on the rest of us is a way of decreasing our slices of the economic cake while they retain theirs.

The wealthy will take 1000% of the good times and then "to be fair" accept a 10% haircut when "austerity" is needed.
Similar to the "private profits, public risk" banking system.
When the "elite" manage to kill a nations's prospects as thoroughly as they have in the US it is no surprise there will be a backlash. What a shame that "occupy" remains such a vague aimless mob.
Producer said it well: we need to be rid of the parasites that take so much and yet add so little. Remember the basics of economics 101: Everything is scarce. Why reward non-wealth creators so much more than wealth creators? Some seek to add value...others just to acquire. The very wealthy are simply the least conscientious about creating what they take. How many fortunes are based on known criminal start-ups? (Disturbingly many!)
In economic history it is only when the elites are crushed that progress actually occurs. *Never* trust the very very wealthy (scions particularly), particularly in a crisis!
Left/Right politics is actually irrelevant to the issue now: There are parasites on both sides.