The end of prosperity: hoorah!

October 13, 2010 by  
Filed under The Lileks Zone

Reuters piece: An Inevitable Slide for Americans’ Standard of Living. Nonsense, you think. That’s defeatist talk. Nothing is inevitable but death and taxes –

Oh. Right. Well, the piece isn’t about taxes.

America’s standard of living could turn out to be the main casualty of the debt crisis. For a decade, the middle class made up for stagnant incomes by getting ever deeper into debt. Without housing wealth to tap, a bout of inflation is one of the few alternatives to a decade of austerity.

O joy. You know you’re being ruled by geniuses when inflation is a solution. Of course, if you’re “tapping” your housing wealth to increase your standard of living, your standard of living is based on unsustainable factors. Put it another way: the foundation of your house was cotton candy, and you built in a flood plain. In this situation, a “decade of austerity” is another word for “living within your means.”

It goes on:

Americans seemed to think a perpetually improving lifestyle was written into the Constitution.

Silly, stupid people. It’s not. (Abortion is, though, somewhere, under a penumbra.) But some Americans thought their lifestyles would improve because they expected to be rewarded for initiative or good behavior – work hard, save, don’t borrow money on the house for an RV that needs a full tank just to back out of the driveway, and so on. If millions now feel there’s an inevitable decline in the standard of living it’s because they expect that more of what they have will be taken away by the state.

For some, that’s just jack-dandy. Some on the left who think it’s a perfectly grand thing if our standards of living decline. We consume too much, and have things we don’t need. Our cars and TVs are too big. Our houses are too big. (Side note: everyone talks about the housing bubble, but it’s usually seen in terms of free-standing homes in the ‘rubs. Taken a look at prices of New York condos lately? Why didn’t those dense and urban housing units keep their value, if such lifestyles are the moral superior to living in the suburbs?) Their level of consumption is perfectly tuned, of course, but those other people out there somewhere don’t need what they have. One of these people became shouty and incensed when I made the infelicitous assertion that I wanted my daughter to have the same standard of living I had, at the very least. Might as well have said I wanted to burn down the rain forest to build the world’s largest NASCAR track.

I suspect a good many people on the left don’t mind a protracted economic clusterbundle. It’s comeuppance for the specious concept of prosperity, a rebuke to everyone who left the city for the suburbs, and good for Gaia to boot – but it’s only a start, but not the end. There are still people out there with things they do not need, you know. That’s the new definition of rich. When all you have is a hammer and sickle, everything looks like a kulak.

Comments

3 Responses to “The end of prosperity: hoorah!”
  1. Chris Bogdan says:

    Great closing line.

    Maybe it’s just me but I’ve run into people who pine for declining standards of living and they all seemed to have two things in common;

    1) They’re fairly comfortable, financially-speaking, and
    2) They don’t understand the point of owning a jetski, or home theatre, so that tends to be the sort of purchase that draws their fire.

    Buying $3 organic turnips, or $50,000 electric cars? Those aren’t extravagant because we’re saving the world.

  2. John Davey says:

    Lileks
    It goes on:

    Americans seemed to think a perpetually improving lifestyle was written into the Constitution.

    Silly, stupid people. It’s not. (Abortion is, though, somewhere, under a penumbra.)

    And health care.

    And a guaranteed retirement.

    And subsidized hybrid vehicles.

    And a social safety net. Or is that only the Rosetta Stone here in California?

    It’s all in the New Testament, US Constitution: Abridged King Barack Edition. From II Corinthians(Epistle of Al[Gore]).

    Endorsed by the people who want what they want! – but don’t want you to have what you want, because that wouldn’t be fair!

    • Martin Wornath says:

      The article disapprovingly says, “Americans seemed to think a perpetually improving lifestyle was written into the Constitution.” So, then can we assume that the writer of this article would come out against Obama’s recent proposal to send a $250 check to every Social Security recipient – to make up for the fact they they won’t get a COLA this year?

Important Links
Lileks Private reserve
Duanes World
Hugh Hewitt Store
  • RSS Hugh Hewitt Blog

    • Just How Inept Is The Obama Foreign Policy Team? October 30, 2014
      After starting a new foreign policy meltdown by calling Israel’s Prime Minister “chicken____” five days before elections in which competence in matters of national security is center stage, someone at the White House must have appealed to The New York Times for urgent assistance, and the paper responded with this thigh slapped of the Keystone Kops at work wh […]
    • What Will A GOP Senate And GOP House Mean? “Action This Day!” October 29, 2014
      What would a GOP-controlled Congress mean? Well, for one thing, better relations with Israel because the Republican Congress will not allow the president to repeatedly attack our strongest ally in the Middle East.  Expect renewed Iran sanctions to land on the president’s desk as well. I spoke with Kentucky senator and GOP leader Mitch McConnell about what wa […]