Talk:Buy Nothing Day

What kind of stupid far-left commie crap is this? (Slight sarcasm intended). - User $\scriptstyle 2\int _{-1}^{1}{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 02:36, 28 November 2008 (EST)

It's certainly a great idea right in the middle of a recession! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:50, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Darn, I'm running out of milk! (uses biblical day instead of 24-hour day instead) Totnesmartin 07:18, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I've got a day's warning. It's Saturday in Britain. Perhaps next year you can give us a bit of warning so Americans can get enough in before the day starts. Proxima Centauri 07:23, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Right, so I'd better buy double today!!!! Umm just a minute....I'm sure there's something wrong there somewhere ...--Bob^{bing up} 07:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Try just buying essentials like milk bread etc. Proxima Centauri 07:43, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Not buying doesn't mean that you can't shoplift from major corporations (it's not going to harm the workers. Crud, in Wal-Mart, they couldn't lower wages, because most workers are already at minimum wage). It's easy. Crud, even that's not necessary. Restaurants and supermarkets throw out loads of good food every day, which you can just pick up. It's as good as food that you buy, and it gets you a large discount. Also, yeah, it's an awesome day. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 09:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Are you hinting at "Freeganism"? ArmondikoV^sshole 09:18, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Pretty much, yes, though you could grab some meat if you wish. Of course, production of meat currently isn't at all environment-friendly, so generally one should only eat it if it's free, since otherwise you are paying people for products that are produced in eco-unfriendly manners, thus encouraging it (rather than improvements to the system). Free meat is easy, just shoot the President. Propaganda of the deed has never tasted so good! -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 09:29, 28 November 2008 (EST)

What kind of stupid far-left commie crap is this?/It's certainly a great idea right in the middle of a recession!

Not commie as much as pro-environment and calling into question the idea that we need to consume more and more stuff/energy/resources in order to live decent lives. And as for the recession idea--I don't owe it to the owners of Wal-Mart to keep them wealthy. Yes workers may rely on consumer over consumption for their livelihoods, but all we're doing now is feeding the beast that will kill us. It's time to start talking about/looking at better options. Buy-nothing Day is about that. PFoster 09:25, 28 November 2008 (EST)

To be fair, most freegans are anarchist (as far as I know), so it is mainly a commie idea. However, it's not necessarily communist, just like the free skool movement doesn't mean that one has to be an anarchist to participate. Also, Wal-Mart workers are going to get the minimum wage anyways, it doesn't really matter much how much you steal, you're just cutting profits. Also, generally workers aren't going to get their wages changed much due to shoplifting and such, especially not in major corporations. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 09:29, 28 November 2008 (EST)

The main suopermarkets etc factor in an inevitable amount of shoplifting - the technical term is "shortage". Totnesmartin 10:30, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I must say that I find myself to be in the surprising situation of agreeing with PFoster. The idea that the western nations can perpetually grow their economies at something like 3% is obviously absurd. There is a limit to what we can constantly extract from the environment. In the case of non-renewable resources the limit is even more obvious. There is also a limit to the quantity of pollution and waste the we can export to the environment. At some point we will have to look at some sort of zero-growth, recycling system.

An a related point: with regard to all the financial stimuli presently being invented by differing governments in an effort to get banks lending more money and to get people people borrowing and spending it, I think a point is being missed. It was excessive bank lending and private debt that got us where we are now. The solution "we need to do more of it then" doesn't totally convince me.--Bob^{bing up} 10:35, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I disagree with all here. It is possible to have a fully renewable energy system (Such as CSP solar panels in Africa, replacing the 'questionable' import of oil from the middle east with the 'questionable' import of electricity from North Africa. And then combinations with indigenous energy sources, the improvement of wind capacity etc.) Farming can be completely sustainable. Most things can be done with recycling.

All it will take is a massive investment unlike any the world has ever seen before. I don't think any of this commie crap actually helps any progress in any way. MarcusCicero 10:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Marcus, you're partially right. But you're not taking into account that consumption=labour=class exploitation. As long as the system only "works" (not that it really works) because the Gap/Target/Nike/Walmart sell clothes made by exploited Third World labour (only way to keep prices low enough to make mass consumption by Westerners viable) and sold in union-busting minimum-wage big box stores in order to benefit the wealthy few, then we need to reconsider some fundamentals. PFoster 13:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I quite like my capitalist world to be honest. I've had to work since I was 12 and don't view this as exploitation. The problem of third world exploitation is again a massive problem, but take a look at the other side of the coin. Turkey had experienced exceptional economic growth, and this was mainly due to the booming textile industry which based itself there. I don't see why 'third world' countries should be expected to develop along different lines than we have in the past. Most Third World countries are crying out for foreign investment, and more than glad when they get it. The problem is essentially political - a massive company will by nature do what it can to minimise wage costs and maximise output. If the political system doesn't allow the formation of Unions then all are screwed. Internal political reform is the answer, not fucking up the people already working in the manufactories. MarcusCicero 13:40, 28 November 2008 (EST)

When did conspicuous consumption change from a character flaw into a holy calling? Sometime in the 1970's, I suspect... --Gulik 14:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)

"I don't see why 'third world' countries should be expected to develop along different lines than we have in the past." Because that ignores the fact that economies are deeply imbricated in cultures and societies. Cultures and societies differ vastly--how can there be one teleological path to development? PFoster 14:33, 28 November 2008 (EST)

There is absolutely no way (at least using current technologies and methodologies) to bring the third world up to our standard of living.--Bob^{bing up} 14:42, 28 November 2008 (EST)

How do you account then for previously third world countries joining the first world? Of course there is no single path to economic development, but there is a clearly documented framework of economic development. And there is also a very distinct differences between the developing and the very poor (EG, Argentina, Brazil to Central African Republic, Lesotho) MarcusCicero 14:59, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Alright--saying that "previous third world countries have joined the first world" needs a little--actually a lot--of qualification; mostly in terms of the way in which social divides withn those countries have gotten worse in many cases; besides that, for every country that made the jump you're talking about, there are many more that haven't--or have seen things like GNP, life expectancy and infant mortality rates worsen over the last twenty years. Funny you should mention Lesotho--have you read Ferguson's case study of development in Lesotho? The whole "clearly documented framework of economic development" thing REEKS of neoliberals like Jeffrey Sachs, whose interventions have done more violence to developing world socieities than anything since the colonial episode. `PFoster

The Asian Tigers? Ireland? We were all very poor until recently. Ireland couldn't get an international loan worth its salt in the 80s - Charlie Haughy, our Taoiseach (PM) was forced to balance the budget at massive costs - and our currency was on the verge of a total collapse. We had no natural resources and our 'culture' was that of a priest-ridden cesspit of conformity. We cut our corporation tax to 10% and whored ourselves to American investors. Our governments made the right investments in education, especially higher education. Its a good example of internal reform coupled with foreign direct investment creating a strong economy, even if its all a little of a mess right now due to our reliance on foreign investment and subsequent inflation. Using the word 'Neoliberal' as some sort of detraction doesn't give your argument any supposed credibility over mine in any sense by the way. MarcusCicero 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Well, Ireland may have had a marginal economy for a Western European country, but being part of the European Union and the euro zone, I don't really think you can use it to bolster your "development works everywhere" argument--unless you think that Nigeria and Bangladesh are going to beat out Turkey for EU membership anytime soon. As for the Asian Tigers, some people in those countries made out well--a lot didn't. To speak of their economies as one solid thing that everyone gets an equal slice of--or an equal chance to even vie for a slice of--is pretty naive. And you don't address the question of how much it sucks to be a piece worker in Vietnam or Indonesia building the cheap commodities that drive the kind of consumerism this discussion started off being about. And going back a bit, your ideas about completely clean, completely renewable low-environmental-impact energy are just that: ideas. Here in the real world, that stuff doesn't exist and won't in the foreseeable future. And while you might think my use of the word "neoliberal" to describe the kind of solutions that you seem to be advocating has no intellectual heft, you've brought little to the table with any heft that isn't repeating the same old dogmas that have failed for a few generations now. PFoster 17:43, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I just wanted to add that the Irish economy exploded when the IRA and the British Army stopped trying to blow each other up. It's amazing what not being in danger of being blown up can do for an economy. I swear it seems like since the mid 90s accords everyone I know who travels has been to Ireland at least once. ħuman 21:03, 1 December 2008 (EST)

A depressing quote I heard (don't remember where) was that if everyone in the world has an American lifestyle, we'd need THREE planets just for the resources. --Gulik 16:19, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Going from memory I think it's around three or four for a European lifestyle. For the US it's a hell of a lot more.--Bob^{bing up} 18:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)

The Reverend Billy

and the Church of Stop Shopping are very active on this holy dai. We should dig some dirt up on these Commie bastids. ħuman 20:42, 1 December 2008 (EST)

http://www.revbilly.com/ ħuman 20:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I bought

nothing that day
Carptrash 21:49, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Me neither. But it might just have been a coinky-dink. ħuman 23:05, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Delete this, or what?

Doesn't seem to have taken off. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)