The current hostile corporate takeover in the USA and the clear loss of political power of the common people, I started wondering what happened if people used consumption as their leverage. Since the system is designed for continuous growth, what would happen if a mass movement of people stopping buying new non-essential consumer goods?
It would send a much stronger message than angry public protests. Thoughts?
Edit 1: Received some fantastic responses one of these highlighted February 28th as the “National No Spend Day” that we can consider the rehearsal.
*Do not make any purchases Do not shop online, or in-store, No Amazon, No Walmart, No Best Buy, Nowhere!
Do not spend money on: Fast Food,Gas,Major Retailers Do not use Credit or Debit Cards for non essential spending
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Only buy essentials of absolutely necessary (Food, Medicine, Emergency Supplies) If you must spend, ONLY support small, local businesses.*
This movement is the definition of equitable, not spending means everybody can contribute within their means, and if you can’t afford to buy shit anyway, you’re already doing your part!
They’ll just buy the things they didn’t buy before hand, or afterwards, washing it all out in the average.
After a long enough period of striking it begins to have repercussions beyond the individual budget.
If the flow of money slowed to a crawl for an extended period, companies don’t have the funds to pay workers. Enough job loss leads to further reduced spending, thus impacting stock value, thus impacting employment, etc…
A month would have a noticeable impact, but a full fiscal quarter would be the first cliff where the big corporations would really sweat. But generally I agree, an economic strike with an end date is like an overnight hunger strike