If you don't want to spend money on Black Friday, fine. But how much gas did you waste getting to the mall to protest?

How does anyone get to 18 without even knowing what the economy is? Am I the only one who is annoyed when this protest idiocy is publicized?

Come back when you've done something to help, Rene. There are agencies all over that could use volunteers, and the Red Cross is always running blood drives. You can be part of the solution, or another critic yapping in the breeze.

If they were opposing people consuming on credit, thus reducing their savings and making it more likely that they would be dependent upon the government and other taxpayers to support them as they age and retire...that I would understand.

But damnit when I make money I decide how I will spend it, its nobody else's fucking business.

They make it to 18 without understanding the economy by having mummy and daddy pay for everything.

Robert hit on it... their attitude is that people should be entitled to just take what they want, er, need. Where does the stuff they take come from? Who cares? The Economy Fairy will take care of that! Right?

Anna Parker, 35, visiting from Great Britain, was asked by the protestors if she was embarrassed because she was shopping.

She was not.

"I'm only buying gifts for people. They should be happy we're spending money," Parker said as she walked down Colorado Boulevard with bags in her hands. "I bet they expect gifts on Christmas, too."

So, the visiting British lady not only understands economics better than the young American protestors, she understands human nature better as well.

I wonder how well these young protestors would take it if everyone on their Christmas list decided to give them nothing to honor their anti-consumerist stance ... since everyone on their Christmas list will apparently be getting nothing because of their anti-consumerist stance.

However, comma, there are elements of "the economy" that do not in fact support sound future fiscal or social policy.

Witness gasohol, already explored here.

There is a surplus of labor now. That's why we can even consider sitting inside for hour after hour, playing WOW or EVE, a fit activity.

If they were opposing people consuming on credit, thus reducing their savings and making it more likely that they would be dependent upon the government and other taxpayers to support them as they age and retire...that I would understand.

Posted by: Robert at November 28, 2010 6:54 AM

I'm pretty sure that was exactly the point.

BTW, an economy based on luxury spending rather than on caution and thrift was, in fact, the way of the world for thousands of years until....the 20th century. See an old post of mine below that I sent elsewhere:

In the 1990 book "The Decline of Thrift in America: Our Cultural Shift from Saving to Spending" by history professor David M. Tucker, he said something that's bound to raise eyebrows - that, IIRC, poor (or formerly poor) black people are more reluctant than poor white people to say "no" to relatives (and friends) demanding loans. Though I can understand that, if true.

One major point he makes is that thrift was actually the way societies/ economies were generally run for most of human history until the beginning of the 20th century. (And, in Sterling North's "Rascal," North said that in 1918 Wisconsin, when he was 11, no kid he knew got an allowance, even before the war, and he considered himself lucky that his father allowed him to keep the money the boy made mowing
people's lawns and selling his garden produce!) Henry Ford apparently played a big role in attaching shame to being a thrifty American.

From Amazon:

"This unique history studies the concept of thrift as a driving cultural and economic force in America. From the beginning of our nation's history, with the Puritan and Protestant work ethics, through the 1950s, thrift was considered an important virtue, both with regard to the moral fiber of the country and as a support for its continuing economic well-being. In the past few decades, however, a new ideal of spending and consumption undercut the old morality, until by the end of the Eisenhower era thrift had become an outmoded concept. The direct result of this has been a declining savings rate and enormous budget deficit, Tucker argues, and has placed America on a road of economic decline."

Amazingly, though the book is only 208 pages, a used copy goes for $72! This is apparently because thrift was not at all a popular subject in the U.S. at the time of publication, so he had a hard time getting it published. Not long after, Amy Dacyzyn started publishing the "Tightwad Gazette," which is how I heard of Tucker's book.

BTW, an economy based on luxury spending rather than on caution and thrift was, in fact, the way of the world for thousands of years until....the 20th century.

__________________

Aargh! Talk about being absent-minded! I meant the other way around, of course.

And by "luxury spending," I'm including the carelessness of spending money you don't have. As Jim Cramer says (not verbatim): "Cash HURTS! That's why you should always use it so you'll think twice about every Benjamin Franklin you plunk down!"

I did all my shopping from my computer.

Santa is going to be very good to us this year.

I am still looking for a new camera deal. Cyber Monday looks to get another $100 out of me.

I wonder, how many of those protestors were:

A. Wearing designer clothes?
B. Driving cars that their parents were paying for? (New, not used)
C. Paying for fast food instead of preparing their own meals?
D. Owned video game systems, new titles, and large flat panel televisions?

Pack of ignorant hipocritical fuckwads.

> Pack of ignorant hipocritical fuckwads.

"Children", you mean. Listen, I think we should always be ready to give young people a hard time... But, y'know, they were probably just looking for something to do outdoors, so they wanted to have a protest. Doesn't mean much.

Years ago this woman and I went to the Museum of Tolerance in L.A., and some kids were making really stupid jokes. I was appalled, but the date pointed out that they were, in fact, teenagers.

Teenagers are often FOS. They prefer to lash out at people who won't strike back at them. Kind of like what this guy says about the Wikileaks story... Wouldn't it be great to see that happen for Iran and China and North Korea?

Another favorite metaphor: PETA prefers throwing bloodlike food coloring on the furs of Beverly Hills matrons rather than the leather jackets of Hell's Angels riders.

... thrift was considered an important virtue, both with regard to the moral fiber of the country and as a support for its continuing economic well-being

Yes, this underscores to me the impact that growing up in rural America had on my upbringing. My grandparents lived through the Depression, and my parents are pre-Boomer. I was always taught that thriftiness was a superior way of living, from a moral and ethical standpoint. Debt enslaved you, living beyond your means was just showing off. It's considered a dour and old-fashioned point of view, now. But I still think it's a way to live free, and what could be dour about that?

Yet at the moment, I question whether or not I'm surrounded by a ring of laughing children, with 'KICK ME' taped to my butt. Late to the joke. Last to get the punchline.

What's to become of people who "did everything right?" Will they be laughed at for conforming foolishly to societal norms that betrayed them? Will they fire the last shots? Or will all this just fade into the current, and outlast us all?

Here's something from my hometown that I enjoyed today:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101128/NEWS/311290010/Iowa-s-hardest-years-Stories-from-the-farms-during-the-Great-Depression

Children, good choice of words there crid, should have thought to use it myself, ill tempered that day I suppose.
Not in a significantly better mood this morning, but that is another subject. The way I see it is, while they are in fact, being childish, the apalling thing to my mind is that those ignorant hipocritical children somehow managed to avoid learning any serious life lessons by the time they were old enough to drive down their and spout their drivel. When I was a boy I was learning about economics, albeit accidentally, by wanting to get stuff for myself that my parents wouldn't buy for me. I wanted a t.v. in my room, so my folks told me to go earn the money for it. So I started watering neighbor's plants, washing cars, kid stuff. By the time "I" was 18, though I didn't have a full grasp of things even then, as I do now, I still knew quite well enough that what they're protesting is just stupid.

If they want to be socially responsible, grab a ladle at a shelter, donate blood, go be a big brother to some under privileged kid, there are a thousand times a thousand more important things than "protesting" how other hard working people choose to use their hard earned money at the holidays. Sanctimoneous self indulgence and presumptuousness of unearned authority or expertise get on my nerves.

One reason I confess I enjoy your commentary, it lacks pretentiousness and provides fairly sound reasoning...well, sometimes at least. ;)

Happy holidays!

--------------------

As a post script I will add, that I am all in favor of thrift, I spend money on a few luxeries, but by and large I stay debt free, TINY credit card balances, and I seldom pay full price for what I buy, I believe in saving, investing, and other wonderful things like that. People who bust their butts to earn a living seldom appreciate pretentious kids telling them they shouldn't be shopping.

And when you give these children who are "FOS" the ability to vote, you wind up with someone like, say ... Obama?

> they are in fact, being childish

Right, but the one being quoted — "Rene", a gender-indeterminate— is said to be 18. This person probably hasn't even seen the sunny side of a paycheck yet, let alone the dark clouds where FICA deductions cast their shadows.

A lot of people don't really get a grip on economics until they grow up and figure out that their own petty interests aren't seated at the concentric center of our Universe.

They're kidz.

"Yet at the moment, I question whether or not I'm surrounded by a ring of laughing children, with 'KICK ME' taped to my butt. Late to the joke. Last to get the punchline."

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "moral hazard". And yes, there's far too much of it in our society today. People who try to live the moral life start to feel like chumps. Reynolds had a link to something yesterday stating that, on average, people who have defaulted on their mortgages are able to stay in their houses for at least 16 months without making payments. That being the case, why keep paying your mortgage? Glenn keeps talking about the "middle class revolt", and right now those old-fashioned, uncool, unhip middle-American values are the only thing preventing that revolt from happening. You think the housing market is in the tank now? What happens if a big chunk of the middle class decides that they're stupid for continuing to pay on their mortgages?

A related moral hazard: Going to debt for something is obviously a form of economic bet. You're betting that you'll continue to have the means to keep up the payments. The only problem is, in our day and age, the opposite of debt -- thrift -- is also an economic bet. By saving money, you are betting that the government won't inflate the hell out of the currency. Oops, that's exactly what it's doing right now...