Re: [Pen-l] Moishe Postone

[raghu <mraghu01@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Charles Brown <cdb1003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> CB: This is a good question David, and actually I have been
> thinking about it from discussions elsewhere on this.
>
> I believe the answer is sort of right there in front of us.
>  Not being able
> to afford something is the same as poverty or restricted
> consumption relative to the something you want to buy. The
> credit papered over this fact for a while.


Charles,
I think it is necessary to make a distinction here that is very
important: a certain kind of consumerist over-consumption is entirely
consistent with and can co-exist with under-consumption in the same
society (maybe even the same family?).

Suppose a homeless person takes out a no-doc mortgage on a small 2
room apartment so that he can put a roof over his head; or an
unemployed person taking out a home equity loan to pay for medical
bills because of no health insurance. I don't think David would
characterize these as over-consumption; indeed these are examples of
*under-consumption*, where people are unable to obtain basic
necessities of life.

On the other hand, suppose a middle income family takes out a
home-equity loan to buy a large flat-screen plasma TV, or uses a
credit card to pay for an SUV. That *is* overconsumption.

Which type of consumption was predominant during the recent housing
bubble is an empirical question. The media likes to portray the
stereo-type of people taking home equity loans to buy expensive
consumer goods, but is that accurate? Or is it just more PR like the
infamous welfare queen driving a Cadillac?
-raghu.


--
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l