A debate has been raging for a number of years about "putting Christ back in Christmas." The debate posits that Christmas is a religious holiday versus those who believe that Christmas is basically a commercial holiday. If the past is prelude to the future, commercialism will win.
First, while Christmas has for centuries been an observance and celebration of Christ's birth, it also has it roots in pagan Winter celebrations and harvest rituals. Therefore, Christmas co-opted earlier celebrations. Second, at least for the last century in the US, Christmas has been celebrated as both a religious and commercial holiday. So why the big debate now?
I believe there are a number of issues at play. First, the evangelical movement has generally had more influence over American life for a number of decades. The push to re-establish Christmas as fundamentally a religious holiday is consistent with that movement. Second, as non-Christian religions continue to become increasingly present in American life, it is a natural reaction that Christians would want to hold on to their specific holidays. Indeed, the Easter holiday in the Spring is also undergoing a similar change. Third, non-Christians feel left out of what can only be considered a joyous time. Some have created or have emphasized their own religious days falling around the same time in an effort to participate. Racial groups have done the same thing. By commercializing the Christmas holiday season, it enables all religions and other similarly inclined groups to participate.
Indeed, the commercialization of Christmas is driven as much by our capitalist nature as anything else. It seems that stores are changing over to Christmas sales right after Labor Day rather than Thanksgiving. In turn, Thanksgiving marks the period when prices are reduced to drive even more sales. The day after Thanksgiving is now Black Friday (deep discount prices), and the Monday following Thanksgiving is Cyber-Monday (deep online discount prices). The week after Christmas is gift card sale week. And the first week of the New Year is inventory reduction sale week.
My prediction is that within 10 years, Christmas sales will be approaching the end of July. Retail will divide into before-Christmas and after-Christmas only. These sales periods will only be slightly interrupted by graduation sales in May, back-to-school sales in August, and Halloween sales in late September and early October.
It is another example that capitalism and religion don't exactly mesh.
What say you?
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Friday, November 28, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Now is the time to tax oil
I filled up my car this morning and it occurred to me that gas prices are about half what they were in June at the height of the latest gas-price spike. To a large extent, the increased gas prices have contributed heavily to our downward spiralling economy--resulting in increases in everything from gasoline to milk, virtually anything that has oil fuel as a component in manufacture or distribution.
During the summer, with oil prices high, the country (indeed, the whole planet) has had a long overdue discussion on our over-dependence on oil, oil's impact on our environment, the funding of hostilaties against us in oil-producing regions where we are not particularly liked, and the instability it creates in our economy. Unfortunately, a lot of TGIF discussion is beginning to die down now that oil prices are coming back down to levels seen before the latest spike. And that is the problem.
We have short-term memories. Assuming the financial crisis is resolved and credit begins flowing again, people will flock to the sharply reduced over-sized, gas guzzling SUVs--at least they will until the next gas spike. And that's the problem, our short-term memories get in the way of developing good, long-term behavior. There is a solution.
Taxes. I know it is an obscene concept, but taxation can play a very pivotal role in the transition to a non-oil-based economy. The problem is two-fold. First, as long as oil is incrementally cheaper than alternatives, there is little incentive to innovate alternatives. However, the point at which oil costs permanantly exceed alternatives, the impact will be devistating until such time as alternatives and the infrastructure are developed to deliver them. This is where taxation can play a positive and constructive role.
Increasing taxes on oil can level the competitive market allowing alternatives to be developed more rapidly. This would be done by two forces: first, taxes on oil would make oil consumption less attractive, resulting in higher tax revenues per gallon of fuel consumed and providing money that could be used to subsidize fledgling alternative fuel sources until they can gain economies of scale. A second benefit results from reduced consumption which in turn results in reduced demand, which in turn results in reduced oil prices. Keeping taxes on oil at an artifically high level basically means that oil producing nations help subsidize our development of alternatives. As the cost of alternative fuel production falls, subsidies can be lifted and oil taxes can be reduced, allowing natural market forces to take over.
So, we can pay now or we can pay later for the transition from oil. The longer we wait, the higher the cost. Had we heeded President Jimmy Carter's warning, we would not be in this situation.
Your thoughts?
During the summer, with oil prices high, the country (indeed, the whole planet) has had a long overdue discussion on our over-dependence on oil, oil's impact on our environment, the funding of hostilaties against us in oil-producing regions where we are not particularly liked, and the instability it creates in our economy. Unfortunately, a lot of TGIF discussion is beginning to die down now that oil prices are coming back down to levels seen before the latest spike. And that is the problem.
We have short-term memories. Assuming the financial crisis is resolved and credit begins flowing again, people will flock to the sharply reduced over-sized, gas guzzling SUVs--at least they will until the next gas spike. And that's the problem, our short-term memories get in the way of developing good, long-term behavior. There is a solution.
Taxes. I know it is an obscene concept, but taxation can play a very pivotal role in the transition to a non-oil-based economy. The problem is two-fold. First, as long as oil is incrementally cheaper than alternatives, there is little incentive to innovate alternatives. However, the point at which oil costs permanantly exceed alternatives, the impact will be devistating until such time as alternatives and the infrastructure are developed to deliver them. This is where taxation can play a positive and constructive role.
Increasing taxes on oil can level the competitive market allowing alternatives to be developed more rapidly. This would be done by two forces: first, taxes on oil would make oil consumption less attractive, resulting in higher tax revenues per gallon of fuel consumed and providing money that could be used to subsidize fledgling alternative fuel sources until they can gain economies of scale. A second benefit results from reduced consumption which in turn results in reduced demand, which in turn results in reduced oil prices. Keeping taxes on oil at an artifically high level basically means that oil producing nations help subsidize our development of alternatives. As the cost of alternative fuel production falls, subsidies can be lifted and oil taxes can be reduced, allowing natural market forces to take over.
So, we can pay now or we can pay later for the transition from oil. The longer we wait, the higher the cost. Had we heeded President Jimmy Carter's warning, we would not be in this situation.
Your thoughts?
Friday, January 18, 2008
What's Next? Take Two: The Future and You
During the course of a week, I read numerous articles, numerous blogs, and listen to numerous podcasts on a great variety of subjects ranging from iPhones to general technology, to renewable energy, to science fiction and the future. While any one of these subjects is interesting, it is when they are juxtaposed that interesting concepts develop. Some of these portend the future.
For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.
Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.
Your thoughts?
For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.
Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
