Disrespectful, insulting, vulgar, he said something to that effect. I remained—those who know me—uncharacteristically silent. In any case, it’s hard to sip this wonderfully tasted cup of coffee, trying not to take my eyes off the dazzling view of the Jakarta’s traffic from the top of this building, while at the same time thinking about the right response for his view. After a while, he let a long sigh, took a deep draw of his cigarette and somehow lost in his thought. I hoped that’s because he was realizing that the very fact we’re discussing THAT topic in THIS place was as absurd as his narrative. Not to worry though, I know for sure it’s not going to stop us to speak about injustice any other time in any other place. That or we simply love to argue…
Which bring us to an early 20th century American economist / sociologist Thorstein Veblen. I have an old copy of Veblen’s book “The Theory of the Leisure Class” but the book is so difficult to read due to its archaic English, let alone to grab the concept. In fact, Veblen had not learned English until his teens when he self-taught himself via intensive readings, which may explain his style. Trust me, just refer to the reliable Heilbroner’s Wordly Philosoper to describe Veblen’s thought.Basically Veblen renounces the traditional view of the neo classical economist that people are merely motivated by desire to maximize utility. He postulates that instead people are driven by the pursuit of social status. This is base in his observation on the behaviour of the New-Rich class who spend money for luxurious goods which have no intrinsic value added compared to their regular substitution. A BMW I mentioned earlier for instance will function as well as a Kijang. Since no economic value is apparent, the only motive left for the purchase of these luxurious items must be social: the ‘need’ to climb ups the social ladder by the way of displaying wealth.
Veblen coined the term ‘conspicuous consumption’ to describe that. A ‘conspicuous leisure’ is a similar term to describe time consumed for non-economical value adding activities. Hence, those indulge in a conspicuous leisure actually want to show others that they don’t need to work long hours to fulfil their basic needs and since time is money, burning time equals burning money. Discussing world’s injustice in a café like we did earlier is one example. So now you can see how absurd it is to denounce conspicuous consumption while having a conspicuous leisure.
But this is the point where I should depart from Veblen, and that friend of mine earlier, especially when explaining what to do during this time of global malaise. Most of time, the cause of current global economic crisis is attributed to excessive consumerism leveraged by imprudent consumer credit dispersal. When the foundation collapsed, the whole intertwining economic structure built upon it was also tumbled.
As usual, experts differ on the most effective way to turnover the situation. But one thing is clear: consumers are now cutting down consumption. When in crisis turn to Keynes, hence now Governments taking over by increasing the spending. Does it help? We don’t know yet. The fact is China’s economy which relies heavily on export and investment, and until last year the fastest growing major economy, dwindled and slows down to 6.1% growth in Q1 2009 (9% in 2008, 12% in 2007).
No difference, Indonesia is also hit by the crisis. But let’s be fair: it’s a far cry from the annus horribilis of 1997 – 1998. This in part is due to the fact that our economy’s structure has changed a lot in the past decade: it used to be export that drives the economy but now the proportion of consumption is bigger. Turns out, it makes our economy more resilience during a global crisis. Other nations have also tried to spur local consumption directly. Taiwan for instance, distributed shopping vouchers and it seems to work albeit in a short time.
Which brings us back to Indonesia, where we finally found other virtue of BLT (Bantuan Langsung Tunai): it stimulates consumption during the crisis. The most adverse critics say it’s disgracing to the poor and it’s better to give the bait rather than the fish. But who are they to say? Is it bad if the recipients want to use the money for pure consumption rather than productive investment? I’m just a simpleton but don’t you think consumption drives production which eventually also drives the economy? Forget indirect stimulus package which will end up in those riches’ pockets and they will save rather than give back to the community through spending.
What about us? To those out there who are still not affected by crisis, this is the time when I plead: let’s spend. Be it conspicuous consumption or conspicuous leisure, at the end the money will trickle down to those who need it by way of taxes or their direct income. Think about it: we’re doing service to the community, to this country, isn’t it a noble cause? We don’t need the government to make us do it, when our country needs us we will answer the call, and that makes us…a patriot. As Stanley Bing put it succinctly in his Fortune’s column, “…never before consumerism and patriotism united under one glorious flag”. Yes, we can call our endeavour a Patriotic Consumerism.
***
4 comments:
Tulisan yang sangat menarik. Sangat baik juga penyampaiannya.
Tulisan ini agak sedikit kurang adil terhadap Veblen, saya kira. Konsepsi Veblenian tidak bisa lepas dari "pecuniary emulation." Membanding-bandingkan atau mematut-matutkan diri (seperti lazim dalam leisure class atau wealthy class), adalah motivasi mereka yang ditulis Veblen. Dengan berusaha menjadi seperti mereka yang kaya -- baca: menghabiskan waktu bukan dengan kerja tapi dengan santai -- orang jadinya mengurangi kerja. Sebuah substitusi waktu yang kita kenal itu, karena kita ngga bisa nyantai di cafe sambil ngejar deadline atau nyangkul di sawah. Ekonom menyebut motivasi itu "Veblen effect".
Menurut sebuah kajian yang menguji Veblen effect, menggunakan dataset 1963-1998, mengapa orang bekerja lebih lama terkait dengan ketimpangan. Dan, masih menurut kajian tsb, ketimpangan itu tidak bisa dihadapi dengan pajak pendapatan yang flat, melainkan yang lebih progresif (dan lebih kompleks).
Terutama, masih terkait Veblen, karena ketimpangan konsumsi adalah public bad (bukan public good). Maksudnya, dalam artian Veblenian, a.l. konsumsi Boyke dan kita-kita di cafe itu sama sekali tidak terkait dengan konsumsi orang miskin. Motivasinya asimetris, karena reference group konsumsinya bukan orang miskin, tapi yang kaya. Konsumsi si kaya harus tampak lebih kaya dari si kaya yang lain.
Eksternalitas konsumsi itu jadinya adalah negatif terhadap yang miskin, begitu menurut mereka yang menginterpretasi Veblen, karena konsumsi si kaya itu mendorong si miskin untuk ikut-ikutan standar konsumsi si kaya dengan ongkos bagi si miskin itu sendiri (yang kaya kan memang mau menghabiskan uang, karena kebanyakan). Usul patriotisme konsumsi itu jadinya negatif bagi si miskin, dalam kacamata Veblenian.
Dengan menyebut hal-hal ini, saya sedikit kesulitan menangkap maksud Boyke, misalnya, saat bilang "Be it conspicuous consumption or conspicuous leisure, at the end the money will trickle down to those who need it by way of taxes or their direct income."
Terutama karena jumlah mereka yang miskin di Indonesia jauh lebih banyak dibanding jumlah penghuni leisure class itu. Dan dari kelompok yang miskin itu, lebih sedikit lagi yang menerima targeted cash transfer(s) macam BLT.
Jadi repot nanti kalau uang BLT itu mereka pake pergi ke cafe gara-gara terjangkit Veblen effect-cum-konsumerisme patriotik ;-)
Salam.
www.individusosial.com
Mas Sonny thanks banget. Tentu saja saya sangat-sangat menyederhanakan Veblen dan sangat-sangat mendramatisir peranan peningkatan konsumsi untuk memperbaiki kondisi saat ini. Rekam jejak saya menunjukkan bahwa gaya menulis saya memang begitu…he he.
Saya setuju bahwa kritik Veblen terhadap ‘Leisure Class’ dan dipandang rendahnya ‘kerja kasar’ di mata masyarakat dibandingkan ‘kerja kantoran’ masih relevan sampai sekarang. Adanya Leisure Class bukan nir-fungsi. Sebagai pengejawantahan kesuksesan, apa mereka lakukan disokong oleh masyarakat dan menjadi aspirasional karena mereka yang berada di luar kelas berusaha untuk menyamai status tersebut.
Saya juga sepakat bahwa ini adalah akar dari konsumerisme yang kebablasan. Bahwa banyak dari mereka yang misalnya menyalahgunakan kartu kredit semata untuk membeli barang-barang mewah non-produktif dan akhirnya malah terjebak dalam lingkaran setan kemiskinan. Saya juga sadar bahwa untuk meretas kemiskinan peningkatan konsumsi semata tidaklah cukup. Pastinya, pembagian BLT saja tidak akan memecahkan masalah yang kompleks ini. Perlu perbaikan pranata keuangan agar distribusi kemakmuran bisa menjadi lebih merata.
Tetapi saya rasa argumen terakhir saya tetap berlaku: bahwa bagi kita yang ada di sini mengurangi konsumsi tidaklah membantu untuk memperbaiki keadaan secara keseluruhan, malah sebaliknya. Tengok saja industri pariwisata yang seluruhnya dibangun di atas kegiatan orang untuk santai-santai. Lalu bayangkan perekonomian satu pulau yang 40% bergantung langsung terhadap industri tersebut—dan sisanya secara tidak langsung. Apa jadinya kalau semua orang berhenti berwisata ke situ? Mosok kita nggak bisa membantu sekalian santai-santai? He he…
good afternoon everyone. I'm actually into shoes and I was searching for that singular model. The prices for the sneakers were approximately 250 bucks on every page. But finally I base this location selling them for the benefit of half price. I absolutely love these [url=http://www.shoesempire.com]prada sneakers[/url]. I will probably order these. what can you say about it?
Hello. And Bye.
Post a Comment