[Ibon]

. What is the cause of entire societies being driven into a buying and spending frenzy?

Boredom.

[Kristen]

It's quite simple, In America shopping is a temporary lift on a persons mood. It works like a drug, because the high is temporary and requires more and more ownership to reach the same happiness as before. It's reinforced by our consumer culture of status, which includes media, education and family. It has destroyed lives and will continue to do so in the near future

[Unconventional Ideas]

Good news is in the long term future, it is not likely to continue.

[prajeshbhat]

The trend is now passed on to other countries as well. Even in the countries that are the starvation capitals of the world, young people have mastered the art of spending money they don't have on stuff they don't need. Of all the -isms that have tried to take over the world, consumerism is the one true winner, hands down.

Here's a modern shopping mall in india



And here's one in Nigeria



I guess when you pull out that credit card and buy cheap stuff, you really feel like a king or a queen. You are in control of what you buy. That feeling is worth something. And the way things are going these days, you better take advantage of this opportunity while it lasts. You may never get a second chance in your life once you go broke.

[WildRose]

. What is the cause of entire societies being driven into a buying and spending frenzy?

Boredom.

And loss of purpose. Feeling like the work we do is not worthwhile, not rewarding, doesn't have a lot of value. I suppose it's also easier to shop than it is to tend a garden or rebuild an engine. Shopping probably also takes the place of working on relationships as people fill their weeknights and weekends with going to the mall. For some it may fulfill the hunter-gatherer drive (I confess that's what I derive out of grocery shopping). Advertising plays a huge role, though, as does the whole "keeping up with the neighbors" thing. Then there's the attitude of entitlement, needing to have at age 25 what couples years ago earned after 35 years of hard work, and the "princess" mentality, where everyone should be able to live like a celebrity. Shopping - there's a lot going on as people fill their baskets, and it's what keeps our economy afloat.

[rangerone314]

LOL. So much am I the opposite of coming anywhere near to appreciating that stuff. Or keeping up with the Joneses.

[Quinny]

Our (current) role in the western world is to consume. Can't go on for much longer though. How long can we make a living out of opening doors for each other?

[dolanbaker]

100 years ago, something like 10% of the population was in "service", working & often living in the big houses of the wealthy.
It was WWI and the depression of the 1930s, but principally mechanisation of the household chores that changed that.
The first one created a labour shortage, the second one a money shortage and the third reduced the need for labour at all.

[Quinny]

The problem now is that the vast majority of us are in the 'service' industry. If you look at the % of people employed making useful stuff including food it's miniscule, so the rest of us are paid to provide 'services' to others be those public or private sector. Our productive capacity has therefore become largely irrelevant and our role as consumers has therefore become the way we are valued/ get fulfillment.

[AgentR11]

Our (current) role in the western world is to consume. Can't go on for much longer though. How long can we make a living out of opening doors for each other?

Underlies the structural problem when so few people are needed to produce all the food for a nation of 300+ million. We all have to trade stuff around so that the entity with a bajillion metric tons of grain can distribute that grain, and receive value for it, while insuring that everyone has access to a reasonable caloric ration of food. We trade for and with cash, of course, but the monetary velocity has to be sufficient to get all that grain out of the silos and into people's bread.

So we open doors for each other, or build odd gadgets, or sew funny looking clothing. When the economy tries to stall out, the government freakz and starts pumping cash like nuts. 280 million hungry primates, accustomed to excess food, and decently armed will make a catastrophic mess of things, very, very quickly! That result must be avoided.

So, as much as I'd like to say it can't keep going; I have to admit, it most certainly can as long as there is even a trickle of natural gas to make fertilizer, and diesel to run the tractors and trains. The veils of usefulness for some of the things we do may fall; which will be a blow to our egos, but those in power will not allow the peasants to have reason to risk life and limb for a bowl of rice.

[rangerone314]

Our (current) role in the western world is to consume. Can't go on for much longer though. How long can we make a living out of opening doors for each other?

Underlies the structural problem when so few people are needed to produce all the food for a nation of 300+ million. We all have to trade stuff around so that the entity with a bajillion metric tons of grain can distribute that grain, and receive value for it, while insuring that everyone has access to a reasonable caloric ration of food. We trade for and with cash, of course, but the monetary velocity has to be sufficient to get all that grain out of the silos and into people's bread.

So we open doors for each other, or build odd gadgets, or sew funny looking clothing. When the economy tries to stall out, the government freakz and starts pumping cash like nuts. 280 million hungry primates, accustomed to excess food, and decently armed will make a catastrophic mess of things, very, very quickly! That result must be avoided.

So, as much as I'd like to say it can't keep going; I have to admit, it most certainly can as long as there is even a trickle of natural gas to make fertilizer, and diesel to run the tractors and trains. The veils of usefulness for some of the things we do may fall; which will be a blow to our egos, but those in power will not allow the peasants to have reason to risk life and limb for a bowl of rice.

A good hypothesis, but it does rest on the assumption that those in power are capable of much better judgement than those who were in power in much older civilizations, like Rome or Persia or the Byzantines. I've seen little to warrant such faith in their judgment.

[AgentR11]

A good hypothesis, but it does rest on the assumption that those in power are capable of much better judgement than those who were in power in much older civilizations, like Rome or Persia or the Byzantines. I've seen little to warrant such faith in their judgment.

I'm hopeful that their judgement is on track. Note, that I don't suggest they need to make the peasants happy.

On the other hand, I'm hopeful, while simultaneously I'm doing PT like the lives of those close to me depends on it, and considering blowing a decent amount of cash on a rifle that would be chalked up as a recreational tin can plinker and ground hog squisher... if times were different. Not sure what this says about my confidence in the brinkmanship of those at the top.