/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16227321
I assume the world would be a better place, and there would be less pointless jobs.

>>16227321
It would crash the economy/ stock market. We need consumer/ wageslaves so the rest of us can stay comfy.

>>16228044
But what would all those people do. Would there just be massive unemployment. If they all became farmers, construction workers, and other jobs that provide things for basic living. Wouldn’t the market become saturated with those products and services. What would drive economic growth.

>>16228089

the economy would crash

>>16228068
So you think the minimalist lifestyle is good for the individual, but bad for society?

>>16228102
What if it was adopted gradually?

>>16228117
>minimalistic lifestyle
No such thing. Unless you're living in the woods, you're paying for something that you do not need.

>>16228136
What about living a more minimalist lifestyle, but not a complete one. Simple bed, cook your own basic food, simple clothes, simple car, simple house, no video games, tv, or radio.

>>16228107
Yes absolutely. I've never heard of an economist who doesn't think a too high savings rate (e.g. 20%+ for developed countries) isn't bad for the economy.
A high savings rate is especially bad in countries with high taxes/ welfare (you are indirectly are saving money via state funded health care, pensions, unemployment benefits etc.).

>>16228171
Also, an increase in savings rate leads to lower expected returns on all assets (supply and demand).
In other words, even if you live a frugal/ minimalist lifestyle you still want everyone else to spend most of their income.

>>16228153
People who accept the minimal are doing it with a reason. Either they can not afford living bigger, or they are saving money.

I live very minimalistic myself. Only spend money on what I absolutely need. I almost never buy thing because I want them (except a good wine and pork loin every month or so).

I save 80% of my paycheck doing that and the reason is because I want to invest them.

Nobody is genuinely attracted to a minimalistic lifestyle. There's a lot of people who are attracted to a "simple" lifestyle. Think generic family. Come home from work, wife is cooking dinner. Kids hug you etc etc. But that is not minimalistic.

Minimalistic is the bare minimum and nobody is genuinely interested in having the bare minimum because it goes against human nature. Humans like abundance.

>>16228171
What if everyone entered a job where they only produced necessary goods or provided necessary services.
Then people could drastically reduce the hours they worked so that savings as still normal.

>>16227321
if an economy doesn't function when people act in what they believe is in their own best interest, there's something wrong with that economy...or the way economists believe an economy should work.

>>16228230
Actually 60% of my paycheck, but manage to earn about 500$ a month from "experimenting" business strategies.

My paycheck comes to about 2500$ a month, spend 1000$ a month. Save 2000$.

>>16228230
I thought the argument was that these things are desired but don’t actually make you happy and you only want them because of a lifetime of advertising directed at you.

>>16227321
Minimalism is a symptom of a shitty economy, not the cause. If it's adopted on a wide scale, it's because the economy is shit.

>>16228270
Haven’t people been arguing for the minimalist lifestyle in one form or another for thousands of years though. Like catholic and Buddhist monks, stoics, and cynics.

lmao you guys have no actual clue of how economics (not economy) works

the less spending on consumer goods -> more money to spend on capital goods (which in turn makes us more productive and wealthy)

>>16228259
Wrong. Humans always want more, but don't need more.

You don't need to eat in 5 star restaurants, you don't need to drive a luxury car, you don't need to have a big mansion with a pool, you don't need to fuck models every week, you don't need to watch movies, play video games, the list goes on forever.

But everyone wants that. And you better be sure that it makes them happy. To say that someone living that lifestyle are unhappy is just ignorant.

There is a lot of details that go into what causes depression. End of the day. Modern humans will be depressed no matter what.

>>16228246
How should the economy work.

>>16228301
Absolutely. There have been many economic depressions and outright squalor.

>>16227321
Capitalism is, by it's very nature, a giant ponzi scheme. The only way to keep the economy moving and maintain the standard of living people expect is to constantly pump new people into the scheme. Unfortunately, this is done by turning people into mindless consumers who live beyond their means. This in turn lowers the birthrate of the native population, because people cannot bring themselves to sacrifice purchasing power for a family and legacy. So the problem then becomes finding a new source of people to fill the bottom rung of the ponzi. This is where immigration comes in and is the reason why all major political parties of western nations either explicitly support it, or fail to do anything about it. It is also the reason why immigrants from other western countries are not welcome. Third worlders that are easily manipulated and have a history of high birthrates are required for maximum effectiveness.
So to answer your question, mass adoption of a non consumerist lifestyle is impossible at this point without the prerequisite of a major crash.

>>16228240
So you just want to downsize the economy? Actually some of the countries with the shortest work hours have the highest GDPs per capita. That being said, all else being equal, less hours worked = lower GDP (per capita). Countries like Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have high GDPs per capita despite their short work hours, not because of their short work hours.

we await a economy where NOBODY is buying practically anything.

nobody can even conceptualize a solution to this. UBI doesnt even touch this problem

>>16228331
I had thought it was a temporary dopamine boost or something. As in the ultra wealthy are unhappy and so they keep buying new stuff for that rush. Similar to the kind of happiness a druggie feels when he shoots up. So it’s a kind of lesser temporary happiness. While if you only buy what you need and just enjoy nature and the company of friends you have a more authentic and long term happiness.

>>16228259
And about the thing with "they're advertised onto you".

They're not simply "advertised onto you". Most products that are popular are much higher quality than competition. You're not paying for a BMW because you seen it on TV once. You're paying because it's much more comfortable to be in a BMW that in a Ford Focus for example, but a Ford Focus is very cheap. I used to drive a Ford Focus because I live a minimalistic life. I wish I could get a BMW because it's very comfortable. (I drive a 8 seater Volvo for transportation gigs now, drive people to work, get paid 5$ per person, that's 35$ for a few minutes off my time).

>>16228400
Happiness is temporary. If you tell me a joke, I'll be happy for a few seconds. If I buy something expensive that other people generally can't afford, I'll be happy for as long as I see people who can't afford it.

>>16228358
But was that really the cause of those people rejecting wealth. What about people with wealth like St. Francis or the Buddha that rejected wealth and lived what could be called a minimalist life.

>>16228373
Do you believe capitalism is wrong then?
Could it in theory work if you started anew.

>>16228373
>there are people who have more money than I do so capitalism bad

>>16228400
Most ultra wealthy people have extremely high savings rates. Considering their incomes they live very minimalist lifestyles.
There's a reason why you always hear economists talking about the middle class consumer spending. They are the rats that keep the wheels spinning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dZQelULDk

>>16228446
Niche cases and outright deceptions to manipulate society. Modern minimalism is driven out of necessity in an overwhelming majority of cases.

>>16228446
1) they could always go back to daddy - safety net made of steel wiring
2) youth spent acquiring upper class skills and mannerisms making them basically superhuman in the social strata they chose to rub shoulders in

they were the rebelious punk-rocker rich anarchkiddies of their times

>>16228476
lower class > production
middle class > consumerism
upper class > me in 20 years :)

>>16228489
>safety net made of steel wiring
wouldn't falling on that just turn you into cubes of meat?

>>16228377
I don’t know much about the economy so I’m not sure what downsizing means exactly. But let’s say people stopped desiring consumerist products and purchased just what they needed to survive. Could the economy still grow just by people investing in farming and the like. Then to avoid a massive surplus of basic resources people would cut their hours. So production of necessities would still increase but at a stable rate.

>>16228518
You would need major government control for that to happen in the first place.

You would need to abolish the open market.

What you are talking about is just comunism. Look at china. They're expanding as a country, but their citizens are at the bottom of the food chain.

>>16228485
Even if they were niche cases what would happen if everyone lived similarly as they did. Except instead of asking for alms everyone would farm, build houses, etc.

>>16228518
>>16228551
I don't know how much you know about economics. But China is basically focusing on minimalistic needs for the people and maximum export to capitalistic countries. They're getting wealth off of working off their citizens so westerners can have their dollar stores, or neighborhood countries can have extremely low quality cars that fall apart 1 year after they bought them.

>>16228551
I don’t know the exact definition of communism it seems to change depending on who’s talking. But why is governmental intervention necessary. Some people have forgone material things so why can’t all.

>>16228553
They are.

>>16228568
I had thought that over the last 40 years or so that China had moved away from communism through economic reforms and is now simply a capitalist country with no democracy and wealth redistribution

>>16228579
When I say farm and build houses I mean what if instead of asking for alms people would only work to make the necessities.

No fancy restaurants, no video games, no movies, no fancy clothes, or iPhones.

>>16228575
>why can't all
Because not everyone wants to. So if you want to make them all do it, you need government to influence the market with very high tax in w/e you don't want to see around.

For example, generating solar and wind energy is far more expensive than other types of energy generation, but it's considered green.

There are a lot of countries that deploy very little tax, or no tax at all on producing green energy but high tax on nuclear energy and w/e. Making green energy a more approachable option, but if there were no taxes, there would be more energy production overall.

Now what do you describe as a minimalistic life? Cost wise or need wise?

There are a TON of small farms (see your farmer's market) that are selling very expensive products. 4-5 times higher than what you'd find in a supermarket, 10-20 times higher than frozen food.

The reason being that small farms spend a lot of money on tools, they have too little worked area to be advantageous cost-wise to automate the working process. So the end-product will include prices to help them pay off cost of tools, make up for their labor, etc etc.

>>16228641
Theoretically if everyone wanted too could the economy still function and grow. Or would it introduce massive problems.

>>16227321

>>16228629
If you want to live that lifestyle it's completely up to you. I, personally, am documenting myself on botany and agriculture to start a small farm, but not because it's "the perfect lifestyle". Farming is terrible. I worked in agriculture for 1 year to gain some insight on the business, and it's the worst type of job you can get. But a small farm can get you anywhere betweem 2.000-10.000$ monthly, and it's AMAZING experience in sales, and it's the cheapest business you can open.

But you need a lot of knowledge on growing and sales to make it profitable. And if you're trying to get that knowledge along the way, you won't get profits and you will need a lot of money to make up for your living expenses, since it's a full-time job.

>>16228672
Theoretically humans could also live by drinking their own piss and eating their own shit so we would never have to produce anything.

That's a stupid statement. Theoretically anything is possible, realistically, not so much.

>>16228722
So the economy could function if society adopted a minimalist lifestyle.
I’m asking the question not because I think people will willingly give up luxury products and focus on necessities I’m just curious what would happen if they did. I hear about how some of America’s problems are because of the constant desire for stuff and wonder if going to the opposite extremes would introduce any of its own problems.

>>16227321
>Muh economy
bish please, it's like you enjoy being a wage slave. People would spend their money on experiences rather than materialistic crap and so less crime, less goberment gibs and more tasty food vendors.

>>16228800
You are asking a question with a lot of variables. How will that be introduced for starters. How will you make people WANT to have those lifestyles and how will you stop other people from WANTING a different type of lifestyle in the first place.

The world is a big place, humans have individual thoughts and desires.

/biz/ might be the world place to post this question, taking into account business is pretty much the science of people, even tho most people say it's about economics and financing, business is mostly about always thinking what goes inside a person's head and how can you get them to buy your product, figuring out costs is minimal effort. Perhaps try /pol/ or /out/

>>16228880
>>16228800
worst place to post this question*

>>16228068
This. Economy is based on loans taken by the average Joe because he want to buy a house he can't afford.

>>16228373
Too true

>>16228800
Ok ok. I think I figured out your question.

So let's say today. Everyone has a farm behind their house and they couldn't care less about mansions and pool.

This is what is going to happen:

Joe is growing tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers and corn.

Billy is growing the same things Joe is growing, but billy is smarter than Joe, he figured out how to double his harvest yield.

Mike is growing mostly trees, but he needs some vegetables for proper nutrition, he can't wait until next year so he pays Billy 10 silvers for some veggies.

Billy then goes to all the houses who don't grow vegies and sells some of his vegies for some silvers.

Now Billy has a lot of silvers, he is very happy about it, he doesn't need them but he likes silvers, it's shiny. He then tells Joe that if he lets Billy work his land, he will give 80% of what he is currently harvesting. Joe agrees so he can pursue a career in arts.

Because Billy can get 200% of the harvest Joe does, Billy now has 200% from his farm plus 120% from Joe's. Billy is now very very happy, he has even more silvers.

Billy get an idea. He goes to every house, and offers people 110% of what they are making if they work for him. They agree. Billy is now making 90% more for every house that signed.

Billy is now a billionaire and Joe is protesting size the riches of the rich and divide them among the masses. Everyone agrees and Billy gets murdered. The country goes bankrupt. The End.


This is what would happen.

>>16228880
I was thinking very small communities with little technology that foster links to the outside world, it could shame people into it similar to the Amish.

But I’m still not sure if it would even be desirable or if it would lead to a slowing economy and lack of technological progress.

My bad if wrong board I always see economics type threads here so I thought this was the place. I’ll collect my thoughts and try again on pol tomorrow.

>>16229013
Why kill Billy isn’t everyone better off at the end even if Billy is better off than the rest. I understand people do that in some countries, but in America while not perfect most people would agree with people who produce more making more.

>>16229097
*with = that

>>16229097
>why kill billy
Jealousy

It's happening in south africa for example. Farmers from Europe moved there to create massive farms due to lack of land in the EU that's for sale, then got murdered after they got rich, then there was a food shortage because the people who killed them and took over the farms didn't actually know that there's a science behind planting. They thought you just put seeds in the ground and food comes out.

>>16229137
True, I guess I was talking about Europe, America, Canada, Japan,

>>16229201
Well at the end of the day, if you have a minimalistic society they will slowly turn into a consumerism society. People always want more, they may not all pursue more, but it's enough for one person to pursue more to convince a community to adopt into their lives something that they don't need but that would improve their living standards.

Plenty example, the computer being the easiest to name. Nobody needed tools to calculate for them, but being able to instantly find out the answer to most math problems is clearly useful. And that turned into a very useful, compact data storage tool.

You can store millions of books in a very cheap PC, costing maybe 200-300$. While you'd need to invest a thousand times that number to store real books, and a few millions to actually purchase those books (thank god for piracy).

>>16229137
I think mean Zimbabwe.South Africa doesn’t have a food shortage but they are having an obesity problem instead.

>>16229363
As far as I know Zimbabwe kicked them out and had a food shortage.

I am wrong about the food shortage in South Africa. But Farmers in South Africa are being killed and their farms are going bankrupt, no food shortages tho, you are right in that aspect.

>>16228473
>I have no argument so I'll strawman like a retard.

>>16228463
Commie faggots are right when they say its inherently exploitative. They get it wrong in their solution though. The ideal system in my opinion is one where a semi free market is allowed to exist. Private property and the ability to thrive and succeed through personal achievement is necessary. Profit at the expense of society and culture should not be allowed. This is really only possible when society is one where cultural and ethnic autonomy are maintained. This allows a high trust, cohesive society to exist which in turn fosters a desire to uplift your people.

>>16229543
What do you think of Eastern European countries from what I’ve heard they’re similar to what you want.

>>16229543
TL DR

>>16229645
Think more of Sweden in the 1950s or Germany in the 1930s.

>>16227321
is this from a real anime?

>>16230098
tech went forward, that vision is not salvageable unless you generate a slightly more advanced version of the Amish.

What a fucking retarded thread filled with communists and economic illiterates

>>16230126
How does tech make a society like 50s Sweden obsolete? What made them successful is what continues to make Japan relevant and successful today. That's extremely tight immigration statutes. If anything technology should make a society as I described more feasible by allowing said society to rely less on outside influence, further increasing autonomy.

>>16230263
reality proves you otherwise you deluded poor soul

>>16230125
I have no idea probably not.