Does it serve you or it serves the planet? Simple thoughts on Capitalism, Sustainability and Personal Money
Let me tell you how I came up with this topic.
I was talking with a girl I met at a networking event. She has an Instagram profile about personal finances intending to help people save more money each month. In order to save more money, one must see where one spends its money and often it is in minor things like clothing, gadgets, shoes. All those things that a materialistic society tells you to buy but you wonder if it gives you any joy.
She shared some thoughts about how you can stop impulsive shopping by thinking clearly about the reasons you buy so many clothes or gadgets and how utilitarianism was important on shopping choices.
She shared that most girls would rather spend 20 dollars on a sweatshop t-shirt that lasts for 3 months than spend 80 dollars on a boutique t-shirt that lasts for two years. The second option was better because a) it lasted longer b) it was from better materials c) the usage and production preserved the environment resources better.
I perceived her example as a good one, but it got me thinking: how can we make choices that are good for Capitalism, Planet Sustainability and your wallet?
Right now it seems very incompatible to get the three together. Capitalism only sees profit and the impacts on the planet in the last 50 years tell us that between pollution and profit, companies prefer the latter.
Globalization gave consumers the choice to buy a 2 dollar shirt that is made in India by children that receive 2 dollars per month. Globalization gave consumers the chance to buy more with the same money and enjoy sales seasons and online discounts. Globalization boosted consumption which translated in more jobs, more credit, more money, a better middle class.
However since de 2008 crises, we have seen how deregulation destroyed the capitalist utopia: no, growth cannot go on indefinitely high because there’s not a planet alive to sustain that consumption.
Which brings us to the topic of Sustainability.
Kids born in the late 1980s and early 1990s have heard how cool it is to recycle and how not doing it’s almost a crime to humanity (because it’s easy and fun!). After the crises, climate change changed status from important to urgent.
Today, we define sustainability as collective and individual actions that don’t pollute even more the planet. Plastics, single-use stuff, not recycling, consuming too much is hurting the ecosystem. Pollution and men action are the causes of floods, earthquakes, intense fires.
The debate is not the same for the entire world. Some have polluted without limitations and now are calling out others you are doing the same thing.
The Western countries are somewhat experiencing how their Golden Age of cheap oil is making their rain season more uncertain, their fires more intense, and hot summers hotter and chilly winters hotter, which destroys ecosystems and life as we know it.
Newly developed countries like China and India want to catch the train and feel unjust that everyone talks about their economic growth based on pollution as something bad. If they had caught the train sooner with fellow Americans and Europeans, they would have grown without carbon limits pressuring results and limits on shareholder hunger. If we had all started doing bad at the same time, we could all argue from the same side of the table.
Sustainability affects everyday lives. You cannot buy anything for your pleasure. You have to think about production costs, travelling, logistics, delivery and usability. Buying cheap China products is great to consumption (it grows) and to your wallet (you spend less). But in the long term, it sucks for the planet that is seeing its green resources being wiped out so that you can have a new rough pair of jeans from Primark every Friday.
Now think about your wallet: do you want to have more or less money to live?
The answer is easy: you want more. You are influenced by Capitalism to think that more is better. More is the ultimate status. More is happiness. But the more you look around and see how much the world has changed, you see how More is a utopia that only creates inequality. More is more for 1% and a lot less for the rest (and the odds are not in your favour).
Again, the crises are to blame. Inequality rose, the middle class is disappearing, Millenials are full of debt and still dependent on their parents after 30. Employment instability and late marriages produce fewer children and a longer life expectancy puts pressure on social services and hospitals.
It seems like it has nothing to do with you, but think about at a micro-level. When you need something to wear, do you wanna spend more or less money? Can you even think that you should be buying a 100 dollar jacket that will last for 10 years than a 20 dollar jacket for now when rent is due?
How do common people make financial decisions? Do they have enough knowledge to make good decisions for them and the environment? Can they believe that spend more is protecting the planet? How can you buy sustainable clothes if they are more expensive? Is it worth saving for? If you save money would you rather spend on clothes or some travelling experience or your new mattress?
This begs the question: when you buy something, should you buy because it serves you or because it serves the planet? Can you buy something that serves you (your wallet), the planet (sustainability) and can make the economy still grow to redistribute wealth to all (capitalism)?
How can we answer this? My simple thoughts brought me to this conclusion. The key point that links this all is we need to rebalance consumption. For more developed countries, we must learn to consume more in the line of needs and not wants. That’s sustainable for the economy, the planet and your wallet.
For other countries, they need to create more without hurting the planet. Technology and Digitalization probes as an opportunity to grow without pollution and altering the natural ecosystems that influence directly macro capitalists cities.
By working at the macro level, consumer tendencies may shift. You may consume just what you need therefore saving money. If you manage your wallet between the spectrum of “I need this for survival” and “I need this to keep up with the Joneses”, you will find the sweet spot of “I want this and I can afford it with no present or future pain”.
This is by no means a clear solution. Capitalism, Sustainability and Personal Finances don’t seem to fit perfectly. Because there are serious missteps on the way and there’s no guarantee that you will make 100% good choices without compromising one of these parts.
This exercise reminds me of playing Tetris: the pieces must have a shape that makes them come together for everyone to win. The challenge is to find that exact shape in order for everything to work. That’s the huge problem for humanity to solve.
