1969 Redux

I was very confused after reading today's papers.  The Rutland Herald's headline advised me to

Party like it's 1969

while the Freeps front page story told me to

Consume like it's 1969

The Herald's story was about a casting call for a new Ang Lee film about Woodstock (this one, not this one).  The Freeps' was about a proposal from Josh Farley, an ecological economist at the Gund Institute at UVM who argues that

Americans could substantially cut their energy use, he declared, if they could manage to live at the level that prevailed in 1969.

We could cut it even more if we could manage to live at the level that prevailed in 1902. 

The article gives more details about the proposal, which I won't go into here, and also gives critical comments from two non-ecological economists (ie mainstream economists) at UVM, my colleagues Marc Law and Rick Vanden Bergh.

It's hard to believe anyone can seriously think that an average American would want to go back to 1969's standard of living or that things were better back then for the average American.  You'd have to give up your cell phone and replace it with a rotary dial phone (your choice of white or black, and no answering machines allowed).  Out the window with your computer, DVD player (not to mention your VCR), and microwave.  No more Ipods or Walkman.  Or even boom boxes.  Back to vinyl. 

Half the people who own them would have to get rid of their dishwashers, clothes washers, color TV's and air conditioners.  Your 2007 car's pollution is about 99% less than the 1969 vehicle.  And it's safer and lasts longer.

I don't even want to start talking about medical care.   Or vacations--few people took trips abroad and those eco-tours to Belize--no more. 

How would we get back to 1969's level of consumption?  We could all voluntarily consume less.  But then we'd save more.   And with more saving there would be more investment and the economy would grow faster.  That would bring us problems, since with economic growth comes a higher standard of living and the "problem" of growth would return.

That means the government would have to raise our taxes to get us to consume less. Real GDP has doubled since 1969 so taxes would have to rise by about 50% to keep our after tax income low enough so that we would only consume at 1969 levels.  But what would the government do with all that money?  They'd have to spend it, which would generate income, etc.   It could pay off the national debt, but then what?  Same problem. 

Given the choice between consuming like it's 1969 or partying like it's 1969, I'll take the latter.

Comments

[GreggB]

Bunch of dirty hippies.

[James Baldwin]

Hi. Nice read.

Go back to 1969, NO WAY. Bringing back vinyl recordings, YES! The sound is so much warmer than CDs. AND, bring back a young Melanie. http://LetHerIn.org

These two from 1969 shouldn't be thrown away. Most of the rest CAN be.
Jim
Spokane WA

[JimH]

What do you mean with all that money the government would spend it and generate income? They could instead just expand Vermont's "drop wood" program. That would keep us all at 1969, or better yet 1902, prosperity levels.