The Real Bev wrote:
On 6/13/24 8:47 AM, Lenona wrote:
I assume you know that for thousands of years, economies were NOT based
on convincing ordinary people to buy things they didn't even really
want
that much. Personal frugality was the order of the day until the early
20th century or so.
No, based on royalty and the aristocracy buying things THEY didn't even
really need. All things considered, I think the stuff they bought
lasts
longer than the stuff that poor people buy and is much prettier.
Why do you think I said "ordinary people"?
After all, peasants HAD to be frugal in order to pay their horrific
taxes - and feed their inevitably growing families. Whereas today, at
least in the U.S., the AVERAGE household has about $6,000 in credit card
debt. That presumably includes the working classes - and a lot of that
debt has nothing to do with necessities.
For the record, historian David M. Tucker was the one who spelled out
the theory I mentioned above, in his 1990 book: "The Decline of Thrift
in America: Our Cultural Shift from Saving to Spending."
From Amazon:
"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. The idea that
deferring immediate pleasures to accumulate wealth for increased future
value was considered virtuous, not just by the citizens but by
politicians and the government as well. In this fascinating history of
thrift, David Tucker describes how, after the Eisenhower period, thrift
became an outdated, outmoded concept, and how the abandonment of thrift
is in large part responsible for our current economic position.
"Tucker begins his study by tracing the thrift culture in which America
was born, which continued its dominance for more than a century. The
notion that frugality was the best means for promoting the general
welfare remained unchanged until the late nineteenth century, when an
angry protest against more thrifty Chinese immigrants led to a reversal
in cultural attitudes. A new ideal of a higher standard of
living--supported by spending, consumption, and debt-- undercut the old
virtue of thrift. Throughout the twentieth century, advertising,
consumer credit, and a self-indulgent psychology have eroded the
practice of frugality. In addition to this history, Tucker explores the
dangers of the thriftless society, comparing America's current position
to the economic rise and decline of the United Kingdom. With a savings
rate that has fallen from 15 percent to 4 percent, and a government that routinely appropriates more than 100 percent of tax revenues, Tucker
sees a moral deficiency in Americans. Thrift is no obsolescent virtue,
he observes, if the nation is concerned with preserving a standard of
living. This unique history and commentary will be a useful supplement
to courses in current affairs, American history, and economics, as well
as a significant addition to college, university, and public
libraries."
Btw, I thought of ONE other thing that used to be cheap - live
entertainment, such as circuses and similar outings. When it comes to
amusement park rides and food at county fairs, at least, those were
cheap as late as 1952, if "Charlotte's Web" is any indication. That is,
the kids' dad gives them some cash and says: "And remember, the money
has to last ALL DAY. Don't spend it all the first few minutes."
So how much money could plausibly cover "all day"?
70 cents each. No kidding.
I didn't have to check any online inflation calculators to know that
inflation wasn't the only factor in that case.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)