Josh, these are the thoughts that keep me up as well. I think a lot about how I consume more than I produce, but haven’t quite thought about it from the other direction before today, that maybe there’s a way for me to produce in equal measure to what I consume.

The real wrestling match comes with wondering if I need to produce the SAME STUFF I consume. Or can it work for some people to produce a bunch of potatoes, while another produces a bunch of pants, and they simply swap what they don’t need? I know this isn’t how “hyper capitalism” works, but is there a way to get our communities back to something more agrarian looking like this? I don’t know!

Anyway thanks for thinking these thoughts and for blogging them!

Isn’t that kind of the point of a monetary society, and a free market? To somehow balance out what I produce (which is reflected by my income) with what I consume (which is reflected by by spending)? Basically, I can’t buy more than I produce – excluding credit, of course, with which it is only possible to outspend yourself for so long.

I guess the only way this would make sense is if you accept that there is a fundamental difference in the qualities of one person’s production versus another’s, thereby explaining why a CEO is worth millions of dollars a year and why a hired farmhand is only worth a few dollars an hour.

But basically, the way I see it, the only way we can consume more than we produce is if we are being given something for nothing, in terms of welfare, government handouts, coerced income redistribution, etc., which only encourage the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting here.

sorry my commenting has sucked lately. i’ve been swamped with work so no time for blogging.

that’s a good point dave. about it not needing to be the same stuff.

derek. i’m not advocating for the government to play the role of balancing this out. i thought that was made clear when i said “Nor do I advocate a communist system where the government divides the pie up equally.”

i’m thinking along the lines more of an agrarian lifestyle like dave pointed out. or closer and similar to what our economic and production systems were back in the day. when some villagers made soap and other villagers made butter and another clothing and another chickens. that they all were involved in the production process and not just the consumption.

now i fully recognize that you don’t have to be a farmer or blacksmith to be able to produce something of value. and i’m not saying that we need to get rid of every office building or skyscraper. i just think most of us have made a radical shift from working as producers to working in service based industries. we’ve shifted from a production based economy to a service based economy. and i think that has some huge ramifications for how we view ourselves in relationship to consumption.

if anything, i would think this view advocates for smaller government and local governance.

Sometimes when I comment here I feel like I am a stranger intruding into a private conversation – but I’ll jump in anyway and hope it is not an intrusion.
I’ve been locked away for years in a plastic, politically right, evangelical culture – and issues like production and consumption are never discussed. It is a fairly new introduction to my own thought processes.
What you say here is so true – all over the world people – including children are laboring as our slaves to give us our “stuff”.
Most of the Christian community that I am familiar with are THE biggest consumers.
Is the more important goal individual balance or corporate balance?

“i just think most of us have made a radical shift from working as producers to working in service based industries. we’ve shifted from a production based economy to a service based economy. and i think that has some huge ramifications for how we view ourselves in relationship to consumption.”

But how do you compare the value of a service to a physical product? The cost of all physical products actually incorporates the cost of services in them, at their core.

I understand the desires to look for equity, etc. But I don’t think the distinction between producers of a physical product and producers of a more abstract product make much of a difference. Both have the potential to influence and, hopefully, improve the lives and well beings of others. Both only have value to the degree that they are desired from others. This is true whether we’re swapping agricultural products or software licenses. They both reflect the investment of an individual’s time and effort.

Josh, I think this post intersects pretty closely with your thoughts on the ‘consumptive church.’

I don’t think that the masses are ready to deal with their issues of consuming more than they produce or any issue of stewardship for that matter. It’s going to take a long time to push past the instant shut off point that is triggered by the idea that stewardship=give more money.

This, to me, is another of a laundry list of things that Jesus was about (bringing equity) that the mainstream church has moved away from.

jewels. not an intrusion at all. every commenter here is free to walk right into the living room and put their feet on the table. nice thoughts in bringing up the “kid” factor. i think that’s what is the most troublesome things for me.

derek. i understand what you’re saying. but lets be honest . . . service industries are only possible in a society of affluence. i mean it’d be hard to pull off a rain forest cafe or a emeril’s restaurant in niger. or laos.

service industries are a totally different ballgame than production based industries. i’m not proposing that we devalidate them. but something can surely be said that the typical american lives out of whack between what we produce (i.e. contribute) as opposed to what we consume. i’m not dissing the service industries or the sales industries. but let’s be honest, as a majority most of the “workers” for these industries live lives that are much more out of balance than those “artists” who create as much as they consume. that’s the point i’m trying to articulate.

ryan. yeah. this definitely is a continuation of the consumptive church thoughts. i should probably just add it in as an addendum. you’re spot on with that “instant shut-off”. i mean for crying out loud i have it when anybody else says it besides me! so i think you’re right. it’s so tough to adjust and recalibrate our lives after we’ve spent so much time in affluence.

Derek, you write – the only way we can consume more than we produce is if we are being given something for nothing, in terms of welfare, government handouts, coerced income redistribution, etc.,

It happens everyday with consumers refusing to pay the full price for that which we consume. We ask others, often the very producers themselves, to pay the price for us. So as we consume coffee, the producer might get paid 60% of what it cost him to produce the coffee for us. We are getting not something for nothing, but something for a fraction of what it costs to produce (and then throw hissy fits and scream “welfare!” when people suggest that we pay the full price for what we consume)

Josh, let’s use simple example to make sure I’m not misrepresenting my point.

Let’s say you’ve got a small, isolated community. Each person farms enough for their household to eat. Everyone works hard, but they are also well-fed.

Now let’s say one of them figures out a better way to manage the farming, such that the harvest is increased by an average of 50%, with less overall effort. It’s complicated enough that he can’t just tell people how to do it. He has to train people how to do it.

So instead of farming for himself, he starts training the other farmers, and each farmer agrees to give him half of the increase over a period of time. Now the “trainer” does very little physical labor. Each farmer does less physical labor. And everyone has more food.

The farmers still have a surplus, and now they also have extra time since they work less. So some farmers stop their farming and write books, music, or art for the other farmers to enjoy with their free time. Some farmers gain enough to leave the community, get additional education, and come back to the community with increased knowledge of medicine, engineering, agriculture, or other scientific advances that further benefit the community and allow them to develop further.

Any job anyone has on this planet is only because it somehow increases or enhances the quality of life for someone else, while at the same time providing an income to the person working the job. The entire point of a monetary society is to make it easier to trade our effort with each other – so that in essence, our consumption is based on our production.

This is true whether you’re a farmer, a teacher, an artist, a musician, a factory worker, a computer programmer, a cop, or a shoe shiner.

Any economic affluence comes out of an abundance of resources, beyond what the group requires for their own self-preservation. And it must be something that is in demand or has a benefit somewhere else. It can be based on agricultural abundance, natural resource abundance, intellectual abundance, or even an abundance that we haven’t even considered yet. But without abundance, there is no affluence.

In other words, affluence is based on producing more than you consume.

I’m not trying to gloss over the problems of this world in terms of a lack of equity. It exists, and to the extent that it does, it’s not because of people’s chosen professions, or how much of a tangible product they create. It’s because of spiritual depravity. Most of the poorest regions in the world are areas where the governments create the problem, in terms of a lack of economic freedom and oppression of other people. I think there are other, much more important factors to consider.

i get your point. but i’d have to believe in the basic premise that more equals better. and that “management” is a value.

i’m not saying that isn’t the case.

but more doesn’t always equal better and just because you can manage stuff and increase it’s productivity by 50% doesn’t mean that the end result is something worth pursuing.

and i agree with all of your points about affluence. but since when did affluence at the cost of equity become something that we should chase and/or guard. i get that producing more than you consume leads to affluence.

but i didn’t know affluence was a biblical value.

I watched the DVD The Corporation a while back and companies use “externalization” to get other people or companies to foot the bill on costs, so they won’t have to, and can ratchet up profit as much as possible.

In some ways we as uber consumers do the same?

Cheers.

More equals better primarily in the sense that it provides more options. I don’t think you’re advocating that we should all be farmers. But unless there are farmers who can generate “more” food than they can personally consume, we would all have to be farmers. If that were the case, we’d have no doctors, for example, and quality of life would be a lot worse.

I don’t think that affluence has to come at a cost of equity. If you look at most cases where there are problems of equity, you will either find inherent problems of self-worth and motivation (which require charitable intervention) or external oppressive forces (which require justice to intervene).