This thoughtful piece by Brad DeLong on the topic of whether “we” (in this case “the globe’s middle and upper classes”) have “enough” in the way of material goods, physical comfort and so on, is, I suspect, at some level a reflection of an idea that seems to be gaining some traction as the world slips deeper into recession, the notion that a pause in the rate of increase in which we consume material goods might not be such a bad thing. Indeed, so the argument sometimes runs (although Professor DeLong makes no such claim), such a pause might even be beneficial for the planet, our souls, and, doubtless, ‘the children’.
Professor DeLong also, however, notes this:
“Keynes thought that by today we would have reached a realm of plenty where “We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not, neither do they spin.”
”But no dice. I look around, and all I can say is: not yet, not for a long time to come, and perhaps never. I’m convinced that everyone I know can easily imagine how to spend up to three times their current income usefully and productively. (It is only beyond three times your current spending that people judge others’ spending as absurd and wasteful.) And everybody I know finds it very difficult to imagine how people can survive on less than one-third of what they spend—never mind that all of our pre-industrial ancestors did so all the time. There is a point at which we say “enough!” to more oat porridge. But all evidence suggests Keynes was wrong: We are simply not built to ever say “enough!” to stuff in general.
This, I reckon, is not only correct, but a thoroughly good thing. Humanity’s insatiable craving for more and more stuff may bring a few (sometimes many) problems in its wake but it remains unparalleled as an engine of progress, development and thus, in the end, happiness. There are some, of course, who prefer the ascetic lifestyle. Fair enough: to each his own. They should be free to take what pleasure they can out of their painstaking, pointless recycling, their cold, draughty homes, and, I’m sure, their quest for life’s greater meaning.
It’s when the hair-shirted start to argue that everyone else should follow suit (and, in a way, that is the assumption lurking just beneath the contention that a slower rate of growth would be just fine for now) that the rest of us should watch out. It’s striking how often, and how quickly, their agenda will shift from controlling their appetites to controlling yours, usually in the name of some greater good, of course, the planet, say…