Voluntary Simplifiers Needed

[Nords]

"but apparently real"? Nords, you can just ask my poooooor wife if I'm the genuine McMiser or not. She'll vouch for me. Poooor thing.

No, no, I'm referring to Dolly with that phrase.

She seems legit and apparently was even on talk shows in the 1970s, but she must have dropped out of the media scene.

If she only knew what you're doing there, I'm sure she'd hop right on her bicycle and head on over!

BTW we never mess with our thermostat...

 

[Ultimate Cheapskate]

No, no, I'm referring to Dolly with that phrase.

She seems legit and apparently was even on talk shows in the 1970s, but she must have dropped out of the media scene.

If she only knew what you're doing there, I'm sure she'd hop right on her bicycle and head on over!

BTW we never mess with our thermostat...

Thanks for the clarification, Nords. You know, I'm just very sensitive about challenges to my Cheaphood.

In fact just the other day a friend of mine questioned my credentials as both a cheapskate and an environmentalist (I'm proudly both) when he found out that I use disposable razors. "What do you expect?" I said indignantly. "I hardly ever find the other kind in my neighbor's trash."


Stay Cheap!
-Jeff Yeager

 

[Texarkandy]

I think this is all utopian. The last thing we Americans want is equal access to resorces. We have a big country with much of it cold in winter and hot is summer, big energy hogging houses, a huge investment in big cars.

What we want is a good Navy and world domination so we can keep an unfair share of resources coming our way.

As for economies aimed at human quality of life, forget it. The best thing is for almost everyone but yourself to keep grinding on, living in suburbs, dependent on cars, producing whatever they are capable of producing. You make different choices which you find more rewarding and live the life of an orchid in a tropical jungle.

Ha

This is more along my line of thinking.

This idea of "Voluntary Simplicity" has only a tangential relationship to the goal of FIRE - and then only for some.

I like keeping my life voluntarily simple in some ways - but I certainly don't do it for reasons of trying to change the world - my version of voluntary simplicity is for purely selfish reasons & if it has a small beneficial effect on the rest of the world, well, that's good too I suppose.

(anyone familiar with my avatar?)

 

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Is it Zeno? (founder of stoicism)

 

[REWahoo]

Here's a guy who takes voluntary simplicity to heart. Dang good with a slingshot, too...

YouTube - Carolina Camera: The Sling Shot Man

 

[ziggy29]

This is more along my line of thinking.

This idea of "Voluntary Simplicity" has only a tangential relationship to the goal of FIRE - and then only for some.

Well, in terms of VS being a (sometimes exaggerated) form of LBYM and LBYM being a core principle of arranging one's finances to FIRE, I'd say it's more than tangential.

But yeah, sometimes VS means living *at* voluntarily reduced means which isn't necessarily FIRE-friendly, but it does tend to improve the potential for greater self-sufficiency.

 

[Texarkandy]

Is it Zeno? (founder of stoicism)

Good try, but: Epicurus -

(from the Wikipedia article
"Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires."

Now mind you - I don't subscribe to all of the ideas of Epicurus (esp. the celibacy part, but that was a personal choice on the part of Epicurus) and not really interested in defending them to anybody.

Whether to live simply in some aspect of my life or another is a matter of "value" to me.

I do believe that if the effort/pain required to obtain a material item or participate in an activity is greater than the pleasure to be derived from the item or activity - then it's not worth it. The same if the effort/pain required to abstain from a material item or activity, or to subsitute a more "simple" item/activity in the name of "voluntary simplicity".

The same principle applies to those who live by consumerism as to those who are "voluntarily simple". Being simple won't necessarily bring happiness if it takes a lot of effort/pain to do it. I've cut & split firewood for heat - it get's old after a few years (& I was young then!)

 

[REWahoo]

Being simple won't necessarily bring happiness if it takes a lot of pain to do it.

No pain involved for those of us born that way...

 

[Glo]

simpleliving.net. The chat boards are very helpful.

 

[kyounge1956]

I think this is all utopian. The last thing we Americans want is equal access to resorces. We have a big country with much of it cold in winter and hot is summer, big energy hogging houses, a huge investment in big cars.

What we want is a good Navy and world domination so we can keep an unfair share of resources coming our way.

As for economies aimed at human quality of life, forget it. The best thing is for almost everyone but yourself to keep grinding on, living in suburbs, dependent on cars, producing whatever they are capable of producing. You make different choices which you find more rewarding and live the life of an orchid in a tropical jungle.

Ha

Well, what's wrong with a little utopianism, haha? I really wonder whether Americans actually want world domination, or it simply has not yet occurred to most of us that there might be another possibility—that reducing our consumption of resources, eliminating the "need" to dominate the rest of the world with its associated military costs (in lives, dollars, and goodwill) might be an improvement in quality of life for both the US and the rest of the world. On a personal level, do you actually take the "I'll get mine and half of yours too, and if you don't like it, tough luck" attitude you've described above? Or is that the attitude you believe most Americans have, based on our past actions? If you meant the latter, I can't really disagree with you—but wouldn't voluntary simplicity be preferable?

I am not sure how to understand your last paragraph. Does "As for economies aimed at human quality of life, forget it" mean that you think Americans will never be sufficiently motivated by ideas of fairness or equal access to the world's resources to voluntarily reduce our own consumption thereof? Or are you saying that an economic system which has the goal of improving everyone's quality of life rather than relying on ever-increasing levels of consumption is doomed to fail—people only work because they have to (debt, "keeping up with the Joneses") not because they want to or to benefit others?

 

[haha]

Well, what's wrong with a little utopianism, haha? I really wonder whether Americans actually want world domination, or it simply has not yet occurred to most of us that there might be another possibility—that reducing our consumption of resources, eliminating the "need" to dominate the rest of the world with its associated military costs (in lives, dollars, and goodwill) might be an improvement in quality of life for both the US and the rest of the world. On a personal level, do you actually take the "I'll get mine and half of yours too, and if you don't like it, tough luck" attitude you've described above? Or is that the attitude you believe most Americans have, based on our past actions? If you meant the latter, I can't really disagree with you—but wouldn't voluntary simplicity be preferable?

I am not sure how to understand your last paragraph. Does "As for economies aimed at human quality of life, forget it" mean that you think Americans will never be sufficiently motivated by ideas of fairness or equal access to the world's resources to voluntarily reduce our own consumption thereof? Or are you saying that an economic system which has the goal of improving everyone's quality of life rather than relying on ever-increasing levels of consumption is doomed to fail—people only work because they have to (debt, "keeping up with the Joneses") not because they want to or to benefit others?

In my personal life I live very simply. I hardly ever drive. But I think the US economy would fall apart even worse than it has already under a mass movement to simplicity.

As regards the second question, yes debt is a key factor but not the only factor. The way out is the way through I think. The answer to technological challenges is likely more technology.

Anyway Rwanda has a lot of simplicity, but it doesn't work very well for anyone.

ha

 

[Texarkandy]

Well, what's wrong with a little utopianism, haha? I really wonder whether Americans actually want world domination, or it simply has not yet occurred to most of us that there might be another possibility—that reducing our consumption of resources, eliminating the "need" to dominate the rest of the world with its associated military costs (in lives, dollars, and goodwill) might be an improvement in quality of life for both the US and the rest of the world. On a personal level, do you actually take the "I'll get mine and half of yours too, and if you don't like it, tough luck" attitude you've described above? Or is that the attitude you believe most Americans have, based on our past actions? If you meant the latter, I can't really disagree with you—but wouldn't voluntary simplicity be preferable?

.......

I think it's a misperception that American military power has enabled the US to "dominate" the world in order to selfishly enrich itself, at least in the last century. If anything, American military power has improved (or attempted/intended to) the lives of countless millions around the world - and at no small expense to the American taxpayers.

I'm all for the ideal of improving the quality of life in other parts of the world, however, I don't think voluntarily reducing our own quality of life necessarily serves that end.

 

[kyounge1956]

(snip)Anyway Rwanda has a lot of simplicity, but it doesn't work very well for anyone.

ha

That's two different things. If I have the ability to use more than I need, but don't do so, that's voluntary simplicity. If I don't have as much as I need, that's poverty. And I don't know anyone who thinks poverty is a good thing. I know I didn't when I was broke.

 

[kyounge1956]

(snip)I'm all for the ideal of improving the quality of life in other parts of the world, however, I don't think voluntarily reducing our own quality of life necessarily serves that end.

That's counterintuitive to say the least. If the U.S. uses less of some resource, demand falls, which means the price of that resource drops, which means people who can't afford that resource now become able to do so. If the U.S. uses more, the price goes up. IIRC this recently happened with the price of corn—ethanol subsidies increased the demand for corn in the U.S. and as a result the price of tortillas in Mexico went through the roof.

 

[ERD50]

If the U.S. uses less of some resource, demand falls, which means the price of that resource drops, which means people who can't afford that resource now become able to do so. If the U.S. uses more, the price goes up.

I'd say that' true *only* in the case that the rise in price from any US over-consumption is the cause (or significant contributing factor) to their poverty.

The really frustrating thing for me (and I'm pretty ignorant on these matters, so fill me in if I have it wrong), is that a great deal of the world's poverty is caused by the corrupt governments in those regions. Weren't some of the recent famines in Africa made even worse because the govt was diverting food or not accepting aid in the form of grain or something? Me cutting back on a few meals won't change that.

IIRC this recently happened with the price of corn—ethanol subsidies increased the demand for corn in the U.S. and as a result the price of tortillas in Mexico went through the roof.

Good example. However, once again the cause was a corrupt govt, this time the US Congress buying votes/contributions from farmers, agri-business, and pseudo-environmentalists. The normal pattern of consumption in the US would not have driven up the price of corn.

I still think there is merit in what you say, but I question whether voluntary acts would have any significant effect world-wide. I think the involuntary effects will be much greater - the entire world wants a higher standard of living, and they are in competition with us. I just don't see how what we have is sustainable in the face of that. Maybe not total doom-gloom, but I think things will be tougher going forward for those of us who have been lucky enough to be born in a 1st world country, and hopefully, things get better for those in the 2nd and 3rd world. And I cant justify any reason that it should be any different.

What I would hope is that through some advancements we can cause all boats to rise. Maybe, we (or our kids & grandkids) will see.

-ERD50

 

[Texarkandy]

That's counterintuitive to say the least. If the U.S. uses less of some resource, demand falls, which means the price of that resource drops, which means people who can't afford that resource now become able to do so. If the U.S. uses more, the price goes up. IIRC this recently happened with the price of corn—ethanol subsidies increased the demand for corn in the U.S. and as a result the price of tortillas in Mexico went through the roof.

You are assuming if "demand falls" then production will remain the same and prices drop.

Prices fall with mass production.

In some instances poor countries benefit by being able to leech off of percentages of excess production. The more production there is the more there is of that percentage. In other instances poor countries use so little of a product it would not be worth operating costs to produce it for them at all.

Couple of examples:
Do you think the American public's fascination with all things computer/electronic has caused those items to be cheaper - or more expensive? How much would a laptop cost in Zimbabwe if western demand had not caused a gazillion of them to be produced?

How much would an MRI machine cost if we didn't have at least one in every small city in the US & many in the large cities? Does our "overconsumption" of MRI machines help - or hurt - the MRI situation in Guyana?

If not for certain countries that use massive quantities of oil thus creating a huge market, there would not be as much oil production, exploration, & transportation, pipeline, refinery & business infrastructure, etc as exists currently - thus less oil on the market. Prices would surely go up as operating costs per barrel would go up.

(BTW -as to the tortilla example - the price of tortillas in Mexico has been artificially fixed for years - the price was raised (maybe partially because of ethanol) & of course the Mexican govt had to blame it on the bad ole USA - you don't think the Mexican govt is going to take responsibility for anything negative in their economy do you?)

 

[ERD50]

You are assuming if "demand falls" then production will remain the same and prices drop.

Prices fall with mass production.

In some instances poor countries benefit by being able to leech off of percentages of excess production. The more production there is the more there is of that percentage. In other instances poor countries use so little of a product it would not be worth operating costs to produce it for them at all.

...

(BTW -as to the tortilla example - the price of tortillas in Mexico has been artificially fixed for years - the price was raised (maybe partially because of ethanol) & of course the Mexican govt had to blame it on the bad ole USA - you don't think the Mexican govt is going to take responsibility for anything negative in their economy do you?)

Interesting counterpoint. I had not thought of that, but it certainly could be a positive in some cases. If we 'over consume' MRIs and computers here in the US, the used ones can go to poor countries that might not have them at all otherwise.

As to the tortilla, it would be interesting to know the cost of production before/after corn prices raised due to ethanol. Are we talking home-made tortillas, so the cost would mostly be the corn itself? I would imagine a bushel of corn would make a lot of tortillas.

-ERD50

 

[Texarkandy]

Interesting counterpoint. I had not thought of that, but it certainly could be a positive in some cases. If we 'over consume' MRIs and computers here in the US, the used ones can go to poor countries that might not have them at all otherwise.

As to the tortilla, it would be interesting to know the cost of production before/after corn prices raised due to ethanol. Are we talking home-made tortillas, so the cost would mostly be the corn itself? I would imagine a bushel of corn would make a lot of tortillas.

-ERD50

The price of tortillas in Mexico is kind of like the CPI in the US. The Mexican govt also has price controls.

"it would be interesting to know the cost of production before/after corn prices raised due to ethanol."
That would be fine but one would have to make sure they include all of the other inflationary factors in there also besides just the price of cornand how much inflation there is for other items in the Mexican marketplace to see if tortillas have gone up at the same or a much higher percentage -not to mention taking a look at what items may be now cheaper for the Mexican consumer that would offset an increase in tortilla prices - to assess the impact on the average Mexican household.

This article's nearly 2 years old (but that's when a lot of this "price of tortillas" thing was really last in the news as far as I know):

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Mexican leader puts brakes on tortilla prices

From the article:
"The rise is partly because U.S. ethanol plants have been gobbling corn supplies and pushing prices as high as $3.40 a bushel, the highest in more than a decade.

But Calderon also blames price gouging by Mexican middlemen who grind corn into flour and sell it to thousands of tortilla vendors.

"The increases in the international corn market do not justify the tortilla hikes in this country in the last weeks," Calderon said."

 

[HFWR]

And what does that have to do with the [-]price of tortillas in Mexico[/-] the price of tea in China?

(Adjusting tinfoil hat...)

As T-Al oft says, there's just too dang many people. Consider, for instance, the breadbaskets of the world, which require large amounts of petroleum and other stuff to keep the world fed. And trying to go more organic would likely reduce yields, creating a need for more land under plow, negating at least some of the benefit. And a few bad weather years, from "climate change" of whatever cause would cause major problems for those at the margin. We are straining the capacity of our power/water/sewer systems, and running out of landfill space. Pollution of various sorts is screwing with the "environment"; I refer you to the swirling mass of garbage out in the Pacific...

The World's Largest Dump: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch | Ocean | DISCOVER Magazine

Could be that simplicity may not be so voluntary...