The War On Bullshit

One of the great myths of modern society is that happiness and success are somehow linked to the size of your home and the amount of worthless garbage that fills it. In a previous post, I listed the 32 benefits of owning less. But how does one simplify one’s life? Here are the 10 commandments of minimalism.

1. No impulse buying, period

Whenever you feel like buying anything, give yourself at least a week to consider whether its benefits outweigh not only the cost, but also the hassle of owning, maintaining, moving and one day replacing it, and the diminished freedom it represents. This also applies to free things – think long and hard about whether you really need it before taking it home.

2. Items should have many purposes

Obviously, if one thing can do two jobs, you need one fewer thing. One good chef’s knife will replace half the kitchen gadgets at Walmart.

3. Hire help

Instead of buying stuff to make your life easier (which often really complicates your life) pay people to do things for you. Do you really need a carpet cleaner to use once a year? Just pay professionals. For advanced minimalists: do you really need a washer and dryer? Try a laundry service. You don’t like doing laundry anyway!

4. Buy quality

One of the major benefit of minimalism is less time wasted maintaining and replacing your stuff. This benefit is eroded by low-quality goods, so buy things that last.

5. Live in a small home with no storage

Two reasons here: you won’t have to buy things you don’t need to furnish rooms you don’t use, and having no storage will force you not to keep things you no longer need, or should never have bought. As an additional benefit, you pay less for your home. In a related note…

6. Live in an apartment or condo, not a house

Living in a stand-alone building means you have a extra things to take care of, such as a lawn, driveway, garage, patio, etc. You need a shed-full of tools just to keep a typical house from disintegrating. If you live in a condo or apartment, someone else takes care of that crap. Do you really enjoy mowing your lawn, painting your patio, sealing the driveway and cleaning the garage? I didn’t think so.

7. Focus on the present

Never mind that you might use it in 5 years, it’s taking up valuable space and funds NOW. If you haven’t used something in the past year, get rid of it. For every fifty things you get rid of, you might only need 2 or 3 at some point in the future. If that time ever comes, just got a new one, or borrow one, or rent it, or buy it second-hand and then sell it again when you’re done.

8. Focus on experience

Life is about what we do, not what we own. When you’re old, you’ll remember the trips that you took, not the kind of shoes you were wearing. You’ll remember your wedding just the same whether you bought, borrowed or rented the silly costume you were wearing.

9. Avoid gifts

This is really the hardest part of being a minimalist. People don’t understand that you just don’t want that new thing, whatever it is, because you value freedom more than gadgets. Make it clear to your friends and family that you don’t like stuff. If they insist on getting you gifts, tell them you only like four kinds: cash, gift cards, experiences, and better versions of things you already have. If someone gives you a new watch, for example, don’t forget to give the old one away.

10. Be minimalistic in each purchase

For example, if you absolutely must buy a car, buy a small car. Yes I know that once a year you want to go on vacation with your whole family, and you need than 8-seater minivan to fit them all. Do you have any idea how much money you would save by driving a compact car 51 weeks a year, and just renting the van the other week? The fuel savings alone would more than cover the rental, let alone the money you save from the initial purchase. Big cars are not a sign of wealth, they’re a sign of social irresponsibility and stupidity.

The politically disgruntled and critical are often criticized as being negative and cynical, so for this week, I’ve decided to take a (semi)-positive look at the presidential election cycle – in particular, a glance at McCain’s environmentalism, however sporadically it may manifest itself. A true testament to the failed policies of past conservatives like Bush Sr. and Jr. is the sudden concern of Sen. John McCain on global climate change. In case you have not heard, McCain has for some time marketed himself as an environmental protector and an advocate for reducing carbon emissions in the United States.

It’s a great day in the United States when we’ve become liberal enough that a candidate from our conservative wing concerns himself with environmentalism, rather than the tired debate against environmentalists. Sure, I’ve got my problems with McCain – anyone who says he’ll stay in a war for the next two centuries has a few screws that need tightening – but it is inspiring to liberals to hear a conservative candidate for the presidency pledge to protect the environment, perhaps as much so as it is to have the first legitimate minority candidate nominated to represent the Democrats.

The Conservative Response

That being said, conservatives don’t seem to feel the same way. The purveyor of Republican propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, has gone on frequent tirades about the insanity of environmentalism. Conservative talk-show hosts have described climate change as a hoax and environmentalism as a mental disorder. Even the liberals are critical of his statements. After all, it’s hard to believe a candidate speaking in favor of environmentalism when that same candidate has a terrible 24 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Which brings me to my next point…

The Problem: Politics or Conviction?

Unfortunately, as inspiring as it may be, it’s pure politics. Let’s keep in mind what McCain is trying to do here: be elected President. We should take his promises to protect the environment with a grain of salt. As George W. Bush focused on education, and southern Democrats are pro-life and vote to protect the Second Amendment, politicians have begun to realize they must attach themselves to at least one of the other side’s issues to be elected. How else would a candidate dupe the moderate Democrats into voting for a Republican this time around?

So, ye of the moderately liberal leaning, keep this in mind when you cast your ballots in November. Sure, McCain may institute his cap-and-trade policy to reduce carbon emissions, but when it really comes down to it, with whom will he side? If you want a history lesson, look at McCain in the mid-90s, when he sided with conservatives in undercutting the Environmental Protection Agency. If our next President is the esteemed Arizona Senator, don’t be surprised when he sides with big business over the Sierra Club.

A prolific argument in society surrounds the issue of whether, and to what extent, to regulate the free market. Generally, right-wingers claim that a free market economy is good because it leads to a fair distribution of wealth and resources. Left wingers are for regulation, claiming it is necessary to even out market ups and downs, and to protect the disadvantaged. The mainstream media treats this argument as a matter of opinion, with both sides having good arguments. But it’s not.

Whether an unregulated or barely-regulated free market is a sound basis for the economy is not a matter of opinion! It is an empirical question for which the balance of evidence weighs heavily on the free-market-is-a-bad-idea side.

Here are 5 fundamental reasons why a free market economy does not lead to a fair distribution of wealth and resources.

1. Imperfect Competition

Free market economics assumes “perfect competition,” a technical way of saying that no single firm or person is sufficiently powerful to influence prices. Monopolies, oligopolies and cartels, all demonstrate that perfect competition is obviously a myth. Anti-competitive behaviors also undermine competition. For instance, when the telecom companies erect barriers to entry (like locking your cell phone) to prevent competitors from gaining ground. As another example, when the six largest tobacco companies conspired to “to preserve and expand the market for cigarettes and to maximize the Cigarette Companies’ profits”, they undermined competition between smoking and other activities, that, you know, don’t kill you. As a third example, intellectual property laws, especially the inane US patent system and the more inane copyright legislation undermine competition and innovation. All of these things mean that competition is far from perfect, and this, by itself, refutes the whole free-market hypothesis.

2. Problems with Bidding

For the market to efficiently distribute wealth and resources, everyone has to be able to “bid,” that is, offer money for goods and services, or offer their good and services (including their labour) for money. If everyone can bid as they choose, environmentally-concerned individuals can offer to pay more for environmentally friendly goods. In this way, the market will reflect the concerns of all people. The only problem is, this is bullshit. The ability of children to bid is seriously limited, and people who haven’t been born yet obviously can’t bid. Thus, future generations are subject to the despotic hegemony of the present. In a hundred years, when the world’s gone to shit from today’s environmentally destructive actions, our progeny can’t exactly go back in time and fund the development of clean energy, now can they?

3. The Price of People

Since everything in the free market works on money, a monetary value must be assigned to all things, including human life. I don’t care whether economists determine that a year of human life is worth $50K or $129K, the whole concept of price-tagging life is morally reprehensible. Yet, insurance companies, hospitals and governments do it everyday. We could save thousands of lives every year by simply legislating higher safety standards in automobiles, replacing lead water pipes and removing asbestos from old buildings, but we don’t, because it costs too much. How much is your life worth?

4. The Real/Nominal Costs Divergence

Nominal cost is literally how much cash you take out of your wallet and hand over for something. The real cost of something is its out-of-pocket cost plus all the implicit and hidden costs of getting and using it. For the whole free market system to work as advertised, nominal costs and real costs must be equal. There’s just one problem: they’re not. For example, the nominal cost, to you, of driving your car down 1 km of road includes the cost of 1) the fuel burned, 2) the maintenance to your car and 3) a small amount of wear and tear on your car. In addition, the real cost includes the 4) the cost of road maintenance, 5) the cost of the air, noise, land and water pollution created by your vehicle, 6) the opportunity cost of not using the land under the road for something else, 7) the administrative cost of maintaining and policing the road, and a fraction of the cost of building the road in the first place. Costs 4 through 8 are paid by society. For the market to remain efficient, the tax on cars and gas would have to cover these expenses. It doesn’t. The same analysis applies to all sorts of things, including practically everything imported from China, everything that creates pollution, everything that uses a limited resource, and everything that relies on society’s infrastructure.

5. Socialists are Happier

If free market economics was really the best basis for a national economy, then wouldn’t you expect citizens of free markets to be happier than, say, citizens of highly-regulated socialist economies? You would right? Too bad it’s the other way around.

Bonus: Calling it “free” doesn’t make it good.

The right-wingers have a huge advantage in this argument: the misnomer “free” market. People have been brainwashed to believe that freedom is the very definition of good and therefore anything that inhibits freedom is bad. This is, of course, absurd. The freedom to defer the cost of your actions onto society is not good. The freedom to have slaves is not good. The freedom to start an unjust, hopeless war and thereby murder thousands of your own soldiers is NOT GOOD. Freedom is neither good nor bad, it depends on what one is free to do.

Conclusion

Any one of the above reasons is grounds to refute the argument for deregulation. Yet the incompetent, defunct mainstream media continually fails to point out any of these basic truths.