By the standards of Internet time, this op-ed was written ages ago (14 November), and critiquing it now is like a late hit in football. But there is a fundamental fallacy here that is, if not timeless, then enduringly relevant. Why is it that the only ways Michael Kinsley—by all accounts a talented and creative man—can imagine to get out of the economic crisis are more spending or more saving? Why does he completely omit any reference to the most deeply human, and also the most economically productive, thing we can do? We don't have to define our lives either by how much we save or how much we spend. We can embrace the call to collaborate with others to create something new that adds economic value, among other kinds of value, to the world. That is what will bring us out of the current slump into real prosperity: people who aren't shoppers or hoarders but creators. It is a measure of the power of consumer culture that Kinsley doesn't even mention that as an option.
Andy
:
Without consumers to lead the charge, an economic recovery will be hard to achieve. And yet everyone agrees that we need to start saving more. So should I buy that coffee maker to stimulate the economy? Or should I save the money in order to “grow” the economy and provide for my own old age? I can’t do both. . . .
So what do we do? The nearest thing to an actual plan seems to be something like this: stimulate first, to avert various short-term disasters, and then — at some signal from the Treasury Department — turn around and start saving like mad, to avert various long-term disasters. In other words, we need to get back our consumer confidence, and then lose it again.