Post: #1

Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, by E.F. Schumacher

In a recent mainstream media article, Roosh said to the typist, "I don't buy it. I just don't buy that women or anyone is amazingly happy because they can buy a new iPhone every year. If we define happiness by being a consumer zombie, then yes, maybe that's right. But anyone who has chased that knows there's no gold at the end of that rainbow."

The typist snarked that Roosh was a budding Marxist - a patronizing dismissal that shows his cowardice at engaging with Roosh's point. It's also intellectually illiterate - Marx objected to capitalism, but his favored solution was still materialistic - put the power of production in the hands of the people. When Roosh's point is relayed to another man, a men's rights advocate, he classifies it as 'lefty,' and defends one's right to choose what to buy.

This little Vox episode is just an example of how impoverished and confused modern thinking is about money, about life's purpose, about one's means and ends. Schumacher's book is an attempt at addressing that confusion.

Economists prize economic growth, the increase in material wealth. But we have long been aware that a man's happiness does not depend on his wealth, provided his basic needs are met. Yet we proceed to value the growth of income over all else, as if it were the salve we know it not to be. The man who invented Gross Domestic Product himself objected to making it a national priority, saying "The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income. "

In the capitalist economy, work is seen by all players as a necessary evil which we must always strive to reduce and diminish: employers and capitalists, to pay less wages, and employees, to have more leisure. But this fundamentally ignores the satisfaction provided to man by creative, meaningful work:

• "Above anything else there is need for a proper philosophy of work which
  understands work not as that which it has indeed become, an inhuman chore
  as soon as possible to be abolished by automation, but as something 'decreed
  by Providence for the good of man's body and soul'. Next to the family, it is
  work and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations
  of society. If the foundations are unsound, how could society be sound? And
  if society is sick, how could it fail to be a danger to peace? "

Elsewhere, in a passage sure to endear some here to him, he questions how we can consider a nation to have increased in wealth when a woman leaves home and child for work:

• From a Buddhist point of view, this is standing the truth on its head by
  considering goods as more important than people and consumption as more
  important than creative activity. It means shifting the emphasis from the
  worker to the product of work, that is, from the human to the sub-human, a
  surrender to the forces of evil. The very start of Buddhist economic planning
  would be a planning for full employment, and the primary purpose of this
  would in fact be employment for everyone who needs an 'outside' job: it
  would not be the maximisation of employment nor the maximisation of
  production. Women, on the whole, do not need an 'outside' job, and the
  large-scale ·employment of women in offices or factories would be
  considered a sign of serious economic failure. In particular, to let mothers of
  young children work in factories while the children run wild would be as
  uneconomic in the eyes of a Buddhist economist as the employment of a
  skilled worker as a soldier in the eyes of a modern economist,
  
  While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly
  interested in liberation. But Buddhism is 'The Middle Way' and therefore in
  no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is not wealth that stands in the
  way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of
  pleasurable things but the craving for them. The keynote of Buddhist
  economics, therefore, is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist's
  point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality
  of its pattern - amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory
  results.
  
  For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand. He is used to
  measuring the 'standard of living' by the amount of annual consumption,
  assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is 'better off' than a
  man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this
  approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to
  human well-being the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being
  with the minimum of consumption. Thus, if the purpose of clothing is a
  certain amount of temperature comfort and an attractive appearance, the task
  is to attain this purpose with the smallest possible effort, that is, with the
  smallest annual destruction of cloth and with the help of designs that involve
  the smallest possible input of toil. The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. It would be highly uneconomic, for
  instance, to go in for complicated tailoring, like the modern west, when a
  much more beautiful effect can be achieved by the skilful draping of uncut
  material. It would be the height of folly to make material so that it should
  wear out quickly and the height of barbarity to make anything ugly, shabby
  or mean. What has just been said about clothing applies equally to all other
  human requirements. The ownership and the consumption of goods is a
  means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to
  attain given ends with the minimum means.
  
  Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the
  sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of
  production - land, labour, and capital - as the means, The former, in short,
  tries to maximise human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption,
  while the latter tries to maximise consumption by the optimal pattern of
  productive effort. It is easy to see that the effort needed to sustain a way of
  life which seeks to attain the optimal pattern of consumption is likely to be
  much smaller than the effort needed to sustain a drive for maximum
  consumption. 'We need not be surprised, therefore, that the pressure and
  strain of living is very much less in say, Burma than it is in the United States
  in spite of the fact that the amount of labour- saving machinery used in the
  former country is only a minute fraction of the amount used in the latter. "

In short, the basis on which we've ordered society delivers nearly the opposite of the good life; it anoints false gods who will always fail us - no iPhone can fill the void created by vapid careers and fragmented relationships.

I've only quoted a tiny fraction of Schumacher's ideas. His perspective is ancient, yet fresh and invigorating to modern ears used to hearing sophistry that ignores man as he is. I strongly recommend the book. I just read his other book, Guide for the Perplexed, and recommend it as well, though it's content is a little more abstruse. I consider Small is Beautiful to be the best book on economics I have ever read, and I have a strong interest in the field.

Schumacher called his work 'Buddhist Economics' - because, he said, if he had called it Christian Economics, no one would have read it. All the same, his views were based on social teachings common to both traditions, indeed all ancient traditions, from papal encyclicals to the teachings of Buddha to yoga, Islam and Daoism.

His book was popular in his day - he appeared in a photo with an American president - but the problems he highlighted have largely gotten worse.

A more in depth review: http://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/The-...e.cfm.html
PDF: https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/student/~pdars...macher.pdf

Post: #2

The problem with part of his views as far as I could tell is as following:

http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/

Gross National Happiness is a term started to be used by Bhutan - actually even before that by think tanks.

The elite has begun to market that term since they know that standard of living for the West is going to plummet. So what to do? Simply tell the peasants to be happy while they eat beans and potatoes unable to afford travel, big houses, steak etc.

The author in all likelihood leaves the following hot-topics out:

- end of usury
- alternative methods of money creation like social credit, mutual credit and demurrage
- the fact that countries do not create money themselves, but print debts and borrow it from the 0,001%
- the fact that money is created at rates above 98% by the banks and they can expand or shrink it almost at will
- never mind the fact that most central banks are either private (US Fed owned by regional banks in return owned by private investors) or special interest group controlled
- suppression of technology and science by the same group who owns the usury system (geo-magnetic energy creation, better batteries etc. )

Implementing those steps above would make everyone enjoy a higher standard of living. Consumerism has to be controlled, no useless packaging should be allowed, planned obsolescence should be banned - that would solve the problems.

Not this:



It's true that happiness is created within, but without the reforms I mentioned this is similar to a feudal Game of Thrones lord telling you to be happy in your squalor and misery. That's just propaganda - has nothing to do with "people matter".

Post: #3

It's easy to say GDP and money don't matter, if you don't live in a Third World country, or even in a working class area. I can't remember the exact analogy, but basically if you were to have chopped 1% off America's GDP growth since the Civil War, today it would have Mexican living standards. The smallest change in economic output has a huge impact in the long-term. Who would really swap a less busy life for the haircut to GDP growth that "Buddhist Economics" would require? Now imagine how it would actually be in practice, where the reduction would likely be much higher than 1%.

Quote:'We need not be surprised, therefore, that the pressure and
strain of living is very much less in say, Burma than it is in the United States
in spite of the fact that the amount of labour- saving machinery used in the
former country is only a minute fraction of the amount used in the latter. "

Even by Third World standards, Burma is extremely poor. Speaking from what I've seen first hand, the average "middle class" family in developing countries multiple times wealthier than Burma still struggle to afford basic things like medicine. I've even seen this in another devout Buddhist country too, and the people aren't any happier about it. Saying the Burmese live a less strained life than Americans is a joke.

Post: #4

The current system is headed toward mass impoverishment, political oligarchy, disorder, oppression, and environmental ruin.

Most people can't comprehend there are alternatives which would raise the standard of living.

Post: #5

Zelcorpion, Schumacher did in fact favor circulating local currencies, such as Berkshires. Catholic social teachings also forbid usury.

I'd agree that the third world could stand to benefit immensely from increased wealth. But here in the West, things are different. We lead lives that are wasteful and destructive, and government policy encourages as much. Capitalism encourages us to act narrowly in our own interests as private atomized actors without exercising the comprehensive examination that Schumacher embraces. America has long had a diminished civic sense, exacerbating the matter. The means of capitalism and consumption, in a fit of moral confusion, have become the ends.

Embracing his ideas does not entail embracing big government; his philosophy was in fact devoted to heavily decentralized governance, known as distributism. Shifting say, from a tax on income to a tax on consumption would be progress; legalizing and building more economical, pleasant means of living would be another - zoning laws in the US often limit housing supply and density, ensuring that housing will be expensive, excessive and require a car to get around, when walkable neighborhoods are cheaper to build and maintain, and conduce to a pleasant, socially richer life. Examples of the bias towards consumption, waste and bigness are rife in our government.

And, our high consumption is not what makes us wealthy - we would be bankrupt in short order if that was the cause, just as any man who consumes more than he produces does. It's because we have high productivity.

"It's easy to say GDP and money don't matter, if you don't live in a Third World country, or even in a working class area. I can't remember the exact analogy, but basically if you were to have chopped 1% off America's GDP growth since the Civil War, today it would have Mexican living standards."

Even in our poor areas, the lack of income is not the clear cause of these issues. When welfare programs raised the incomes of the poor, their societies decayed, not flourished. Bastardy and broken marriages abound where they hadn't in poorer times. We see the poor failing while the middle classes fare better, and assume that merely incomes are responsible. The failure of the Great Society and other programs suggests it's more complex.

Post: #6

(02-09-2015 09:36 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Zelcorpion, Schumacher did in fact favor circulating local currencies, such as Berkshires. Catholic social teachings also forbid usury.

I'd agree that the third world could stand to benefit immensely from increased wealth. But here in the West, things are different. We lead lives that are wasteful and destructive, and government policy encourages as much. Capitalism encourages us to act narrowly in our own interests as private atomized actors without exercising the comprehensive examination that Schumacher embraces. America has long had a diminished civic sense, exacerbating the matter. The means of capitalism and consumption, in a fit of moral confusion, have become the ends.

Embracing his ideas does not entail embracing big government; his philosophy was in fact devoted to heavily decentralized governance, known as distributism. Shifting say, from a tax on income to a tax on consumption would be progress; legalizing and building more economical, pleasant means of living would be another - zoning laws in the US often limit housing supply and density, ensuring that housing will be expensive, excessive and require a car to get around, when walkable neighborhoods are cheaper to build and maintain, and conduce to a pleasant, socially richer life. Examples of the bias towards consumption, waste and bigness are rife in our government.

And, our high consumption is not what makes us wealthy - we would be bankrupt in short order if that was the cause, just as any man who consumes more than he produces does. It's because we have high productivity.

"It's easy to say GDP and money don't matter, if you don't live in a Third World country, or even in a working class area. I can't remember the exact analogy, but basically if you were to have chopped 1% off America's GDP growth since the Civil War, today it would have Mexican living standards."

Even in our poor areas, the lack of income is not the clear cause of these issues. When welfare programs raised the incomes of the poor, their societies decayed, not flourished. Bastardy and broken marriages abound where they hadn't in poorer times. We see the poor failing while the middle classes fare better, and assume that merely incomes are responsible. The failure of the Great Society and other programs suggests it's more complex.

He sounds awfully like one of the problem causing think-tanks out there:

Quote: One of his main arguments in Small is Beautiful is that we cannot consider the problem of technological production solved if it requires that we recklessly erode our finite natural capital and deprive future generations of its benefits. Schumacher's work coincided with the growth of ecological concerns and with the birth of environmentalism, and he became a hero to many in the environmental movement and community movement.

1. Promoting small regional currencies while leaving the big money issue in peace is ridiculous. Those regional currencies are self-defense mechanisms within a system - they can keep you alive, but they don't change the system sufficiently.

2. The current economic system MUST GROW due to the fact that usury is not created in the money generation mechanism - it must be earned through growth by the population. Effectively you simply cannot have 0% growth due to that without 99% of the people getting poorer.

3. Also shifting to consumption taxes is no solution - those hit the bottom 80% way more than income taxes. If you make 100 mio. $ a year you will hardly ever be able to "spend" it all as if you make minimum wage.

The terms he used are the usual environmental, Malthusian ones - you peasants are using our resources, just cut down your life quality and best die and the world is beautiful again. Those sheisters always omit the fact that without usury most taxation and growth would not be necessary. And without the suppression of alternative technologies the oil madness would be obsolete. And while we are at planned obsolescence - with banning that and wasteful wrappings you would instantly take care of the rest of the environmental programs.

Otherwise the guy resembles the usual fake global warming schmuck who tells you to cut down on your one bed-room heating while he lives in 10 houses all around the world jet-setting on his private plane.

The difference to the current population is that I know that those guys are paid shills - it's a nice con, but frankly not much different from Malthusians who predicted we will drown in horse manure and die of hunger centuries ago.

The issue is simple - if usury alone and suppression of technology solves 99,9% of the world's economic and environmental problems there is not much else to discuss about "small is beautiful" - keep also in mind that the small is always meant to be for the peasants and not the top.

Post: #7

I just spent a few minutes trying to think of how to get to the issue in the quickest way without writing a detailed response to a bunch of individual points. Schumacher had some professional credentials but comes across as a 100% crank here. We cannot measure "happiness" or compare it from person to person. The study of economics is about constrained decision making at the level of an individual working within the price system. Consumption is the yardstick because people want to consume. Not only food and clothing but also leisure, travel, art, culture, etc. Economic growth leads to more opportunities for consumption of all of those things. That is why it is valuable. A good is only a good if someone considers it a good. For example oil used to be a nuisance until someone figured out how to make it useful.

Central planning-whatever the goal is-does not work. It can't work. Just because your pet goal is the main goal in some hypothetical system doesn't make it more likely to work.

Post: #8

Adam Smith Wrote:In civilized society man stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. . . . Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. . . . Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens.