posted February 16, 2010 05:47 PM         

Many Americans have heard of David Horowitz, the consumer advocate.

My name is Bob Horowitz, and I am the anti-consumer advocate.

I'm asking all wealthy people of the world, especially Americans, to stop consuming so much. I would not ask you to do anything I do not do myself.

By learning to be happy with less, you just may find that so many possessions were merely complicating your life. You may find that few—but more special or unique—things trump multitudes of mediocre or common things. True, some material objects do make our lives easier, but they cannot bring us happiness, which must be found within.

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered. A nation can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy."

Dr. Martin Luther King, April, 1967

As Dr. King keenly observed more than 30 years ago, society should encourage its members to look to their relationships with others for fulfillment, but instead, it promises that if we buy the latest gizmo or the snazziest new fashion, then we will be happy and popular. Of course, that is a lie, and the prized possession is soon forgotten, replaced by something better, faster, cooler, newer, which is soon forgotten itself. The cycle never ends, which is why I have launched my anti-consumer philosophy.

The goals of this philosophy are modest:

1. To save the planet and all of its life forms from a global environmental collapse fueled by spreading hyper-consumption.
2. To increase the overall happiness and fulfillment of the human race by encouraging simplicity, and by doing so, reduce war, cruelty and suffering worldwide.
3. To preserve the planet's spiritual and cultural traditions from annihilation in the face of the global consumer religion promoted by multinational corporations and their lackeys in national and supra-national governments.

posted February 16, 2010 06:00 PM         

quote:

---

The Age Of Responsible Consumerism
by Matt Thornhill, Monday, July 20, 2009, 8:10 AM

Welcome to the dawn of Responsible Consumerism -- arguably the most profound shift in American values since the 1960s.

We saw this seismic shift coming a generation away. Members of both the G.I. and Silent generations, those now ages 64 and older, led the way by reducing their own consumption of goods and services as they grew older. Their desires shifted as they reached age 50 and then 60: fewer material goods, more enriching experiences. Fast on their heels comes the largest, wealthiest and most important demographic group America has even seen. Boomers, raised in front of television sets, a target for marketers from age five upward, are now reaching 60 at the rate of one every eight seconds.

That's right. The generation that put the mass into consumption is now at the stage of life where people naturally shift focus from the material to the ethereal. What's fascinating (or worrisome, if you're in a retail or consumer-products business) is that the impact of this shift on America's consumption-driven economy is just beginning.

But wait, there's more: This shift away from spending by our largest demographic group coincides with a larger societal trend towards sustainability. Consumers of all ages are thinking more about the environmental impact of their purchase behavior and consumption patterns. In a national study we conducted among all adults last year, before the economic meltdown, 80% of all consumers told us they think or act in a "green," or in an environmentally responsible fashion. Green is mainstream, and here to stay.

One last ingredient to this perfect storm: the worst recession since the Great Depression. Put all three trends in a blender and the future for marketers is grim indeed. Mass consumption, the underpinning of the American economy since 1946, is dead, dead, dead.

The Reach of Responsible Consumerism

McKinsey recently advised companies to plan on Boomers ruling the economy until 2016, which is when the number of younger households will finally surpass Boomer households. We've long predicted that Boomers will spend time and money pursuing their own vitality as they pass through their remaining midlife years and reach old age. Now we believe this quest for vitality will operate with a new filter: frugality and responsibility.

The economy is already feeling the effects as individual Boomers curtail spending and place more emphasis on saving. The retail sector is already contracting, as are consumer products manufacturers. Sales tax receipts are tumbling, too, and governments are wrestling with revenue shortfalls and services will be curtailed. The global economy is suffering a wrenching restructuring -- Chinese manufacturers are experiencing mass layoffs -- as frugality and responsible consumerism take root across America.

Talk in recent weeks that the "stimulus" isn't working misses the broader point -- we're not going to return to a consumption economy. What's to come? An energy economy? A green economy? Or a global economy? We don't know. But we do know consumers have moved and smart marketers will need to get busy to determine the new destination.

By luck or brilliance, we think Wal-Mart will thrive in this Responsible Consumer future: The company's current tagline, "Live better, save more" almost captures the mindset completely -- which is more along the lines of "spend less, live smarter." For Boomers, we think the immediate priority will be to act frugally, in consumption and savings, and only then focus on being vital.

The future of consumerism won't be built on buying more but getting more out of what we buy. We think those marketers who figure out how to deliver modest prices and modest living will enjoy mega sales.

---

posted February 16, 2010 09:22 PM         

I admit, I'm partial to a few of them, but I interpret them all with a grain of salt, -- because I think everything is true in part, and in theory, -- but I think the danger is that they may be interpreted and implemented too rigidly. This is always the fall. Freedom is difficult, above all things, to implement, and needful, above all things, to implement, because it is that which, by nature, cannot be imposed. One cannot force freedom. And, yet, when you give people the choice, they almost inevitably seek hierarchical relationships; that is, they seek either to give power away, or to exercise power over others. The more freedom you give them, the more of a vaccum you create for negative influences to intervene and take hold. So, if you really want to promote freedom, of ideas, or institutions, or anything, you have to provide some sort of positive, active framework. You can't just say, "You're free!" You have to offer something. A philosophy, a culture, an infrastructure, something, however tentative, negotiable, or open to interpretation. A positive, consistent influence is not contrary to the promotion of true freedom. It involves fostering and nurturing the freedom of individuals and groups of individuals. This may all sound like a bunch of gibberish, but it's only because i am just beginning to see how it ties into some very complicated theories of my own.

I'm not sure I would see them become "isms". What I envision is so mutable.. I want to provide a variety of perspectives and a flexibility of movement, and I want to trust the listener to use this freedom wisely. I don't want to give excuses to the wicked, or trouble with too many considerations and second-guesses the hero already possessed of his inner sense of direction. But I want to make possible the good that is possible. The view that is not represented, is never assented to. I want to awaken the minds of my readers to the possibility, in any situation, of a multitude of perspectives, any number of which may be more or less valuable, or equal in value, to the perspectives which come most readily to their own minds. I want to assert nothing which cannot be called into question, but I want to sketch out a variety of paths for every temperament, and every occasion. If the paths are indicated, and the freedom to choose between them, not for everyone, but for oneself, is granted/validated, the only thing that can come out of it is a freer, more enlightened society.