Re: Consumer Conscience

["Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
>From: "schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Consumer Conscience
>Date: Thu, Mar 22, 2001, 12:57 pm
>

>Harry,
>
>
>In so far as this makes any sense at all, it appears to be a total
>distortion of Keynesian policies.


It is not a commentary on the socio-economic effects of
Keynesian policies. It is a commentary on the socio-economic
effects of Keynesian theory.

We all acknowledge culture can influence the development of theory,
but theory can also influence the development of culture
through education (both formal and informal).
I don't think that is a distortion.

>The policies applied in Keynesian-type economies between 1945 and 1969
>gave us full or nearly full employment, high levels of real investment
>with relatively little speculative froth, rising productivity and
>growing production which satisfied the needs of the consumers as the
>consumers themselves identified them.
>It was also a period in which primary, secondary and tertiary
>education made enormous progress, not only in the more advanced
>economies/societies but also in those more disadvantaged.
>In the area of health, the advances were dramatic. The scourge of
>tuberculosis was wiped out in many countries. (Sadly, it has returned
>with the failure to adapt and sustain Keynesian policies.) Polio and
>other diseases were controlled within health programs that brought
>great benefit to everyone, the rich as well as the poor - and added to
>both length and quality of life.
>It is hard to think of anything that did not benefit the majority
>within most societies. The only ones who clearly did not benefit were
>those
>who lived on instability, speculation and, it must be added, those
>motivated by greed, a desire to exploit and a stubborn refusal to
>renounce the selfish enjoyment of class or caste, whether based on
>income, wealth or birth.
>Let me emphasise that most of the relatively rich in terms of income
>or wealth also benefitted, provided they made some contribution as
>active participants in the economy.

>Keynesianism was/is not a system aimed at abolishing capitalism but at
>preserving it.

I am not interested in abloshing capitalism. I want to see
a transformation of capitalism. Concentration on preservation
impedes transformation. Capitalism is immanent, it should not
be treated like a crumbling statue.

>The instability and turmoil since 1969 - including unstable and
>chronic unemployment, lower standards of living for many at the lower
>income levels and the dramatically growing gap between rich and poor -
>are not features that promise to safeguard capitalism.
>On the contrary, they are features that put capitalism at great risk
>and threaten the emergence of radical systems of the kind that were
>stimulated by, but not limited to, for example, the Great Depression
>of the 1930s.
>We might be on the very edge, right now, of discovering just how
>enormous a catastrophe it was, for the world community as a whole, to
>allow the economic, social and political advantages that Keynesian
>policies brought us, to slip from our grasp.
>
>


Yes there was progress.
Keynesian policies have been
the bath water which washed the consumer baby.
But now the baby has grown up...it is time to give
the adult consumer the opportunity to wash himself.

Harry Veeder





>
>
>----------
>>From: "Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Consumer Conscience
>>Date: Thu, Mar 22, 2001, 12:56 am
>>
>
>> CONSUMER CONSCIENCE.
>>
>> There is too much social emphasis on being productive,
>> and too little on being constructive. This is because
>> modern society tends to asses all growth in terms of raw
>> production.
>>
>> Good consumption is a *constructive* activity
>> in its own right, and without a balance of constructive
>> and productive activity, economic growth becomes
>> destructive.
>>
>> In the Keynesian-Welfare State the consumer is servile to
>> the paid worker. The good consumer spends sooner rather than later
>> to provide jobs immediately for the worker.
>> The good consumer does not waste time at school or using his time
>> or purchases to enrich his own life, the life of his family or the
>> life of his community. An unemployed consumer is only entitled
>> to receive "welfare". This clarifies and affirms the consumers
>> subservience to the worker.
>>
>> When we arrive at the poor unemployed consumer we have come to
>> the bottom of the economic hierarchy. They have no one to kick
>> below them, so they kick themselves.
>>
>> Harry Veeder
>>
>