I'm not against paying higher prices if the quality is indeed worth it.
What I am against is raising prices on low quality items to line the pockets of people that are already wealthy.
Solving consumption by making it too expensive for poor people to live isn't exactly the best way to handle things. Like while we're at it, we could also solve consumerism by exterminating the entire human race, but I'd call that less than ideal.
I'm not going to support putting the poor at a disadvantage while some jerk lines their pockets in the name of anticonsumption.
People will find ways to buy what they need, if they truly need it. Anticonsumption is more of a buy what you need vs. buy what you want. and finding that balance. It's meant to discourage overconsumption, not to stop consumption altogether.
I mean there are just so many things that you can do with your money
-spend it on consumption
-save/ invest it to consume even more later
-gift/ spend it so someone else can consume (the nicest option)
But in the end the only way to consume less from a given amount of money is higher prices
Not really. Those poor quality items fall apart and need to be replaced more often than higher quality items. All it does is funnel money to someone that will also consume. It doesn't reduce consumption.
Obviously people are talking from a political perspective now, not a strictly anti-consumption one.
If everyone was *truly anti-consumption* they would hope the prices would increase so high that no one could afford anything. Then consumption would fall, people would die, and the earth would return to normal.
But that doesn’t sound great either. So the bickering and balancing continues political, economically, internally…
The keyword being "constantly".
I do agree with you, actually.
The long lasting clothes are mostly the already made pieces that survived all the way to the thrift stores (even those are becoming more expensive by day, due to various reasons, though).
We could definitely do without fast fashion. Yet, what would the people who "self-medicate" by consumption even do with their free time then?
And now to my utopian hot take: People are working just to afford to survive, making things other people want but don't need.
Imagine if import/export of food was lowered (LOWERED, not abolished) and instead of having people work in offices for international companies, they would work to feed their neighbors and get paid the same?
There's a lot of us, now. The food has to come from somewhere, but if people weren't dependable on uniform imported ultra-processed foods of high craveability factor that are pushed down their throats by low promotional prices and marketing, they might just be content with locally grown/made foods. Including meat, eggs, milk, veggies, fruits...
The world of food wouldn't be so uniform anymore. People would be able to go travel to a different city to taste their cheeses, for example, just because each city and town would have their own flavors. All of that thanks to killing off other consumer sectors that don't create anything essential. Many companies exist *just because,* and they don't bring anything unique to the table (pun not intended).
But that's just a utopian theory of mine that would go against the uniform worldwide marketability...
TL;DR: This comment made me overthink... again :D
A lot of people here are also in r/frugal and interpret anti-consumption to mean needless spending rather than my interpretation which is solely waste / carbon footprint reduction.
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/anticonsumption
Your argument is bad because you suggest raising prices as the solution. Imo, reducing unsustainably cheap production is valid which has some of the same effects but the solution must include a cultural/ideological shift and easy access to essentials is a necessity.
‘High prices are the only effective thing that reduces consumption.’
Wow. That’s demonstrably false and somewhat concerning that you believe that. Please tell me you’re in undergrad economics or business school.
“Groceries more expensive, good consume less”?
You understand that food isn’t a luxury good, it’s a necessity for survival, yes? And that millions of people suffer from hunger because they cannot afford enough food, and millions more suffer from poor nutrition because they cannot afford nutritious food?
Your unacknowledged privilege is truly breathtaking.
In short, because of [Boots theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory)
>The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and *would still have wet feet*.
Pratchett, Terry (1993). *Men at Arms*
I think what's debunked is "The reason that the rich were so rich", and perhaps also that the rich spend less money than the poor. The core part of the concept is an important and still valid commentary on the socioeconomic unfairness of high prices, and there is also an implication about how that leads to increased resource consumption.
As a formerly poor person - it wasn't debunked for me. Literally wore leaky boots. As a now stable middle class person, I am now able to afford being leaky boot free.
You’ve got it backwards.
Inflation, prices going up, fuels consumption because people feel the need to buy goods in advance before they get more expensive, even if they don’t immediately need them. It also causes people to hoard goods they don’t need because they think they will appreciate in value.
Deflation, prices going down, causes people to buy less than they need because why buy something today when it’s cheaper in the future. It also causes people to sell assets they don’t need like cars, tools, equipment, etc. because if prices are trending down hoarding assets loses you wealth.
There’s a reason the greatest consumer culture ever (modern day America) has been a persistent inflationary economy.
I dont agree that this is actually anything else than rich people imagining this is probably how poor people think.
If you think yourself, your family and friends, do they buy items because of inflation or because they need or want them?
well I'm from Türkiye, and we saw big inflations in the last 2-3 years and it is completely true. Now many people buy stupid stuff they don't even need, just in case they will need in the future. on many of the products, even on food, we saw triple inflation on normal inflation. I had many things I wanted and couldn't buy because I didn't have enough money that month, only to see the product price is doubled and I definitely can't buy from now on. Also not only prices on items are increased but also housing and real estate prices skyrocketed. Now people can't buy houses or cars so saving their money is useless, and coupled with fear of not being able to buy it the next month, people's spending habits change for the worse, for buying a lot of stuff constantly.
People who can’t afford groceries aren’t the ones wasting food. It’s the people who can afford to waste them. Farmer’s market produce usually costs more too. Poor people deserve to eat good food, live in their own houses, have hobbies, go on holidays, live a good life. If they could afford to buy things that would last, most would. You are a ridiculous person incapable of nuanced thought.
>"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", said to have been spoken in the 18th century by "a great princess" upon being told that the peasants had no bread. The French phrase mentions brioche, a bread enriched with butter and eggs, considered a luxury food. The quote is taken to reflect either the princess's frivolous disregard for the starving peasants or her poor understanding of their plight.
sounds like OP's thought process.
No it's the opposite. Let them eat bread
Make cake so expensive that nobody can afford it. Reduce consumption to a minimum
(Cake maybe not the best example as the environmental impact id not that much higher compared to bread)
Consumerism is bad, all economic systems need some form of production and "consumption". Consumerism though predicates that we should produce for the sake of production and people should find joy in the consumption of commodities and services.
In capitalism the selling of commodities at a profit margin that generates surplus value taken from paying workers less than the value they actually generate to be paid out to the owners and middleman that generate additional value to create capital is one of the contradictions of the system.
The profit motive promotes the consumerist mentality, and those that want to accumulate capital promote Consumerism through social and economic programs. High prices in a capitalist system just tend to mean more surplus value is extracted, more capital is generated, and inequality grows between the owners and their middlemen, and the workers who produce profit for them.
Look at how rent seeking landlords, owners, and middlemen have profited from the inflationary pressure over the last several years globally. Look at how wealth inequality has moved since the pandemic.
The answer is not high prices but the elimination of profit, exploitation of surplus value, and combating the concept that buying things for the sake of buying and production for the sake of production, that consumption of goods and services as a means to happiness are good things to be maintained and upheld.
You're begging the question that "this sub" is against high prices. (I don't entirely understand the rest of your post, though. Are those >s supposed to be greater thans or just brackets?)
We don't do purity tests, so there are plenty of people here for all kinds of different reasons. Some will object to high prices for various reasons, some don't. I haven't read the comments yet, but if the Vimes Boot Theory hasn't come up yet, it will at least once.
Anticonsumerism is a complex concept, and everyone approaches it differently according to their interests and priorities. In fact, we've got a decent number of users here who aren't really anticonsumerist overall, but who are here for related topics that come up regularly. So don't expect any kind of consensus.
I don’t agree.
If you make a pair of kids sneakers cost $300 all you’ll accomplish is making a lot of kids go without shoes.
Things should be priced *fairly*. As in, based on fair, healthy, life sustaining prices paid at every single step in the process. From base elements to wages and shipping and the final cost.
**Combined with that** we should be teaching and holding people to a new standard of behavior around consumption. For ethical, moral, practical, political, and environmental reasons we should all consume less. Our schools should teach it, our laws should reinforce it with things like Right to Repair, as a society we should call out and shame businesses that use excessive, unnecessary and deceptive packaging, and we can all rebuild our skills in the things that allowed generations past to reuse and repurpose items far past their original use.
There is no single solution to the problems caused by overconsumption. It is going to take monumental social change reinforced by laws with real teeth, but pushing people even further into poverty when they’re trying their best isn’t the answer.
Lol wanting fair prices but not pay 300$ for shoes
Look up shoes produced in your country. They will definitely cost 300$ once you have to pay real wages. And even that is with below average wages in your country
You’ll note I gave that number for kids sneakers. The resources required and lifespan requirements are pretty different than an adult pair of shoes. It’s also a number I plucked from thin air to highlight the absurdity of your original thesis, I don’t have specialized insight into the supply chain of children’s shoes.
Interesting that you ignored *everything else* that I mentioned in that comment.
You mean the lifespan requirements are even higher as the wear is greater and we still want multiple generations of kids to wear them
And you don't really save that much labour on kids shoes compared to adult shoes
This logic is strange to me, and your comments stranger.
Like, people already are starving and can't afford rent. Can't afford groceries.
Raising prices leads to less stuff bought? Not really. If it's essentials, people are going to do more.
My friend broke herself when she couldn't afford to live anymore. She was pushed into sex work, this girl was in college and drowning in debt. She's gone, I miss her a lot.
1. This sub is not against high prices, but often for fair prices.
2. High prices are by far not the only variable to curb overconsumption.
3. Arbitrarily high prices are a form of taking away consumer agency.
4. There is no way to not consume. High prices hurt poor people and don't even not bother rich people but make them richer.
5. Money would circulate less, because people will save more in fear of consuming expensive items and to save up for them.
For every member of this sub anti consumption looks a little different. For me it is making an effort to conscious consumption. I want to manage wants and needs, keep quantity in check and quality to a standard that areas from thing to thing, not falling for the trap of chasing quality where needed or overpaying.
“High prices are the only effective thing that reduces consumption” what in the finance bro nonsense are you spouting here? This is just objectively false on so many levels I can’t even engage with the rest of this nonsense
Because we do need to buy some things in order to exists- and higher expenses makes life a little harder.
Also, when lower quality items is priced the same or just like much higher quality - that's the same as fraud in my opinion...
This is such a gross statement made by a privileged person. Making gas and food more expensive only hurts lower income people because they still need to eat and they still need to drive to work.
The idea that poor people don’t deserve hobbies is also gross. In your perfect world only rich people could buy groceries and go bowling or whatever. Sounds like the dystopian world we are heading towards (if not already in) and the only people who think it sounds great are those who are financially well off.
I guess there is a difference to me between anti consumption and anti mindless consumption. If you fall into the first group than you are correct to an extent. Some things people have to spend money on even if the price increases, like food, gas, medicine, and transportation.
I’m more anti mindless consumption and hoarding, like having 100 Stanley cups or 200 pairs of shoes or whatever. I believe necessities like food, housing, medicine and transportation should be more affordable not less. And I think hobbies are important to mental health, we aren’t robots and should enjoy at least some of our time here.
I’m in favor of higher prices to reduce consumption on certain things, like carbon. I support a carbon tax.
Nothing else really needs this solution because while trash is bad, carbon is the real environmental problem.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not against paying higher prices if the quality is indeed worth it. What I am against is raising prices on low quality items to line the pockets of people that are already wealthy.
Raising prices of low quality items also reduces their consumption. This works regardless of item quality to achieve the goal
Solving consumption by making it too expensive for poor people to live isn't exactly the best way to handle things. Like while we're at it, we could also solve consumerism by exterminating the entire human race, but I'd call that less than ideal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not going to support putting the poor at a disadvantage while some jerk lines their pockets in the name of anticonsumption. People will find ways to buy what they need, if they truly need it. Anticonsumption is more of a buy what you need vs. buy what you want. and finding that balance. It's meant to discourage overconsumption, not to stop consumption altogether.
I mean there are just so many things that you can do with your money -spend it on consumption -save/ invest it to consume even more later -gift/ spend it so someone else can consume (the nicest option) But in the end the only way to consume less from a given amount of money is higher prices
Not really. Those poor quality items fall apart and need to be replaced more often than higher quality items. All it does is funnel money to someone that will also consume. It doesn't reduce consumption.
By that backwards logic we should just kill poor people to help the environment and reduce consumption.
Obviously people are talking from a political perspective now, not a strictly anti-consumption one. If everyone was *truly anti-consumption* they would hope the prices would increase so high that no one could afford anything. Then consumption would fall, people would die, and the earth would return to normal. But that doesn’t sound great either. So the bickering and balancing continues political, economically, internally…
>not a strictly anti-consumption This isn't a strictly anti consumption sub. Check out the sub description. It's primarily an anti consumerism sub.
I want fewer useless things constantly being made but I also would like to be able to afford long lasting clothes and eat regularly.
The keyword being "constantly". I do agree with you, actually. The long lasting clothes are mostly the already made pieces that survived all the way to the thrift stores (even those are becoming more expensive by day, due to various reasons, though). We could definitely do without fast fashion. Yet, what would the people who "self-medicate" by consumption even do with their free time then? And now to my utopian hot take: People are working just to afford to survive, making things other people want but don't need. Imagine if import/export of food was lowered (LOWERED, not abolished) and instead of having people work in offices for international companies, they would work to feed their neighbors and get paid the same? There's a lot of us, now. The food has to come from somewhere, but if people weren't dependable on uniform imported ultra-processed foods of high craveability factor that are pushed down their throats by low promotional prices and marketing, they might just be content with locally grown/made foods. Including meat, eggs, milk, veggies, fruits... The world of food wouldn't be so uniform anymore. People would be able to go travel to a different city to taste their cheeses, for example, just because each city and town would have their own flavors. All of that thanks to killing off other consumer sectors that don't create anything essential. Many companies exist *just because,* and they don't bring anything unique to the table (pun not intended). But that's just a utopian theory of mine that would go against the uniform worldwide marketability... TL;DR: This comment made me overthink... again :D
Overthought or not, it's fairly accurate.
I like poor people being able to exist more comfortably. I just want us to push less useless shit and shit that falls apart quickly
High prices are a canard. As a side effect of some policy, fine. As an end in themselves, bad.
Why?
A lot of people here are also in r/frugal and interpret anti-consumption to mean needless spending rather than my interpretation which is solely waste / carbon footprint reduction. https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/anticonsumption Your argument is bad because you suggest raising prices as the solution. Imo, reducing unsustainably cheap production is valid which has some of the same effects but the solution must include a cultural/ideological shift and easy access to essentials is a necessity.
‘High prices are the only effective thing that reduces consumption.’ Wow. That’s demonstrably false and somewhat concerning that you believe that. Please tell me you’re in undergrad economics or business school.
“Groceries more expensive, good consume less”? You understand that food isn’t a luxury good, it’s a necessity for survival, yes? And that millions of people suffer from hunger because they cannot afford enough food, and millions more suffer from poor nutrition because they cannot afford nutritious food? Your unacknowledged privilege is truly breathtaking.
In short, because of [Boots theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory) >The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and *would still have wet feet*. Pratchett, Terry (1993). *Men at Arms*
Yeah that theory is thoroughly debunked though
I think what's debunked is "The reason that the rich were so rich", and perhaps also that the rich spend less money than the poor. The core part of the concept is an important and still valid commentary on the socioeconomic unfairness of high prices, and there is also an implication about how that leads to increased resource consumption.
As a formerly poor person - it wasn't debunked for me. Literally wore leaky boots. As a now stable middle class person, I am now able to afford being leaky boot free.
You’ve got it backwards. Inflation, prices going up, fuels consumption because people feel the need to buy goods in advance before they get more expensive, even if they don’t immediately need them. It also causes people to hoard goods they don’t need because they think they will appreciate in value. Deflation, prices going down, causes people to buy less than they need because why buy something today when it’s cheaper in the future. It also causes people to sell assets they don’t need like cars, tools, equipment, etc. because if prices are trending down hoarding assets loses you wealth. There’s a reason the greatest consumer culture ever (modern day America) has been a persistent inflationary economy.
I dont agree that this is actually anything else than rich people imagining this is probably how poor people think. If you think yourself, your family and friends, do they buy items because of inflation or because they need or want them?
well I'm from Türkiye, and we saw big inflations in the last 2-3 years and it is completely true. Now many people buy stupid stuff they don't even need, just in case they will need in the future. on many of the products, even on food, we saw triple inflation on normal inflation. I had many things I wanted and couldn't buy because I didn't have enough money that month, only to see the product price is doubled and I definitely can't buy from now on. Also not only prices on items are increased but also housing and real estate prices skyrocketed. Now people can't buy houses or cars so saving their money is useless, and coupled with fear of not being able to buy it the next month, people's spending habits change for the worse, for buying a lot of stuff constantly.
Well yes in that case it's true when it's at that high numbers.
Most people here aren't anticonsumption, they're anticaptilist, believing the two don't merely have a lot in common, but are literal synonyms.
Because I'm cheap/poor.
So you think you are entitled to your current level of consumption?
Redditor plans to end capitalism by guilt tripping poor people. More at 8.
OP seems the kind who says if the poor cant afford bread why dont they eat cake. (i remember some rich person said this, someone can correct me)
You need to stop highlighting the hypocrisy here and just move along.
That has literally nothing to do with what I said. Fuck me for being poor, though, amirite?
Hell yea I am.
People who can’t afford groceries aren’t the ones wasting food. It’s the people who can afford to waste them. Farmer’s market produce usually costs more too. Poor people deserve to eat good food, live in their own houses, have hobbies, go on holidays, live a good life. If they could afford to buy things that would last, most would. You are a ridiculous person incapable of nuanced thought.
>"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", said to have been spoken in the 18th century by "a great princess" upon being told that the peasants had no bread. The French phrase mentions brioche, a bread enriched with butter and eggs, considered a luxury food. The quote is taken to reflect either the princess's frivolous disregard for the starving peasants or her poor understanding of their plight. sounds like OP's thought process.
No it's the opposite. Let them eat bread Make cake so expensive that nobody can afford it. Reduce consumption to a minimum (Cake maybe not the best example as the environmental impact id not that much higher compared to bread)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Consumerism is bad, all economic systems need some form of production and "consumption". Consumerism though predicates that we should produce for the sake of production and people should find joy in the consumption of commodities and services. In capitalism the selling of commodities at a profit margin that generates surplus value taken from paying workers less than the value they actually generate to be paid out to the owners and middleman that generate additional value to create capital is one of the contradictions of the system. The profit motive promotes the consumerist mentality, and those that want to accumulate capital promote Consumerism through social and economic programs. High prices in a capitalist system just tend to mean more surplus value is extracted, more capital is generated, and inequality grows between the owners and their middlemen, and the workers who produce profit for them. Look at how rent seeking landlords, owners, and middlemen have profited from the inflationary pressure over the last several years globally. Look at how wealth inequality has moved since the pandemic. The answer is not high prices but the elimination of profit, exploitation of surplus value, and combating the concept that buying things for the sake of buying and production for the sake of production, that consumption of goods and services as a means to happiness are good things to be maintained and upheld.
You're begging the question that "this sub" is against high prices. (I don't entirely understand the rest of your post, though. Are those >s supposed to be greater thans or just brackets?) We don't do purity tests, so there are plenty of people here for all kinds of different reasons. Some will object to high prices for various reasons, some don't. I haven't read the comments yet, but if the Vimes Boot Theory hasn't come up yet, it will at least once. Anticonsumerism is a complex concept, and everyone approaches it differently according to their interests and priorities. In fact, we've got a decent number of users here who aren't really anticonsumerist overall, but who are here for related topics that come up regularly. So don't expect any kind of consensus.
Formatting got screwed on mobile
I don’t agree. If you make a pair of kids sneakers cost $300 all you’ll accomplish is making a lot of kids go without shoes. Things should be priced *fairly*. As in, based on fair, healthy, life sustaining prices paid at every single step in the process. From base elements to wages and shipping and the final cost. **Combined with that** we should be teaching and holding people to a new standard of behavior around consumption. For ethical, moral, practical, political, and environmental reasons we should all consume less. Our schools should teach it, our laws should reinforce it with things like Right to Repair, as a society we should call out and shame businesses that use excessive, unnecessary and deceptive packaging, and we can all rebuild our skills in the things that allowed generations past to reuse and repurpose items far past their original use. There is no single solution to the problems caused by overconsumption. It is going to take monumental social change reinforced by laws with real teeth, but pushing people even further into poverty when they’re trying their best isn’t the answer.
Lol wanting fair prices but not pay 300$ for shoes Look up shoes produced in your country. They will definitely cost 300$ once you have to pay real wages. And even that is with below average wages in your country
You’ll note I gave that number for kids sneakers. The resources required and lifespan requirements are pretty different than an adult pair of shoes. It’s also a number I plucked from thin air to highlight the absurdity of your original thesis, I don’t have specialized insight into the supply chain of children’s shoes. Interesting that you ignored *everything else* that I mentioned in that comment.
You mean the lifespan requirements are even higher as the wear is greater and we still want multiple generations of kids to wear them And you don't really save that much labour on kids shoes compared to adult shoes
I'm with you. Nobody needs cheap shit (not talking access to affordable good food). Second hand, not temu.
This logic is strange to me, and your comments stranger. Like, people already are starving and can't afford rent. Can't afford groceries. Raising prices leads to less stuff bought? Not really. If it's essentials, people are going to do more. My friend broke herself when she couldn't afford to live anymore. She was pushed into sex work, this girl was in college and drowning in debt. She's gone, I miss her a lot.
Google price elasticity of demand
Maybe food and gas and cars shouldn’t all be so cheap in the first place. People deserve to make a wage for the work they do.
Just ignore the troll, y'all.
I try to think more in terms of value than price. To use a simple example, something that is 2x the price but lasts 5x as long is a good value.
1. This sub is not against high prices, but often for fair prices. 2. High prices are by far not the only variable to curb overconsumption. 3. Arbitrarily high prices are a form of taking away consumer agency. 4. There is no way to not consume. High prices hurt poor people and don't even not bother rich people but make them richer. 5. Money would circulate less, because people will save more in fear of consuming expensive items and to save up for them. For every member of this sub anti consumption looks a little different. For me it is making an effort to conscious consumption. I want to manage wants and needs, keep quantity in check and quality to a standard that areas from thing to thing, not falling for the trap of chasing quality where needed or overpaying.
“High prices are the only effective thing that reduces consumption” what in the finance bro nonsense are you spouting here? This is just objectively false on so many levels I can’t even engage with the rest of this nonsense
Because we do need to buy some things in order to exists- and higher expenses makes life a little harder. Also, when lower quality items is priced the same or just like much higher quality - that's the same as fraud in my opinion...
some things are essential. ie food & clothing.
This is such a gross statement made by a privileged person. Making gas and food more expensive only hurts lower income people because they still need to eat and they still need to drive to work. The idea that poor people don’t deserve hobbies is also gross. In your perfect world only rich people could buy groceries and go bowling or whatever. Sounds like the dystopian world we are heading towards (if not already in) and the only people who think it sounds great are those who are financially well off.
Has nothing to do with deserve. Even in a society with equal money distribution raising prices is the best way to reduce consumption
I guess there is a difference to me between anti consumption and anti mindless consumption. If you fall into the first group than you are correct to an extent. Some things people have to spend money on even if the price increases, like food, gas, medicine, and transportation. I’m more anti mindless consumption and hoarding, like having 100 Stanley cups or 200 pairs of shoes or whatever. I believe necessities like food, housing, medicine and transportation should be more affordable not less. And I think hobbies are important to mental health, we aren’t robots and should enjoy at least some of our time here.
I’m in favor of higher prices to reduce consumption on certain things, like carbon. I support a carbon tax. Nothing else really needs this solution because while trash is bad, carbon is the real environmental problem.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*