"you'll own nothing, and be happy!" (and eat ze bugs)

- World Economic Forum

I'd say the opposite. There has been a massive, concerted, sustained effort to make us think we want more things that we actually want.

A description I stole (I'd give credit where due, but I don't remember the source): Advertising is designed to make the person you are envy the person you could be with their product. That is, advertising attempts to steal your satisfaction and then offers to sell it back to you.

Take cars, for instance. I have a car that drives just fine. Ah, but with the car in the advertisement, the girls look at me with interest. If I want that, I need to go buy that car. (Maybe those ads are the reason that the first sign of a midlife crisis is going out and buying a fancy new car.) The point of the ads is to make me want to buy a car when I don't actually want a car. Same, and equally obvious, with beer, soft drink, and potato chip commercials. It's more subtle with some other kinds of ads, but it's still there.

This has been going on for decades - for all of our lives, in fact. (The difference now compared to the 1960s is that we don't have the same thing going on in cigarette ads.)

What's happening now is that more and more people have maxed out, either financially or emotionally. Financially is "I can't make enough money or borrow enough money to continue to play this game." (The decline of the middle class may drive this, at least in part.)

The emotional part of maxing out is when you realize: "I've tried that kind of thing a bunch of times. Buying this one isn't going to satisfy me. I don't actually have to buy it to find that out; I already know."

A related phenomena is the realization that you can't actually have it all. You can't have the fulfilling job and the high pay and lots of vacation time and the nice car and the nice house and the boat and lots of money in the bank. Women can't have the nice career and be there with their kids (neither can men, but for most families, the women are the ones getting pinched on that particular front.) You have to choose what is more important, and try to get that, even if it costs you other things that you also want. "You can have it all" is a lie, and people are starting to see that.

Oh I totally agree about advertising. My comment wasn’t well thought out.

I guess I mean it’s more about not building wealth: go live your life, don’t save for a pension. Don’t strive for a bigger house to build roots and a family, just rent one in a cool city and have fun! Don’t buy a car outright and maintain it like your fuddy duddy parents, just lease one and be happy.

Still a badly thought out comment I’m afraid but I can’t quite put my finger on it

This is almost like you're saying the same thing as me. We, the advertisers, can make more money from you if you lease your car instead of buying it, if you rent your apartment instead of buying a house, if you spend everything instead of saving for retirement.

So maybe you're seeing a sub-species of the broader thing I'm seeing.

My dad's been telling me that exact thing, which is weird as hell.

These kind of feel like two different axes to me. There's "enough", and then there's "more".

The step up in happiness and utility from owning no car, to any car that just about works well, is enormous.

The difference between a clapped out Honda Civic and a brand new Tesla is pretty marginal.

It's the same with most things. Owning a home in Kensington is nicer than, say, Willesden, but there are enormously diminishing returns.

The most important thing in life, to me at least, is safety and stability. In family, in partner, in friendship, in housing and possessions.

Advertising focuses on trying to extract value. There's not that much value to extract when I buy a 20 year old car.

> Ah, but with the car in the advertisement, the girls look at me with interest. If I want that, I need to go buy that car. (Maybe those ads are the reason that the first sign of a midlife crisis is going out and buying a fancy new car.)

Wanting to attract and competing to attract a desirable mate is a basic mechanism of nature that enables the propagation of species. Those ads might use it specifically to show cars can help, but the underlying desire would still be there without the ads.

Why in the world would The Man conspire to make you not want those things?

The more possessions and money you desire, the harder you work to buy more things in the economy, pushing up GDP, and driving up the value of stocks, real estate, etc. that rich people own.

Wouldn't it be the opposite?

"The Man" would rather have you renting rather than owning. There are also those who see the increased cost of life as a good thing because it would help the Earth due to decreased consumption and a lower population.

> the harder you work

the problem is that harder work doesn't necessary bring success in rent seeking economy.

The conspiracy is not to "own" those things, even though in most cases you still need them. So don't fret that you're still renting and don't own your own place and pay no attention to the fact that your rent goes to an enormous REIT that you'll pay for the rest of your life as opposed to when you finally own your home free and clear. Don't worry about owning possessions, just send subscription services a monthly fee, each and every month for the rest of your life, unlike that book on your shelf that you can read now or when you're 80.

Wanting possessions definitely fuels you to work hard, but you know what gives people even more drive? Existential threats like not being able to afford food or keep a roof over your head. A man with his own house and his own car and no debts is a man you don't have much leverage over. A man who needs to keep sending you a monthly flow of money in order to have shelter, entertainment and whatever else is a man who you control on a fundamental level.

They'd prefer GDP growth to slow bc people were satisfied with less, vs people getting mad as fuck about poor living standards and starting to flip cars over and k*ll politicians.

Nah, I'm a liberal and I think those things should be owned by the masses - you're thinking of the rentier class.