When enough is enough

A maybe naive (but I would like to think positively idealistic) build/variation on my recent 'lefty' post, inspired a little by some of the comments that one received.

In thinking about whether free market proponents (or businesses in general) really practise what they preach, one thought that struck me (maybe simplistic - happy to hear a well argued alternative) is that many rely on what I shall call 'lazy competition' to succeed. Businesses don't really compete with each other in a 'red in tooth and claw', survival of the fittest sense. It's often more a case of (latent...because they won't see it this way) collusion, where they rely instead on out of control consumerism (and the ability to 'infect' developing countries with the same disease) to grow markets so that everyone 'wins' - you don't have to be fit to survive you just have to be playing the game.

But there are still losers (there always are), and that's those of us doing the consuming - all that 'extra' income we 'enjoy' because of economic growth is spent as quickly as we earn it, on things we don't really need, which provide limited (if any) incremental utility. And, of course, the environment doesn't do too well out of this arrangement either, as we eat up nonrenewable natural resources and replace them with, well, rubbish.

So what's the answer? I can't say that there's an easy one. Or rather one that doesn't involve apparent sacrifice (at least as defined by the economic rules we are currently slaves to). But maybe what we need to do is start looking for different models to work by, built around more socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable levels of growth (reminds me of this, which I wrote a while ago, comparing collaborative 'ecologies' to competitive economies); strategies of 'enough' rather than 'more' - because when you have enough, more rarely makes you any happier. In fact, it probably makes you less.

Yes, incomes would be lower, which I guess would be the main counter argument, but so would overall consumption - so net we may end up better off! Particularly as most of us, in the West at least, are now well beyond the 'enough' point, and into the diminishing...even negative returns of 'more'.

In this model, companies would also have to get back to proper competition (which is no bad thing, if harnessed in a social constructive way) - the 'free market' kind where you have to properly earn the right to receive my money…a right many good companies have earned (but a right too many have simply 'stolen' by being on the materialist consumerist gravy train of growth). This would be a 'people first' not 'company first' world where failure to earn my trust and respect would mean something more significant than succeeding less.

How do we get to this point? Again I don't know. For me (and I think this is where it gets very personal), I see it as an almost spiritual question, something that requires a paradigm shift in how we view the world, and our place in it. Others will have equally valid points of view, and effective strategies for change, and I would love to hear them.

But change will have to come, because where we are heading is unsustainable, self-destructive, and (irony of ironies) doesn't even really deliver the benefits to us the 'consumer' that we think we're buying into.

Comments

[Rob @ Cynic]

Lovely post - I love this theme you're on - I would just say that whilst corporations have to shoulder much of the blame, we cannot ignore the influence of shareholders who in public may denounce organisations who exploit opportunities for financial gain, yet in private demand ever increasing returns on their shares.

We all are guilty in some way - but I do believe brands can still make incredible profits whilst still contributing to the benefit of communities and mankind.

We're doing some projects with the United Nations and the whole goal is to find solutions to fundamental problems whilst not incurring financial crisis on the companies it will affect. I'm not saying it is going to be easy [or even possible] ... and I appreciate the UN don't have 'sales targets' they have to achieve ... but at least it's a positive stance, though I still believe Tescos, despite all their short-comings, are the brand that is leading the way interms of profit for cultural investment.

You should read Affluenza, it's abit pro-therapy/religion, but it raises some fantastic points.

Oh and if you can be bothered, our work for Greenpeace, whilst charity based, is quite a nice example of solving the issue rather than - as most ads do - communicating the problem.

Love this Jon because not only is it very interesting and important but - with the greatest respect - I can feel you are alive when you write it.

[That wasn't meant to be as condecending as it's come out, sorry!]

[Rob @ Cynic]

Here's the link to the book I referred to in the last comment ...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Affluenza-Oliver-James/dp/0091900107

... and these 2 posts might be of interest to you.

READ THIS FIRST

http://robcampbell.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/money-cant-buy-taste-but-it-can-highlight-those-who-havent-got-it/

Then see how there's at least one brand who is interested in taking it on ...

http://robcampbell.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/profitable-blogging/

Sure it's not quite what you are writing about, but it's a start and to be honest, an ad agency that wants clients to make less money, is always going to be a much harder sell, so this way we can win big business and yet still look at ourselves in the mirror at night. Sometimes ;)

[Rob @ Cynic]

I've just re-read my comments and I sounds a smug little shit - so sorry - it was not meant to come out that way, I'm just passionate about this issue and go abit mad when others think/feel the same.

[Jon Howard]

No worries. Took it as enthusiastic not smug ;-)

Nor did I find it condescending - I think you are right that you do feel more alive when writing about things which are personally important to you, rather than just banging on about more job related stuff.

Not that they are unrelated, but you know what I mean.

The challenge remains (when you're not working somewhere that shares these beliefs) one of balancing the thoughts of the 'lunatic fringe' with requirements of the day job!!!

Think you are right about shareholders tho, and their double standards. Guess I was using companies as short hand for all the different actors on this particular stage.

And having re-read the post, maybe it was a little simplistic and naive :-)