'The system we live under has the ability to self-implode (GFC) and it is a constant balancing act. And yet people cannot yet see the need for an overhaul.'

Overhauls don't work pelican. Well, they work, but with catastrophic damage.

Slow incremental change is the only solution my revolutionary comrade.

Unless, we have lots of wars and GFCs and natural disasters, making thrift and community spirit the new black. A common enemy, or an external adversity. But no governmnet would voluntarily create the same havoc as these natural events, let alone the world economic community in concert.

I don't understand how in one sentence you want to prevent a system prone to cyclic implosions that rebalance it, then call for people to do exactly that but worse via explosion. Add in the fact that we are part of a global economy so would merely be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Once you have your voluntary explosion of capitalism, what non-cyclic, balanced, safe, tamper-proof system do you envisage will be formed, and how long will it remain so. How would you get it up and running before the smart vested interests can corrupt it before it begins?

When you bite the hand that feeds you, you had better have an alternative lined up and ready to go. Then you'd have to sell it to people who are living in the land of plenty.

I'm happy with the predictable cycle we have now. It's pretty simple. All one needs is personal accountability and discipline to thrive.

PS:

'then that might affect jobs'
I thought you were a greenie? Any jobs lost can easily be re-created in an entirely different industry with an entirely different skill set with no disruption to anyone's life.

Pelican
Has it ever occurred to you that the ascendancy of corporatism is *because of* the operations of social democracy, and in particular, the belief in political interventions and redistributions, rather than despite social democracy?

*woke up; all you’re doing is keeping the rich bastards rich—polluting the planet for them!*

Ah Squeers, if you were really concerned about people consuming too
many resources, what about vasectomies for all you prolific breeders
who have more then two kids?

Now you want to blame the cows etc, when you yourself are part of
the problem.

The CO2 levy is little more then Govts wanting to be seen to be
doing something, but without upsetting voters, who might turf them
out of office, so they will achieve little but a feelgood exercise.

Now if that money was channeled into solar hot water systems, better
insulation, the development of solar air conditioners and similar,
the money might actually do some good. But it won't. So people
will keep buying electric hot water systems, electric clother dryers
and similar, with the rebate cheques from Govt. Nothing will change.

But the Govt will have been seen to act responsibly. The punters
will most likely be silly enough to accept it. I guess we land up
with the politicians that we deserve.

your right of course
but its the game[sort of like reverse phycology]

they say reduce water
at the same time they put up the water presure
its about putting on the guilt..[and increasing the price]
while at the same time pushing it through your meter and tap faster

its skitsophrenic consumerism
plus the same deal with power
we get a minimum of 250 volts..but usually they prefer to up it
so were really bying 280..its all about money

look at ya lights..ya get free light bulbs
but you really want to save..switch off your hotwater service
put it on a timer to switch on say an hour before you normally need it

[it only takes 2 hours to heat it per day]
little known also..is the so called off peak..runs 24/7

the big clue with power is watts
20 w is using half the power of 40
my big tv [old style 20 inch]draws 95 watts
the small portable i watch uses 55 watts

there is so much more we could really be doing
but consumer free days are the best...[but dont make the mistake of leaving the money in the bank]..the leverage it out..[make it work]..to those who spend on credit cards paying high intrest

the best things in life are free
its time we only accepted the best things
cheap things are designed to break..this system is broken

Thanks for the responses everyone, and I'm glad most of you seem to agree with me, more or less, except Peter Hume. Peter, I don't think the main point here has anything to do with the "morality" of consumption. It's just as legitimate to be disgusted by conspicuous consumption on existential grounds, though certainly there are the ethical connotations of inequity, and the material effects of hyper consumption on the biosphere. Despite your scepticism about climate change, even you wouldn't argue that hyper-consumption has a negative effect on other species and habitats. You are presumably an amoralist then--the anti-ethic of the liberal. Do ethics play any part in your thinking?

However, for once I wasn't interested in ethics and was merely pointing up what a crazy situation we're in: mass-consumption is fundamental to economic growth in a comparatively new and disturbing way. Advanced capitalism is dependent on consumerism, vast economic empires are precariously predicated upon it. This is one of the vilest facets of neoliberalism; that it patronises consumers with illusions of their democratic legitimacy, whereas in fact liberals despise the masses and popular opinion. Popular democracy is "tolerated" for so long as it mollifies and keeps consumers consuming. "social mores" are so much plastic, to be moulded in whatever shape please you. Neoliberals are above such tawdry nonsense as democracy and popular morality. Meanwhile, politicians negotiate in the space between corporate finance and their credulous constituents; they're just the go-betweens and have no capacity to act decisively for their masters or those they ostensibly represent--though for decades now there has been a trend toward the former. Indeed a concerted ideological campaign has been fought and one by neoliberals without masses even being aware of it.
Now we have Gillard moaning about the pittance that goes to those on welfare. The idea of course is to increase the consumer and taxation bases while shrinking social welfare. More money for corporations not society.
The idea that we're going to reduce carbon emissions under such a dispensation is ludicrous.
Australia is in a position to lead the world out of this addiction.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the ascendancy of corporatism is *because of* the operations of social democracy, and in particular, the belief in political interventions and redistributions, rather than despite social democracy?"

Yep perhaps in some areas, but you are only looking at one part of the whole. The problem is the tendency to, as someone put it, to privatise profit and socialise debt, hingeing on the false notion that it is done to benefit the citizenry. Political or government participation is not always a negative Peter, certainly no more than putting complete faith in the markets to sort things out. Modern dissatisfaction with governments stems from the lack of appropriate mechanisms to ensure accountablity nor are there those structures that might allow greater participation by the citizenry.

Houlley
The alternative has already been and gone - it is no mystery, there is nothing 'new' in ideology. A mix of publicly owned assets that work for the collective benefit and privately owned enterprises that allow for innovation, progress and the Howard Government's 'incentivization'. Mixed economies do better than either command economies or free market economies (under the current inequities) IMO.

Economies that rely on a cycle of increasing consumption and consumerism are doomed to fail in the end because resources are finite.

Human beings have come to expect more in the way of material goods and we live primarily in an immediate gratification society. No longer hanging onto the old uni furniture for years but needing to make our way down to Freedom Furniture, Ikea or Domayne to fit out the house just so. Talking to many of my age, there was no feeling of deprivation even though we grew up with little luxuries. Luxuries were treats.

Personal responsibility is a big factor and we can make choices as individual consumers despite the huge influences that push the consumerist motto.