Enough is Enough

The expenses scandal has operated as a metaphor for many commentators on the state of our society, precarious state I might say. The hapless politicians, who were only really playing the game, have become the repositories of repressed desires from all sections of society, who relieve their own stresses and strains by these projections. Moat-owners manques and those envious of the owners of two homes have relished the destruction of the paragons of a former culture which is now passing into obscurity.

Because Greed is no longer good and is no longer fashionable. The Janus-headed crisis that we are living through - a crisis of capitalism perhaps - has forced a subconscious realisation that the long-held and much supported ideology of acquisition and accumulation was destructive for us all and, most importantly, for our beautiful planetary home. From this perspective, a home that has some minor semblance of Balmoral is no longer an obscure object of desire: it has moved through being a source of mockery to seeming 'So last paradigm, darling'.

This can only bring relief to a green economist. As we need an end to economic growth, so we inevitably need an end to the culture of frenzied accumulation that has dominated our popular culture for the last 30 years or so. Before the advent of Thatcherism there was a memory (affectionate in some quarters) of the frugality of the war years and a balancing reaction from the post-materialist hippy generation of according a value to simplicity. Marshall Sahlins's Stone Age Economics , with its tales of the satisfaction of pre-capitalist indigenous societies, is a leading example of academic work in this vein.

People with less sophisticated cultures than our own know when they have had enough. Once they reach that point they stop working, sit about, natter, and generally enjoy themselves. Remember what that felt like? Changing our culture to one of sustainability will mean restoring the concept of 'enough' to our economic and social lives. It will mean a focus on satisfaction and sufficiency rather than greed and growth. This was the consumption ethic that characterised societies of the past, and still characterises peasant societies today.

Gary Snyder describes this as a subsistence economy. He makes clear how such an economy, being well-grounded in all senses, is also respectful of other forms of life and of our dependence on it for our survival:

‘A subsistence economy is a sacramental economy because it has faced up to one of the critical problems of life and death: the taking of life for food. Contemporary people do not need to hunt, many cannot even afford meat, and in the developed world the variety of foods available to us makes the avoidance of meat an easy choice. Forests in the tropics are cut to make pasture to raise beef for the American market. Our distance from the source of our food enables us to be superficially more comfortable, and distinctly more ignorant.’

The disarray amongst MPs is only a reflection of our own individual struggles with the daily temptations to over-consume and to over-compensate for our spiritual want with material excess. Tweet

The Paradox of Thrift

It was Keynes's view that 'Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.' He is now become the posthumous eponym of his own adage, as the economic crisis forces the resuscitation of politically unpopular measures that are no longer appropriate to our times.

Commenting on the horrific consequences of capitalism's last truly spectacular bust, Keynes noticed that people's natural response to be cautious in times of crisis could actually make the problem worse. In the typically natty way he had with language Keynes referred to this conundrum as 'the paradox of thrift'. While saving at the individual level may be entirely noble, at the level of an economy as a whole, and especially one with insufficient demand, it can be devastating. Japan is often taken to be the paradigmatic case.Wise he may have been, but Keynes did not recognise the planetary frontier and so his plans to save us from Depression through exhorting us to consume more are now dangerously outdated.

Thrift has been a concept with a serious PR problem for several decades, as built-in obsolescence and the fashion industry have generated wants and desires that were then satisfied by production and consumption. In my paper 'Sen and the Art of Market-Cycle Maintenance' I sketch the environmentally destructive consequences of this capitalistic modus operandi.

The paradox itself is easily resolved once we think our way beyond the ideology of capitalism, since its existence results from the underlying assumption that individual behaviour is only helpful if it fits in with that system's logic. We are, in reality, free to make much wider choices than whether to spend or save, or what variety of washing powder to buy. We are free to choose a whole new economic system based on balance rather than growth and justice rather than inequality. Tweet

Real Wealth is Slow

It has been a delight hearing Clive James on the Point of View slot on Sunday mornings. Ok, I'm showing my age now, because rather than razzing it up on Saturday night and lying in on Sunday morning I often catch not only this essay at 8.50 but actually also Something Understood at whatever horrendous time that is on.

Clive James had certainly understood something this week, in his essay called Get Rich Quick - still available from the BBC podcasts page. I don't expect Clive James to be on my political wavelength, and usually he isn't. I listen to him because he is witty and clever and has a rather pleasing Australian accent which is quite soothing of a Sunday morning.

His theme this week was a suitably new year one - the change in consciousness that the financial catastrophe has brought in its wake. He predicted that getting rich quick will cease to look smart and begin to look silly: 'Excess wealth is gone, like the codpiece.' His confidence in making this 'prediction' lay in the fact that, in reality, the change has already happened.

For me, this change is deeply reassuring. Not because I feel vindicated or less uncomfortable about my inability to deal with constantly changing fashions (or is that just total lack of interest?). It is more that I have felt so uneasy about the rampant conspicuous consumption of others. This feeling doesn't arise from inherent frugality, or judgementalism or even a concern for the ecological impossibility of it all. It's more a sense of deep disappointment that so many people have no conception of what really matters in life.

We are going to need those things in a big way this coming year. We are going to need to value comradeship and the kindness of strangers. The human resources on which Britain traditionally prides itself - communitarianism, courage, humour and stoicism - are going to be the character traits most in demand in 2009. And underpinning them all we are going to need a faith to replace the fear that swirls around the shopping malls where empty shopfronts are rapidly replacing hyperactive consumers. Tweet

It's the Energy Stupid!

In spite of evidence that UK consumers bought less stuff in the last statistical quarter (only 0.1% less stuff, but in view of recent trends the slowing down is still notable), the reduced incomes resulting from economic slowdown and the disappearance of cheap money is likely to make people respond more strongly to prices when making the spending decisions.

This is a shame. Capitalist economics has trained us to use price as the most important factor in making decisions. If we look at just one market, the food market, we see the consequences of this. Until recently we may have been able to buy ever more food for ever less money but the food has been of frankly shit quality.

The predominance of price in market decisions is an indication and a reinforcement of the fact that, as capitalism grinds on to its miserable nadir, money becomes the only thing of importance. Everything else is sacrified to money—quality, happiness, health and so on. In a market where money is set up as god, both producers and consumers lose out. Those who win are those who control the money.

There is something we can do about this and that is set up for ourselves another standard rather than that of money. We should create our own mental energy-tags to replace the price-tags that the market shows us. When making purchasing decisions we have to be actively enthusiastic about paying more for items that have less embodied energy.

Once you adopt this way of thinking it becomes a habit and you begin to see stuff in shops in terms of its energy content rather than its price. In this way you can begin to the shift from measuring economic life in terms of energy rather than money that sustainability requires. Tweet

From ethical to bioregional consumption . . . and production

As we move towards a world of less trade we need to be thinking about how we will get hold of the things we really need. We can start making the adjustment now in our own consumption. This has two big advantages. First, it means that when the changes come - and they may be sudden and rapid - we will already be mentally prepared. Secondly, we can support the development of the markets offering the kind of goods we will be buying in the future, thus easing the transition.

Here are a few examples. I have a beautiful mug that I bought at a Christmas fayre. The local potter had just dug a hole near the college where she teaches and burrowed out some clay. She had spent a long time refining it and then turned it into a mug. This is an exceptional mug because she usually buys in clay from Staffordshire. She was as delighted as I am to see the exact colour of pottery made from Stroud clay. It is also unique since she only made one.

I also have a rush hat made by Sheila Wynter. Sheila goes every year in the right season with her son to the river Avon just above Tewkesbury. Here they dabble in the mud and cut the rushes. She brings them home and dries them in her workshop before weaving the hats. They have a curious rustic look which my daughter points out is just the look of the hat worn by the artist in the famous Van Gogh portrait.

For me these items exemplify everything about bioregional consumption. Obviously the first and most important factor is that they are made locally with local inputs. But there is the depth of relationship between me and the person who made the item that fills me with delight every time I have a cup of coffee or go out wearing my hat. Of course for me they are also object lessons which people I meet - unfortunately for them - cannot escape.

Perhaps most importantly of all, they are expensive. In the global economy you seek the lowest price. In the bioregional economy the adman's slogan 'reassuringly expensive' may be a better guide. My rush hat cost £24. Given the amount of work for Sheila in cutting the rushes, preparing them, and weaving the hat this is an absurdly small amount of money. But if it had been made by a Chinese slave it would have cost a fifth of this price. So when you consume bioregionally you will have much less stuff, but it will be of vastly better quality.

It's not just about consumption; it's also about production. I came to know Sheila because I am learning basket-making from her. If you are the sort of person who bemoans the fact that there is so little available to buy from local producers you can start by choosing to buy what there is and paying a just price. But the next step is to start making something yourself - the guidelines are that it should be something that is genuinely needed in the community and that you can find the materials locally.

And remember the other hint from Robinson Crusoe: use what the global economy has already invested energy in to the maximum before you resort to buying new of any sort. So patching and mending and buying from charity shops is a good solution for stuff your local economy doesn't provide yet. Why not go for showy, artistic patches: make a political statement with your darning! Tweet

The Lean Economy?

David Fleming, one of my many illustrious predecessors in the role of Green Party Economics Speaker and inventor of the Domestic Tradable Quota, likes to use this phrase to refer to a post-carbon world where we are more careful with things. I dislike the phrase and can't help thinking it displays his cultural origins in the 1950s and probably a mother who saved margarine tubs. I remember clearing out hundreds of these and similar junk when my grandmother moved into a home some years back. Ok they were, in relative terms, highly useful items, and had considerable embodied energy, but in the high-consumption world we live in today they were just pointless clutter.

Perhaps that is partly Fleming's point. In response to a similar concern with ever-increasing consumption that does nothing to add to human happiness I wrote an article called 'Sen and the Art of Market Cycle Maintenance'. It was published in the same issue of the FEASTA Review as Fleming's piece but an editorial decision was taken to retitle it 'The Freedom to be Frugal'. I was distressed by the taming of what I considered a swash-buckling title, but more so because I just don't think leanness or frugality will sell well. The convivial economy is far more appealing, suggesting better relationships, more music and dance and sharing of meals; in short, more fun; less stuff.

The point I was making in my article is a simple one: the relative definition of poverty is itself a contributor to the cycle of economic growth, as it colludes with the advertising industry to persuade us that we are deprived if we do not have the latest consumer gadget. Poverty is measured in terms of lists of consumer goods, ignoring the most important aspects of the deprivation we face as we see our natural world devastated and the quality of food and other essentials deteriorate.

In the Thatcher years leanness was considered a laudable quality of 'efficient' companies, by which was meant companies who had removed as many jobs as possible from their operation and exported the remainder overseas to countries where poverty wages and Dickensian employment conditions are still acceptable.

The private sector was keen to slim itself down; the public sector, where unions were stronger, less so. Modernisation was called in to do battle against flab, leading to the agencification of the civil service and more swingeing destruction of jobs. Even before the disastrous evidence of incompetence emerging from HMRC this week it was obvious that the ever-shrinking number of public employees, downskilled and demoralised, were simply not doing an adequate job. Complex phone-switching routines and elaborate computer systems can never substitute for personal interaction, especially where, as in the case of so many government services, intimate and sensitive issues need to be discussed.

So, while the population grows ever fatter our workplaces are becoming increasingly lean. Could we perhaps suggest a relationship between the two? Might the days spent in lean and fit working conditions lead to such despair that we can find no comfort until we reach the relative safety of our homes to slump onto our sofas with fatty meals and cream buns? Ideas merchant though I am, I don't expect to find myself selling 'frugality' with much enthusiasm. I think have more of an affection for a little bit of slack.

Tweet