What is the value of money when consumerism is required?
It appears that 60% of the economy in the USA is based upon consumerism. Therefore it will be quite important that to keep that consumerism up in the future when the retail trade is not dependent upon the receipt, as the purchase in the future will be accomplished up ones ‘smart’ phone and as RFID tags will be ‘read’ by devices upon a ‘Smart’ phone and a Retail Clerk and a teller machine is totally not necessary at all. One will walk in ‘read’ the RDIF tag, the merchandise in the store will be tagged as purchased by the person and flagged as purchased at that store and they will just walk out the store with the merchandise, through a device similar to what we see these days at most stores.
On-line Purchasing and distribution of the desired merchandise to the mail box at ones home will only be improved.
Therefore the retail clerks at teller machines will just be almost totally redundant, dealing with the cash and carry folk which will become a smaller and smaller set of people.
However, the work force will become smaller and smaller as the automation of the purchase and home distribution system will take control with the devices like the Smart Phone.
Therefore what will become of that totally reduced retail clerk work force, as the USA needs Consumerism to maintain a valid economy, and most of those positions will become lost and replaced by automation?
There will just be more and more people in the USA that have no employment; however, we actually need consumerism in the USA for a valid economy. Therefore there needs to be a stream of cash to many in the future that can’t get employment at all. Currently that is a fairly large set of folks, and as I see it that will just become a larger and larger set of people in the USA with nothing to do, but to play games and drink beer.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 13
I know what cake is, that is the stuff that sticks to ones shoe after it rains on a dirt road when one walks down it. The cake Marie was referring to was usually made from pounded almonds into a paste and heated up like a tortilla, and that was a basic ‘bread’ substitution for the poor back then.
What is the value of money to the dead, as we all die?
What is lost in your reasoning is an understanding of productivity. When one job is lost because something else is invented that is more efficient and effective, productivity increases. People who lose their jobs due to the invention find other things to produce in a society that is overall more productive. The more productive a society, the more wealth and opportunity is available for everyone.
Think about this - in tribal times, everyone had a job - ZERO unemployment. Why? Because everyone had to work to survive. There was very little productivity, only necessity. Today because of "consumerism" and the inventions you decry, people can work less or even not at all for quite some time if they plan properly. This was never heard of prior.
wrong, more money is created in only one way. Governments print it, then as in doing so it will lose value.
What then is the value of money to the dead?
Why is that not working?
Is it all based upon or due to religion?
Richard, you are giving money way too much credit (pun intended). Money is simply a measure of value. If/when the dollar looses its value to the point it will be worth as much as dirt, there will still be a measure of value. It could be gold, silver, copper, barter . . . just about anything.
Your second response makes no sense. The first paragraph is just a run-on sentence that says nothing.
As to why "that" is not working (I assume you mean today's situation) it is because productivity is punished and laziness and leeching is rewarded.
People who hold your view are what are called mystics. Religion is a business, but mystics are different. You believe what you believe because you have a conclusion you want to draw, and you find any irrational pat to get there.
I am referring to the necessity of consumerism in the USA.
The impact of the lack of consumerism is actually what is keeping the country down on the economy side of things. That necessity of consumerism which must be maintained and may need to be maintained in the future at all costs is what I am referring to.
Therefore, the lazy bums that don’t work are totally out of the picture as the consumerism is much more important to the economy of the USA and thus giving them money to maintain that will be more important than not giving them money.
Here is a short article on the concept I highly recommend you read. If you do and take the time to actually understand it, you will be able to speak more intelligently about the topic going forward:
Stimulus logic: spending vs wealth creation
Does Consumerism create jobs? Of course it does, because of the greater demand for consumerable things. Therefore just the ability to increase that alone in increasing something like the Food Stamp program to include things like fuel and clothes, is in reality something to think about.
Also do more jobs create more consumerism? That answer is a definite maybe. As the folk with those jobs that were created may decide to save instead of spend on consumer type things