Critical Thinking Model

As the technologies of modern societies have progressed and evermore products are present on the shelves of markets each day, massive consumption has plagued the consumers of the first world, but it is not entirely their fault. There has been a shift in the “Daily We” paradigm (each member acting for the good of the whole with a strong sense of community) to the “Daily Me” –people acting in their self-interest, doing what they want with total disregard for their impact on the community as a whole (Bennett 4/7/16). This “Daily Me” has led to consumption levels beyond reason in developed economies, like the American. In fact, Rob Deitz and Dan O’Neill put forth an argument in Enough is Enough that “money is not real wealth—it’s a claim on wealth” (Dietz 101). The real wealth that people acquire is the consumption, the assets, and the services they derive from the money. However, all of this translates to strain on the planet and remains ignorant to the reality of the limits of resources. People
expect endless growth and politicians promise it, but this current growth model is approaching a dead-end. Justin Lewis in his book, Beyond Consumer Capitalism, identifies a core problem—the structure of society perpetuates the cycle of consumption. Neoliberalism and globalization are degrading environments and stripping resources from struggling economies to sustain the overabundant consumption of the modern economies. The current structure of the American economy glorifies producers’ surplus—profits derived from efficient allocation of resources; however, once these resources run out, so does profit (Investopedia).
With planetary limits catching up to economic theories, there is a requirement for a “new normal”. Dietz and O’Neill present the concept of a steady-state economy: “ an economy that aims to maintain a stable level of resource consumption…[,] material and energy are kept within ecological limits, and in which the goal of increasing GDP is replaced by the goal of improving quality of life” (Dietz 45). Adoption of this new normal is the answer to many of the problems that we currently face.
Although the new normal is the ideal end goal, the path to reach it is far from simple. Our current political structure claims to be a democracy, but as Lawrence Lessig presents in Republic Lost, the money in politics has corrupted the original interest of the government—the people. No longer is the common public the interest of the government, the plights of corporate America are. Politicians have become entrapped in a revolving door: congressmen and women, to retain their positions, essentially in mafia style, blackmail for protection (extortion); rather than attending to the needs of their constituents, congress people are busy raising money (distraction); their interests no longer align with their constituents, rather with lobbyists (distortion). Because of this perpetual dependency, the trustworthiness of the United States government has plummeted and in turn has corrupted the government (Bennett 5/17/16). With the recent Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v the FEC (2010), money has become speech, and the first amendment grants that to everyone, even corporations (Bennett 5/12/16). Not only is there economic inequality that is approaching all time historic highs, but there is also inequality in speech. With corporations supplying campaigns and politicians with unlimited and unprecedented amounts of money to sustain a beneficial relationship, their speech has become more important to the politicians.
Due to the influence of money in government, bringing about change seems like mission impossible. However, Lessig provides two methods to deal with the money that has infiltrated politics—vouchers and match funds. Vouchers would grant individuals with money that they could then choose to allocate to a candidate of their choosing (excluding the president) as a form of support; match-funds, on the other hand, would essentially match the campaign contributions to a candidate with a certain ratio, 6 to 1 for example (Lessig 43 & 47). Both would serve as a means to decentralize the current model of campaign funding and reestablish the balance of speech within the public; however, matching funds appears to be a more realistic approach to solving the problem. This would give candidates the to opportunity to opt into a system that would allow them to move away from raising money and focus on the real requirements of their job—addressing the needs of the common public. As noted in lecture, many current politicians find raising money demeaning even though the job demands it; therefore, matching-funds would be an ideal alternative.
The American economy demands reformation of ideals and perspectives to grow into a capitalist society with more evenly distributed wealth and a new standard of economic growth. One of the main problems that many consumers face is debt—a Ted Talk from lecture outlined the problem perfectly; “We spend money we don’t have to buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t care about” (Bennett 06/02/16). But the solution to the problem is more obvious than many think, usury laws. Usury laws would prohibit companies extending credit at high-interest rates; in 1979 Washington State and several others capped interest on credit at 8% (De Graaf 225). By capping credit interest, credit companies would be less likely to extend credit at the rates they do. Currently, the average annual percentage rate (APR) hovers around 14.9%, that is 6.9% higher than what was a few decades ago (Dilworth). While 6.9% may not sound like much, this marginal interest is making corporations all the more powerful. By reducing the percentage, the credit risk would increase, forcing companies to extend fewer amount of money. This, in turn, would restrict the spending power of individuals on useless goods that they acquire. The root of over consumption trails back to money that needs to be converted to material assets as explained by Dietz and O’Neill, so limiting the money involved would limit what individuals acquired.
However, none of this is possible with the current growth model. There is this fantasy that economic growth will park fancy cars in our big driveways, in front of our lavish houses (Bennett 3/31/16). But this is exactly that, a fantasy. The expectation of endless growth fails to acknowledge planetary limits; there simply aren’t enough resources on this planet for everyone to live like the average American. Based on all of this, there needs to be an understanding of a “new normal”. The Industrial Revolution catapulted economic growth, but it seems that we have maxed out. In fact, focusing solely on 1990 to 2008, the world GDP has increased from $2 trillion to $51 trillion, which is closely tied to a catastrophic increase in non-renewable energy and resource consumption (Dietz 17). This new normal would be an economy that shifts to “enough” rather than “more”. Simply, enough would be an economy that does not exceed its capacity (Dietz 33). Enough would entail understanding that GDP isn’t an accurate reflection of societal wealth. Currently, GDP measures all things negative that come with an economy; pollution, crime, health damage, family breakdown, debt and bankruptcy, and increasing scarcity all add to GDP (De Graaf 19). These pessimistic values add to the supposed prosperity of a nation, regardless of their content. Happiness and well-being have no count in our GPD, but the consumption that strips lands of resources and pollutes the Earth is heavily valued. It is evident that there needs to be a change in the calculation of GDP. In fact, the opposites of many of these would be a superior alternative to adding to the GDP. Rather than family breakdown from divorce, family union should contribute to the GDP. Similarly, rather than accounting for increasing scarcity, GDP should increase when scarcity plateaus or decreases. It would be an interesting alternative to see which nations could have the lowest GDP instead of vying for the highest. In order to garner support for a new normal, it would be necessary to use many public relations tactic. While many corporations and politics use PR to perpetuate consumption and their individual interests, tactful PR strategies would need to be used to fight this. For instance, the label for elites, “the 1%” has a negative connotation; creating a similar label for credit companies who derive their income from large percentages could foster discontent within the public against the credit companies. A saying that catches on (like the “1%”) can generate animosity towards the current standards. Although this seems minuscule, it is a start.
There also needs to be a change in the way growth is perceived.
The current dead-end growth model depends on false promises by politicians and continues the level of consumption that leads to the degradation of the planet. The five steps of branding can be used to help the public reimagine economics. The five steps of branding are audience targeting, create elements of meaning, telling a story, program the contents as the brand delivery system, repeat to saturate (Bennett 4/ 9/16). These steps can be applied to the new normal in the following manner:
1. Targeting American consumers as a whole—they are the audience that needs to become aware.
2. Creating elements of meaning through logos and themes. This would be done through an evocative message that emphasizes the stresses on the planet.
3. Tell a story that makes a personal connection. Appealing to the American lifestyle of liberty and tying it into the limits imposed by consumption would further brand the new
normal.
4. Product placement could be effective by placing labels on products. There are warning labels on many foods, placing labels of massive consumption on everyday products would promote the message.
5. Saturate the target audience by repeating.

By using the five steps of branding to reimagine the standards of growth it is possible to cut down on the current levels of consumption.
Several of the main ideas presented in this course are linked together inadvertently. Our economy promotes consumption and growth, but this disregards off the planetary effects of it. The corruption in government promotes corporate interests who are solely profit-seeking; corporations do not pay attention to how they force consumerism and what the lingering consequences are on the Earth. Acknowledging and learning of these issues is the first step, thinking to rectify them is the next.