The story of stuff

95% of everything I own is in a storage unit in FL, and I haven't seen it in 9 months. The only things I miss are my tools.

Wowak wrote: 95% of everything I own is in a storage unit in FL, and I haven't seen it in 9 months. The only things I miss are my tools.

Yeah I have a rule for that in my shop. If I haven't used it in six months or have plans for it in the next six months it goes out the door....I break that rule often...

Jensenman wrote: But now we are supposed to go to these other sovereign countries and beat their exploitative citizens into doing right by their other citizens? Isn't that a LOT like going into Iraq??? Or we just force them to jack up the salaries of these overseas workers, creating another whole Third World of linear consumers?

It is completely funny how two people can watch something and come away with different impressions. i watched it and really like how she talked about the inefficiencies in our manufacturing and our insane rate of consumption. That's pretty much what I concentrated on. This was entirely brought on by my returning to my home town, which is like CRAZY yuppie central. It makes mount pleasant look very boring.

Yesterday we took the baby for a walk down state street and went into a children's store that was advertising 50% off. When we walked in the door the girl behind the counter,( fake tanned, highlighted hair, designer glasses, designer clothes) greeted us.. She then went back to relaying a story to her manager about how Colorado was so passe for skiing because her daddy takes her to the Alps and how amazing it is to be in swizerland.. blah blah blah.. My wife was looking at a dress for the baby. It was $94.00 regular price but was on sale for $46.00. The kid is 5 weeks old. The same trip I did purchase a tube of caulk at a 130 year old hardware store. So that was cool. I'm glad Newtown Hardware is still in business.

ignorant wrote:

aircooled wrote: The amount of "stuff" you have is directly proportional to the amount of space you have to store that "stuff".

nope.... see mini storage

Actually, the way I use it is in reference to people who create more storage space thinking it will solve there problem. Not likely, your "stuff" will just grow to that space and you will be right back where you started.

aircooled wrote:

ignorant wrote:

aircooled wrote: The amount of "stuff" you have is directly proportional to the amount of space you have to store that "stuff".

nope.... see mini storage

Actually, the way I use it is in reference to people who create more storage space thinking it will solve there problem. Not likely, your "stuff" will just grow to that space and you will be right back where you started.

"stuff" is a newtonian fluid

Toyman01 wrote: They sure don't build things like they used to. In some ways that is good, in others bad. I sure wouldn't want to drive a Model T to work every day. But my lathe was made in the 40s and it's a much better machine than some of the new crap I have seen.

This is one thing I don't think anyone's commented upon yet..I was lucky enough that my Grandmother lived until I was an adult, and we could have real conversations about this kind of thing (she also lived long enough to see the age of "planned obsolescence"). I once asked her if things were really built better in the past, and she gave me an insight.

She said that it wasn't really that the things were manufactured much better, but that they were designed with the intent that they would be repaired, rather than simply replaced. She went on to say that there was another entire "cottage industry" of people who made a living by repairing them-local TV & appliance repair shops, etc. She blamed the loss of such shops for much of the reduction of skilled labor jobs in the US...and the resulting turn of the US labor market to the retail/service industry. "No wonder there's not any decent customer service anymore..", she'd say. "Half the people doing those jobs don't want to do that for a living, but it's the only thing left."

Couple of extra notes- About the government taking care of us- while most of you read that as welfare and medicare, which you vehemently hate (and that's a totally different line of a thread), there's an actual ring of truth to the arguemnt. Bear in mind, in theory, we are a Republic, where the rights of the individual out weigh the wants of the masses. This is where the Consitution and the Bill of Rights DO protect us, and make sure that we are safe in a relative manner. One can easily make an argument that many of these rights have been eroding- free speech (hate speech), gun ownership (always under attack), etc- and this IS the govenments responsibility to make sure that these rights are taken care of.

Of course, many have taken statements in the Constitution and the Declaration as reasons why we should also be doing welfare and healthcare, but, again, that's very debateable.

I do find interesting that the essential point of being a consumer/disposable society has not been lost on any of us. But many of us do like to poke holes in the alarmist nature of the message- I personally think that she could have done a much better job.

(and I'll look at her annotations later- just to see some of the arguments. But it's very, very hard to convince people that 4% of our forests are original is actually a real problem, when people spend countless hours in the fall raking leaves)

Eric

She comes right out and says that the government is supposed to protect us from the corporations but instead it licks their boots. Can't get much more plain than that.

And I will resist the urge to compare the difference in government treatment of the 'classy' financial sector's recent problems vs. the 'icky nasty' automotive industry.

The funny thing to me is that if she had made her arguments differently, I think you guys would probably agree with a lot of it. I mean, you guys are always thinking of ways to re-use something, make something yourself, or repurpose something in new ways rather than just rushing out to buy new crap--whether that's your car, your house, or whatever.

GRM-ers are great recyclers and re-users, and I've heard a lot of you make similar arguments about reducing consumption and not spending your money on stupid crap you don't really need anyway. She could have had a much more receptive audience.

Tim Baxter wrote: The funny thing to me is that if she had made her arguments differently, I think you guys would probably agree with a lot of it.

I thought alot of people would look past some of her wackiness and agree with this exact point, tim. But.. I was wrong.

Jensenman wrote: She comes right out and says that the government is supposed to protect us from the corporations but instead it licks their boots. Can't get much more plain than that.

You referenced triangle shirtwaist before. Your above statement and the fact that you implied the actions of triangle shirtwaist was bad do not compute. Who put laws into place that now protect workers from being burned to death by bosses? sure wasn't private corporations.

Jensenman wrote: She comes right out and says that the government is supposed to protect us from the corporations but instead it licks their boots. Can't get much more plain than that. And I will resist the urge to compare the difference in government treatment of the 'classy' financial sector's recent problems vs. the 'icky nasty' automotive industry.

Yea, following what ignorant just said- so private industry is going to be the one to protect our water and air? They are the ones who will make sure children aren't forced to work? They will make sure that working conditions are not a general hazard to your health?

Private industry is going to make sure that the materials that they use wont hurt customers when they are exposed to them? That the beef that you ate for dinner won't have parts of cut up entrails in it due to sanitary problems at the butcher company? That your stove won't shock you when your accidentlly let water boil over?

That your investments are actually REAL, and not some kind of scam? That the investment market isn't being manipulated by the greedy at the expense of the average investor?

Yes, the government DOES help protect us from industry. No, they don't do a perfect job of it, and recently, the trend has been to overly punish one group over another, and financially reward people who have no real imapct on the economy. But that does not reduce the need of an overall protection of unscrupulus companies who are just out to make a buck.

Again, I'm not saying that she's 100% right, but for certain, she's not wrong.

Eric

ignorant wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: The funny thing to me is that if she had made her arguments differently, I think you guys would probably agree with a lot of it.

I thought alot of people would look past some of her wackiness and agree with this exact point, tim. But.. I was wrong.

I'm actually reading this thread and seeing otherwise. Yea, there are a lot of attacks on parts of the message (including from me). Some people think that she's partially nuts, I see it as a general dillution of her core argument.

But I'm fully on the side that the general GRM reader, especially the GRM board participants, are generally not fully into the consumerist market, but like to keep things working for a good, long time. And GRM does a great job promoting this with the Challenge.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: Some people think that she's partially nuts, I see it as a general dillution of her core argument.

I think it's rather easy for someone to not see the forest for the trees....

The Triangle Shirtwaist fire was the beginning of the end of the 'sweatshop' system here in the States. It has since been exported overseas. It is up to THEIR governments to do what they think is necessary, NOT OURS. That is where she goes wrong. Like all the other idealists out there, she thinks we are supposed to snap our fingers and they jump. She completely ignores the fact that to make any changes would probably involve military action and of course would bitch and whine about 'imperialism' or 'blood for oil' immediately if that were to happen.

And yes she does say that the government is supposed to protect us from corporations but instead licks (oops, polishes) their boots. I see the current administration kowtowing to the banking industry but not much else.

ignorant wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Some people think that she's partially nuts, I see it as a general dillution of her core argument.

I think it's rather easy for someone to not see the forest for the trees....

I think a closer argument is to argue what kind of trees they are, therefore it's not a forest.

And I also think that many on one side would feel very odd agreeing with a clear leftist on so many points- when, in fact, their actual lifestyle is in strong agreement with the core points.

E-

I completely agree with the core message, we are wasteful consumer whores, our government has encouraged it, and business has exploited it in a self-feeding cycle that has spooled up like a runaway turbo.

I can certainly argue the details... many of her supporting data points are rubbish - but the big picture is pretty accurate. If she were to mislead a generation into changing she would have done exactly what the other side did to get them there.

Maybe the sheep don't need truth, just a better shepherd.

Tim Baxter wrote: The funny thing to me is that if she had made her arguments differently, I think you guys would probably agree with a lot of it. I mean, you guys are always thinking of ways to re-use something, make something yourself, or repurpose something in new ways rather than just rushing out to buy new crap--whether that's your car, your house, or whatever. GRM-ers are great recyclers and re-users, and I've heard a lot of you make similar arguments about reducing consumption and not spending your money on stupid crap you don't really need anyway. She could have had a much more receptive audience.

I agree with reduce / reuse / recycle. If that was the message, I'd have been on board.

Instead the message was consumption is evil, capitalism is evil, and the government is a babysitter.

Government's job IS NOT to take care of us. It is to foster an environment in which we can take care of ourselves.

walterj wrote: Maybe the sheep don't need truth, just a better shepherd.

dingdingding... we have a winner!

I looked hard at my own spending and consumer habits after watching her small film. I have to say that I do not fall into the trap that many people do.

Garbage alone, I am (un)lucky if I put out half a can every two weeks. I generally put a LOT more recycling than I do trash... and most of that comes from junkmail

You know, I don't dispute the core message either. Spending hard earned dollars on cheap overseas made E36 M3 is just plain stupid and is unsustainable.

I just don't agree with the way she says the government is supposed to fix it. It needs to happen at an individual level; it needs to no longer be fashionable to stay at the forefront of fashion, whether it's cars, clothes, et cetera. In short, a grassroots revolt against that type of thing.

The problem is, that's going to knock the (shaky) foundations out from under the economy. Meaning it'll get worse before it gets better. The good thing: all those flashy 'shop till you drop' magazines (like 'Lucky', 'Elle', etc) will have to go out of business.

For whatever it's worth, while I might be inclined to agree with the basics of her argument, she still came across like a kook to me, and an annoying, self-righteous one at that. And the idea that government should (or would even want to) stop rampant consumer spending...

DILYSI Dave wrote: Government's job IS NOT to take care of us. It is to foster an environment in which we can take care of ourselves.

Sorry, Dave, there ARE some instances where it's the government's job to take care of us. See my previous post. Individuals or even decent sized amounts of individuals can't fight corporations like governments can.

BTW, as soon as you say "court"- just remember, the court system uses laws that are passed by government. If there are no consumer safety laws, then there are no lawsuits over unsafe products. Or pollution. Or Ponzi schemes. Or working conditions.

So, basically, fostering an environment so that we can take care of ourselves IS taking care of us. Else it wouldn't work.

I know you and I disagree on healthcare and welfare, but that's not my point here.

Lest we forget, we have a military, who are supposed to take care of us (from forgein invaders).

Eric

Jensenman wrote: The good thing: all those flashy 'shop till you drop' magazines (like 'Lucky', 'Elle', etc) will have to go out of business.

My sister used to work for Lucky.... HAHAHAHa

They were taling about this on Red Eye a couple nights ago, long story short a big pinko hippie rant that wouldn't have been possible without American consumerism to provide the cheap but high quality video camera and computer software to make the film. Hypocrisy is great!!!

bigbrainonbrad wrote: They were taling about this on Red Eye a couple nights ago, long story short a big pinko hippie rant that wouldn't have been possible without American consumerism to provide the cheap but high quality video camera and computer software to make the film. Hypocrisy is great!!!

lame.... Hypocrisy is those who say we don't want a government to take care of us and then want a FDA and EPA and Army...

edit: also forgot to add like keeping their fingers because they're not working 80 billion hours a week in an unsafe shop in a factory town..

<-- dudes working there are working with 2000 degree iron making your manhole covers. I've also seen similar shops where they have sandals and a leather apron making turbocharger parts..... If we didn't have a government, you'd be working there.