Posted on 11/29/2008 3:27:38 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
At this time of year, columns like Derrick Z. Jackson's of today condemning the materialism of the Christmas shopping season are as traditional as the Budweiser commercial with the Clydesdale-drawn sleigh. And part of me is sympathetic with Jackson's call for people to spurn the malls and curtail their gift-giving budgets.
But this of all years, did the Boston Globe columnist consider the disastrous consequences for the economy and lives of millions of Americans if people were actually to heed his advice? Apparently not. Jackson's radical suggestion [emphasis added]:
"I have a suggestion for these holidays. The average American, according to the government, consumes six times more energy than the world average. Take whatever you spent on gifts last year, slash 5/6ths of it, and see what you can do with the rest - unless of course you make a charitable donation. You're broke anyway, right, so what's the harm?"
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Does Derrick realize this would create a Depression? Ping to Today show list.
This is a recipe for a depression?? A depression in China, perhaps.
Sounds like my nearly-bankrupt Dad, always telling me that my penny-pinching is hurting the economy.
Derrick Z. Jackson is one of the many reasons I stopped reading the Glob. His is the most reliably negative column I know of—constantly bitching and moaning about everything, and the enemy is always, ALWAYS the same—America.
I take your point about a lot of stuff being manufactured overseas. But you don’t think a 5/6th reduction in holiday spending would cause massive bankruptcy and unemployment in the US?
so, that means Boston Globe sells for about a dime? (so we don’t get into pennies)
Just to be ornery, let’s rephrase that to read:
Is maxing out credit cards in an annual tribute to something other than the spirit of Christmas...
...which supports via local storefronts multinationalist importers...
... going to save our manufacturing base which is an important part of genuine economic strength and recovery?
And there is the problem for the United States, the idea that if Consumers don’t spend “depression here we come” does raise sustainability problems long term, consumers will have less to spend in January, does that mean we will a depression..then?
This year I won’t we spending anything on Christmas. I will go to church instead.
Christmas has become far too commercialized for my liking. It has become a monument to wanton greed and excess: about the last thing that Christ would ever want or approve of in His name.
So the merchants will go unenriched by my pocketbook this year, and if it works well then for every other year too.
Perhaps I can begin a trend: we all know how the “Christmas” game is played. Prices go up before Christmas and they are discounted for Boxing Day. That can’t be healthy for the economy, this all-or-nothing bloat once per year. It’s a game I don’t like, so I won’t play it anymore.
Our local Catholic church has a sign up on its door: “Bring Back the Christ in Christmas”. Once again, the Holy Church has got the message right.
All this,IMO,makes this particular piece particularly despicable.
I was born frugal and it has served me well. Only a fool believes that being frugal will bring about a depression. My great grandparents were very frugal and they were among those who weathered the depression without losing their farm and they were poor.
A family might do very well by being frugal. But if Americans at large were to reduce holiday spending by 5/6ths, do you disagree that it would lead to massive unemployment and bankruptcy?
Christmas is supposed to be about Christ; period.
The gifts we give each other are supposed to be symbolic of the gifts the Magi brought to the Christ child; period. They brought him gold, frankincense, and myrrh (gifts traditionally given to a King, BTW) - not wide-screen TV’s, Wii’s, and GI Joe with the kung-fu grip: materialist garbage NOT in keeping with Christ’s gift of salvation.
Most people WAY overdo the “Christmas presents” thing anyway. A cutback would not be a bad idea.
My household does a much smaller than average “commercial” Christmas; emphasizing well-thought-out “personal” gifts as opposed to large numbers of big-ticket items. We focus on the “reason for the season” here, and the “money” has very little to do with it.
Amen, Friend. Amen!
Reduced spending is already happening. Our family gave up spending tons on Christmas several years ago. A 5/6 reduction in our spending would mean that we would have to forego Christmas dinner for our extended family of 30+ and nothing for our 3 grandchildren except a $10 toy.
Also, a lot of families get one big gift for their children, like a Wii. You can’t get those at 5/6 the price.
I think an instructive thing to do would be to track Mr. Jackson’s movements and purchases over the next 26 days.
I will bet you he attends plenty of holiday parties and dinners, and if he is married, I will bet he doesn’t buy his wife a $5.00 present.
What type of car does he drive? Where does he vacation? Where does he purchase his clothes? I would bet any amount of money he doesn’t show up at work driving a Yugo and wearing an off-the-rack suit from J.C. Penney. And I am darn sure he doesn’t vacation on the Jersey shore.
You both have a wide difference in reasoning with the author although to some degree, you all agree.
The meaning is lost, and it is so hard to understand how we got from ‘what it was’ to ‘what it is now’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnK8V3BZNeM&feature=related
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.