1.1.1. A faltering economic system

While “consumers” are the most important economic group, the economic system does not look after its most essential part: the consumer/user and the environment. It will be necessary to learn a better way to study real users and to not simply have faith in the benefits of industrialization and the “new technologies”.

What is needed is the reinvention of a new economy, based on real requirements: not just on money, market value, the act of purchasing or “technology”, but on qualities of use, and ultimately, quality of life.

All of this is made more complicated by the absence of a real definition of progress. Users are on the fringe of what is not decisive and not considered as important; they are only “consumers” in the economic sense. This means that everything that happens leads to them being marginalized or marginalizing themselves. The only thing left for them to do is to protest the lack of relevant information and advice for making their choices and purchases.

The “product/user/environment” interface has more to do with the technology of daily life than it does with the cutting-edge technology for which almost all of the world’s engineering talents have been mobilized for many years. This has more to do with the concept of the quality of products, and not simply the criteria of price, durability or suitability for service. The search for ways to take better advantage of technical and economic resources, while at the same time providing a better quality of daily life for everyone, requires them to conscientiously be aware of factors and requirements of use, as well as the benefits of technology and marketing at the same time.

Customers suffer from two levels of ignorance: the fact that they do not know important information, while also having the illusion that they do know this information. They are effectively unaware of their ignorance.

Thus, an unsettling divide has gradually widened between the realities of the powerful socio-economic system and a genuine consideration of the requirements for usage and the environment.

The market has reduced man and nature to their market value. Consumerism, through the actions of certain idols and the effort of the organizations of consumers, has plenty of reasons to be alarmed. The fundamental concept of the economy needs to be redefined and focused on the well-being of individuals.

The global economy, ever more unstable and unhealthy, must be infused with the concept of “‘usagist’ design”, and thus no longer consider industrial design as a negligible quantity. The ecology of use must be given more meaning.

The illegitimate dominance of economic thought can be partly explained by the classic “knowledge” which we receive first and foremost from our education. Many political leaders have only had just enough time to be presented with simplistic theories on supply and demand, the private and the public sectors, the minimum wage, purchasing power, the flexibility of the workforce, etc. They have not had the time to check whether any of all this really makes sense, or what the true purpose of the economy ultimately is.

The State has left the economy in the hands of the financial markets, to the detriment of users and the environment. The criteria for use to be taken into account, from design up to acquisition and use, are distorted and twisted. A disturbing gap is growing between the socio-economic realities of the system and a real consideration of the requirements of use. The economic model is no longer sustainable; it is not applicable to the entire planet.

It is the end of a cycle of growth and a model of economic and social development that is more sustainable. We really should rethink it entirely in spite of the immense interests of the game. The science of production and commerce must follow after the science of use and the environment.

1.1.2. An economic shock for consumers?

Although economists have yet to begin predicting a collapse of the monetary system, there is still reason to be concerned.

The State considers itself to be rich because of all its reckless actions, spending billions of euros each year. Interest rates have never been so low, which is done in order to help the financial system. The debt, which has been growing for 40 years, may never be repaid; but this is (still) what keeps the economy keep afloat!

Consumers, business leaders and the State can all continue borrowing and buying, even without having “real money”, and by doing so, increase their debt. Certain policies, even though they are well-regarded by economists, even with a stable base, will one day be incapable of solving this problem. They will need to cut out their perpetual optimism, making it clear that these kinds of reimbursements are impossible. Currently, the limits on transactions made with “real money” are limited. Banks are certain to deny large withdrawals. One day, the consumer may not have more resources to buy, and it is difficult to imagine empty cash registers, unused bank cards and deserted stores. With this frenzy of debt, there is a risk that the whole system could fall apart. The State would be forced to seize the savings of consumers and empty their bank accounts.

1.1.3. Making what sells, to sell

The commercial success of the market, as seen in metrics such as emissions ratings, does not certify the usage qualities of the products.

The commercial success of the market, like the emissions ratings, does not attest to the qualities of use of products. The relaxed attitude of marketing professionals when faced with the requests from customers originates from the demagoguery found in opinion surveys, and in matters of culture or politics. This leads to them using the desires and interests of the consumer/customers to justify the pressures of the market.

Anything and everything that sells is considered to be good for economic growth: just as long as “it sells”.

This means that products that are commonplace are the easiest to sell, especially for consumers who are accustomed to buying and using their products with indifference or apathy, with no sensitivity to their qualities of use and appearance.

To this last point, we add that actually, yes, “ugliness does sell!¹ Just so long as ‘it sells’”.

1.1.4. The production society

The prosperous period of increases in production, along with good wages, high employment and earnings, seems to be gone. Producers are no longer investing to increase their volume of production. As the increase in means of production steadily progresses, industry leaders struggle with the rising costs of raw materials, the decline in prices (due to competition, often from abroad) and especially the decrease in sales. They are faced with the accumulation of inventories, falling profit margins, reduction of production and “economic” layoffs.

Economists have not shown that diagnostics and forecasts are appropriate, because they do not show interest in the products and their different qualities.

1.1.5. The commodification of the world: finance

To maintain its competitiveness, the economic system externalizes everything that is not the heart of its business, some of which gets scattered all across the globe. Moreover, bosses often live in a different world, that of finance (including tax havens). The world of finance and the world of design and production seem to disregard each other.

The “commodification of the world” gives us the power to share and circulate capital in the form of shares on the world market, by a simple electronic record in the computers of banks around the world. Produced quickly, the “express stock exchanges” can earn huge fortunes in a few fractions of a second! The world of the stock exchange has been successful (due to the computer and the synchronization of the financial markets) in focusing and playing on global capital and in earning outrageous profits for a few very large buyers/sellers, all thanks to different kinds of hypercomputerized robots which now practice “flash stock trades”.

This is far from anything that would be satisfying to users, to the activities and incomes of the designers and to all of the conceptual thinkers all over the world, not to mention the workers who produce the products! It is to the detriment of the qualities of the products which take second place (and at the expense of social and ecological factors).

Since the goal of capital is, of course, to maximize profit in a minimum amount of time, its logic tends to manifest itself in the short term. Therefore, long-term considerations may be neglected, since the power to make decisions rests with capital. In the event of financial difficulties, companies seek to reduce human costs by firing employees or reducing training costs, which are essential to the implementation of a genuine policy for good quality.

The image of the company is deteriorated by the income of the shareholders. Productivity gains do not provide enough rewards for employees. Innovations are not sufficiently rewarded and honored.

Capitalist power is increasingly faced with a critical challenge, not just by shareholders, but by customers, employees and even the planet. The economic-productive engine (producing to sell, selling to produce, producing to produce, selling to sell) has come down with a fever.

Its short-sightedness, failing to think of users and the environment, has led to a pent-up discontent, in spite of certain technical progress. Technology and marketing are simply used to do good business. But they are seen as too opaque, and have been suppressed. We are overrun by thousands of questionable products; nature is gradually destroyed, and despite the push to go “back to nature”, energy has become expensive because it is wasted. Advertising is annoying. “Quality of life” is called into question.

By increasing spending in the overall economy on products that are poorly designed, it has certainly been possible to prevent the total failure of the market.

1.1.6. Globalization

Globalization is the trend toward the opening of national economies to a “global” market. Operating exclusively within a domestic market becomes difficult. Of course, globalization is still overly focused on economy and profit. It is necessary to study alternatives, in keeping with the idea that “another world is possible”: paying more attention to “well-being”, to the general interest of the planet and its inhabitants, and reaching beyond the short-term economic interests of each nation.

The Earth is the planet that we all have to share. We are all neighbors who depend on one another. Our salaries, which are (still) higher than others; the cost and time of transport; the qualities of the products and the image of some products; industrial espionage and plagiarism; import taxes; quotas; the so-called low capacity for innovation; insufficient skills; a lack of technological evolution: these will stifle and eventually snuff out our pride, making way for improved usage and environmental qualities of products. We will no longer speak of offshoring or relocation.

Globalization allows “emerging” countries to become industrialized (and developed), no longer mere exporters of raw materials and products. We will no longer have to go to China to find “cheaper goods” or to Africa to “exploit” or even “plunder” their resources.

This relocation will no longer be a response to social ills. Globalization is inevitable, irreversible and essential. It will also help to cope with the domination of large multinational corporations, preventing the depletion of natural resources via sustainable development. Globalization means to conceive of the planet as an inseparable whole, with regard to its users and its environment. Globalization makes nations interdependent, thanks to the free movement of goods, services and capital, as well as the migration of people, their ideas and their technology. However, the act of simply globalizing the economy pulls all countries toward a cultural standardization on a global level. The return of protectionism is dangerous, because it may cause a global economic recession. The fears of globalization are partly due to the lack of competitiveness of some of our products.

We cannot make use of large global online retail groups and at the same time oppose free trade. Globalization will thus concern the protection of the environment, culture, social issues, etc. – the true development of a fair trade. This does not mean the dissolution of national identities, but the contrary.

Moreover, it is telling that the “Welsh” report² itself makes no mention of the essential competitiveness of products: their qualities of use and appearance!

France sells a large number of its luxury products to China. The big brands have had a presence there for a long time. This strong image of luxury products “made in France” is driven by the design qualities and exemplary manufacturing. Nonetheless, the success of luxury products will be faced with the challenges of the global economic reality. Luxury brands are already emerging in China. There will be less scarcity and commercial manipulations. Technological innovations will set aside handiwork, craftsmanship and the idea of “well-made” products.

Luxury design will be redefined in this globalized, “connected” world, in a frenzy of innovation and fashion.

Is it now possible for Europeans to take on types of product other than luxury? German, Japanese and Swiss brands are also present abroad, with their “high-end” products, and continue to cultivate their own image.

The term “de-globalization” is pleasing to some, but it merely entertains their illusions through a message that is heavy on criticism but rather light on content. This national withdrawal will lead to disappointment in the future. De-globalization is a superficial and simplistic concept. Globalization is not the root cause of unemployment. We will need to use and benefit from globalization. The diversity of cultures gives rise to great intellectual wealth, through the intermingling of civilization, education, knowledge, science and technology. We are living in a world of interconnection and interdependence.

No country is too populous, too rich or too powerful to protect its living conditions, its security or its economic and social models alone. Globalization does not mean a uniform world or the disappearance of national territories.

Globalization is not the root of all of our problems. The challenge of globalization calls for the development of real innovations, for which the design methods, focused on the user and the environment, are of greater importance than the communication and images. Furthermore, it is intended to reduce some of the inequalities on the planet, bearing in mind that some 2.5 billion people still live on less than €2 per day!³

The globalization of products is accepted by a number of consumers. They dress in Chinese or American clothes. They buy products that were manufactured in China or the Maghreb (but still complain about job relocation).

1.1.7. GDP: no longer the right indicator

The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is not provided as an indicator of quality of life.

It is an international standard of accounting. Like all standards, it can be deceptive. GDP measures the level of production. It corresponds to commercial and monetary exchanges. GDP is an accounting trick used for the national accounts; it does not take account of factors that are visible or measurable. It corresponds to a narrowing of the horizon of economic growth for nearly 90 years. Some activities are not included in how it is calculated. As a quantitative aggregate economic measure, growth is only one of the components of development, which is a more abstract and qualitative concept. Furthermore, growth can occur without development (and vice versa: development can occur without growth). GDP is an artificial and misleading horizon, and is not useful as a compass.

GDP is all too often considered as the gold standard for measuring the comparative success of nations. It is an increasingly vain, ineffective, useless, delusive and misleading pursuit of judging the economic health of a country.

It is an obsolete economic indicator, even though it is still used all over the world. GDP growth does not imply a rise in living standards. For example, if the population growth is faster than the growth of GDP, GDP per capita decreases. The more car accidents and related damages there are to be repaired, the more the GDP increases with the repairs, the manufacturing of more cars, and so on. It even takes into account all sales of weapons and the services of investment banks, but not the costs of pollution. What if a country showed strong growth through the production of weapons, including nuclear weapons, or from rebuilding after an earthquake? There would certainly be greater production and consumption of concrete, steel and machinery, but this does not in any way correspond to an increase in the well-being of the inhabitants.

GDP also does not include internal productions and consumption in households, and domestic activities. As ecological challenges become more and more severe, GDP becomes increasingly less relevant for measuring growth. The “gross” “domestic” “product” only reflects commercial and monetary exchanges. Unfortunately, however, it is the “market” to which the task of ensuring the growth and future of the world was entrusted!⁴

It is no longer the right indicator. Economic growth does not represent human development. It does not summarize any of the pluralities and complexities of human well-being. Besides, what use is a high GDP if the pollution in the air and water makes everyday life dangerous? It does not apply the changes in stocks of natural resources, such as fossil fuels. Economic growth, after GDP, seems to almost disappear for several years in a number of countries. This may in part be explained by a degradation of “useful” innovations, of the excessive commodification of products and services (e.g. there are more than 500 models of vacuum cleaners on the market) and industrial strategy errors (digital tools, connected objects, selfdriving cars, domestic automation, etc.).

Regardless of whether economic growth returns or not, it is not synonymous with the well-being of people, nor with the performance of companies. Economic growth, real progress and well-being do not all progress at the same rate. This type of growth should not be the ultimate goal of industrial companies.

Over the last 10 years, despite the fact that GDP has doubled, the number of victims of hunger has not changed significantly⁵. Since GDP is deficient in measuring sustainable development, we must now think in terms of green GDP or green growth. Economic growth thus appears to be opposed to the objectives of sustainable development.

Political and economic powers have struggled for many years with the myth of growth. They constantly scrutinize the economic horizon, looking for the slightest clue that will allow them to expect better days. What if the rate of growth disappeared for good?

Economic growth thus becomes an end, and the consumer is only the means. Priority is given to objective information, and is therefore quantitative and easy to measure. GDP does not at all allow for the evaluation of quality of life, although it takes into account pollution, production of weapons, etc. There is no indicator of well-being that could advantageously replace those of “growth”.

GDP, an economic indicator of a country, gives a distorted picture of the economic reality. GDP is a collective bluff, especially for consumers. Growth is a myth, even when it is put forward as a stand-in for well-being.

The objective of growth for the sake of growth is absurd. It is what we see when we look at the accelerated obsolescence of disposable products without justification, other than to fuel the fires of the economic machine.

The market and financial gain have become the foundations of the system, including its tranquilizing drugs, such as advertising.

1.2.1. The act of consumption

The act of buying therefore becomes an economic imperative for the company. The concept of the client is vital in a market economy. To consume is an act of citizenship: the act of consumption has a moral and political aspect. Consumption is the engine of society, but this engine, although it is fueled by advertising, is getting worse by the minute. The consumer, stuck in the consumer society, is subject to socio-economic imperatives. However, clients are not free in their choices, because the “free” market only depends on irrelevant information, like advertising. In this jumble of consumerism, consumers are unable to make good and useful decisions. Consumption is a way to ensure that one is alive. To consume is “to destroy”. It means using products which can no longer be used later, by destroying them or throwing them out at the end of their lifespans. The economic machine is based on the fact that we must consume more, and that we must waste more. The owned products essentially end up owning their buyers. This is now beginning to be decried as a problem for our planet, with all our wastes, “perishables” and “consumables”.

Consumers are no longer individually identified. Saturated in the sticky mess of consumer society, they allow themselves to be intoxicated by abstractions and poorly defined concepts of quality. Consumers are simultaneously shepherded by the (almost useless) information they receive, while also being individualistic through their lack of responses or objections: who objects to the use of television advertising, for example? It is a fool’s bargain.

Consumers are unwittingly flattered, honored, cajoled and courted, day in and day out. They are paid lip service. Advertisers woo them with flowers. They are charmed. They are talked up. They get excited. They are complemented. They are exalted by the commercial world, just as long as they are not too active on the economic, political and social scenes. They must be content to consume.

In addition, politicians help to grease the wheels of this machine by distributing “scrap allowance” vouchers or attractive tax cuts.

The crisis seems to encourage energy-saving behavior and new forms of consumption. People are repairing, exchanging and renting instead of buying. Cars are now sold with monthly payments, plus the purchase price! But the trickery has not gone away. We even confuse the consumption of products with investment, an accounting term, linked to a length of time with a production purpose. In economic analyses, it is only the purchases of goods that are taken into account. This is one of the important factors of the economic environment in the consumer market.

In most cases, people simply keep quiet about this; a silence bought with an illusion of comfort and services.

If they consume few products that are “made in” their company, for example “made in France”, consumers are thought of as not being patriotic, because they do not contribute to economic growth, which is supposed to provide benefits to the French economy! To these consumers, buying French products means being perceived as a “good citizen”.

1.2.2. The act of purchasing

Purchasing, as an act and a process, is not a trivial thing. It needs to be simplified. It is a quintessentially social action. Consumers do not want to waste their time with tasks that provide them with little satisfaction, force them to give their brains a workout and, in addition, show them their own limits of their knowledge and skills! When placing products into a shopping cart, it takes a long time to choose them correctly.

Purely in principle, the market economy – subject to the demands of “consumers” who choose their products – is a “democratic process”.

It is better than voting, since it involves concrete achievements. The brand, the price and the appearance are the most accessible pieces of information. They have the most influence on the emotions. Brands often simplify the task of the consumers, which is done by marketing and “branding”.

One may buy out of necessity, due to “taste” or as tradition (purchases and gifts for Christmas), and often to compensate for emotional shortcomings, to make a good image or a good impression. Smart buying intensifies. There are also “impulse” purchases, made “on the fly”. Advertising does not restrict these buying patterns.

The level of consumption contributes to the growth of the “gross national product”, but that is absolutely not an indicator of social happiness. The economic analysis is more quantitative than qualitative due to the fact, among others, that economists are unaware of the qualities of use and the environment of products. They do not predict the success of sales! When someone goes to buy something, something has moved them to do it, even if it is different than other times. Making purchases is a pleasure for some; but buying gasoline is not pleasant. It is slightly unnerving, because we can neither see it, touch it nor control it. It is only a means to continue on your way, after having to stop and pay. It is an obligation and, in addition, it smells bad!

1.2.3. The economic act

These are exchanges between various categories of agents that constitute the economic cycle, with the consumer coming in last. The consumer is the main economic agent who will potentially choose, pay for, use, benefit from, maintain and decommission the products. For the sake of what it calls innovation, the market economy must, in order to sell its goods, invent false symbols, manipulate self-worth and create deceptive appearances. The economic process is blissfully ignorant of its real clients and the environment, in the broadest sense of the term.

Most of the products appear as “useful” and “rare” to consumers. The illusion of their benefits renders their defects forgettable. Although quite receptive to the commercial line of argument, advertising campaign codes and codes established by the products themselves, consumers are in fact merely socio-economic agents. In what almost amounts to neglect of the specific situations of the consumer/users, commercial departments are more interested in “intermediary” consumer/purchasers rather than true “endconsumers”.

To consume is “to destroy”, to produce waste; this poses a problem for our planet with all our garbage, made up of our “perishable” and “consumable” products. This is like a vacuum cleaner without a waste collection bag to throw out: an illusory, simplistic kind of environmental protection!

The theory of homo economicus is a theoretical hypothesis, which will never be achieved during the act of purchase. Therefore, the “rational homo economicus”, as has been imagined some economists, does not exist.

We should not be surprised by the counter-blows of this “economic logic” of “consumable” products, and even of the markets for the “right to pollute”! Supporters of consumer society have long believed that the disposable, the impermanent and the superfluous are the instigators of innovation.

1.2.4. The political act

Even if consumption is the driving force, the critical link in the chain of the economic society, what power do consumers have?

Can we understand and admit, without stress or panic, that the French economy has managed to incur so much debt that will need to be reimbursed?

1.2.5. Greenwashing

“Greenwashing” is a marketing ploy to try and fabricate a greener image. This means putting out questionable information in order to appear to be on the side of environmental protection in the eyes of consumers. The aim is essentially to conceal actions that are unfavorable and unhealthy for the planet with inoffensive and pleasant-looking counter-truths. This dressing up of the truth is not easy to identify, because it is common, trivial and repeated in many advertisements. Without any real proof, ecological jargon, imprecise words, abusive slogans and exquisite natural images are used. It is like pretending to be first in the class for a bad promotion: to do this, marketing can change the name of the brand or product in order to give the impression of being natural. Following this logic, the logo of an oil company might be made into a flower. Misleading terms such as “green car”, “clean vehicle” or “zero-emission” are thrown around and put forward by the automotive industry.

The unjustified use of environmental arguments such as “good for the environment” to describe harmful activities is an illusion when the ecological balance is negative. This false advertising does not comply, for example, with the recommendations of the French Regulatory Authority of Professional Advertising (Autorité de régulation professionnelle de la publicité), the former advertising verification bureau, an inter-professional organization of internal oversight in the area.

Groups of producers create self-proclaimed “eco-labels” by combining hermetic “ecological jargon” such as “sustainable development”, “organic”, “biological”, “biodiversity”, etc.

Certifications and standards make consumers believe references that are environmental in nature. Science is often used as a means of exploitation. “Scientific whitewashing” is widely used by the commercial world. In this way, science can be a tool for spreading misinformation, for instance unfounded assertions, bald-faced lies, unkept promises, the use of obscure terms, the excessive suggestiveness used in images, an environment out of context with the product, an imaginary exclusivity, the use of false and onesided studies and information that is not based on proof, etc.

1.2.6. Buying: a way to have fun

Sadly, in some cases, free time is caused by unemployment, and pushes consumers toward “shopping” time. They seem to get pleasure from buying products. Their desire to purchase is expressed by the desire to possess, as well as to act and appear to be doing so. This reinforces consideration of the self: to feel competent and be recognized by others. Buyers create their own personal value. This is not self-confidence, linked to capability, but more like self-esteem, the relationship between what the consumers are and what they would like to be. What a wonder in this life, yet one that is so difficult economically! So, do what you enjoy! Become the author of yourself! Try to make something that shines! Express yourself! Dazzle your friends! Gift products (self-gifts or gifts for others) provide one of the few scarce opportunities for inter-personal and social contact. Adults are just older children. For example, “how do I look? Have you seen my sound system? I’m going to show that beautiful bike I got for my birthday to my boyfriend!” These are often purchases and spending that in most cases are unreasonable. Although the consumer/clients rarely admit it, being wrong or being tricked is hardly rewarding. The likelihood of making wrong choices, however, is not to be neglected: the service provided by a product can be of poor quality or known to be inadequate. It may appear inconvenient or difficult to use, or even dangerous for users. It can become a source of irritation for the user’s entourage. The lifetime of irreparable products can be rapidly shortened.

Finally, the already-high price can include excessive costs of use or maintenance.

This is not just a constant desire for more objects to buy, but it is also the pleasure that comes from it. This explains why, after having just bought a new phone or pair of shoes, we are tempted to buy another. We buy products to show them off for the rest of the world to see, and to be recognized. We are constantly searching for messages and feelings.

1.2.7. Economic theories

Classic microeconomic theory is wrong to claim that “consumers” can freely choose in a competitive market! This theory skirts the realities. The economy runs around like a headless chicken. Detaching itself from reality, it may have even served itself a death sentence. Nothing is more misleading than “economic data”, all of which is rather questionable, since it is built from methods of calculation and interpretations that are sometimes questionable. They distort the culture of choice, while destroying natural resources. Economic theory, in its calculations, has forgotten the essential criteria: the well-being of consumers and the riches of the planet. The use of indicators of well-being and sustainability would reorient the economic objectives that are too commercial and financial. Deciphering the economy, through indices of well-being, means including seemingly hermetic behaviors, like pessimism or mistrust.

The economy is the source of tremendous gains for a small clan of financiers who were able, for example, to load up developing countries with debt. They then require the countries to carry out acts such as deforestation to repay their debts, and thus damage the environment.

GDP merely reflects monetary and commercial exchanges, only considering the growth of the countries in question. However, growth does not matter if we do not also live our lives, and do so not only in the economical sense of happiness: the enjoyment of products, pleasure, comfort, material satisfaction⁶, etc.

The economy only considers behavior, such as purchasing, by means of operations such as aggregate statistics or modeling. Economists, unable to master the value of usage, consider the value of objects at their value of exchange.

In expert economic circles, there is little talk of the competitiveness of products, with the language used being limited to administrative or policy fees, expenses, etc. Meanwhile, the State does not take any initiatives other than the collection of taxes and fees, in order to ensure the immediate sustainability of this market economy.

The debt of states is one of the many signs that the current economic model is running out of breath. Containing and then reducing our debts is an undeniable necessity: with Public debt stands at € 2,299.8 billion at the end of the second quarter of 2018 and France goes into debt of 2665€ more every second ! A couple with two children, therefore has a debt of 144,000€. Who can understand how the public debt has reached such a sum?

The market economy is a system in which the consumers (the buyers), rather than the State, make the majority of decisions regarding commercial activities. The economy is a science of means and not ends.

In fact, the analyses of the market have only adopted the perspective of the manufacturer and the seller with respect to its competitors. The economic system uses the production and the market beautifully.

Economics and sociology have yet to be joined, not only at the level of purchasing behavior, but above all, at the level of real uses.

There is a great disparity between what is practical and authentic, and a mathematical formulation that seeks to understand it. It cannot take into account the entirety of the reality, which is much more complex.

It emphasizes things that are measurable and consistent. These are, for example, calculations and financial forecasts, which in principle are without ambiguity.

The approaches and theories of economics as they relate to consumption are misleading.

Yet, the etymology of the term “economy” suggests an approach resembling the effective management of our home (eco = house), of the environment and of ecology.

Product purchases come from pressure, ignorance or deception.

The media coverage of the environment is now investing in the economic sphere. We therefore take the measure of the environmental cost of the growth that results from human activity, which is considered for a long time as trivial by economists. Economic growth and the risk of decay are disorienting the world.

Politicians and economists speak of “competitiveness”, “competition” and “growth”, instead of “progress”; they speak more in terms of “jobs” and less in terms of “work”; and they never speak about the qualities of products. There are no economists who specialize in consumption (in terms of usage).

The discourse and reasoning of economists are also different. They deceive themselves without knowing it; but we should not overestimate their influence. The policies are mainly used to justify their line of reasoning.

1.2.8. Modes of consumption

The economic crisis causes us to skimp on perceived excesses. It should cause more people to want to cut back on waste; but the “impulse” buys continue.

Price still occupies a central place, both as an information system and as a system of incentives. The products that are more easily accessible collect more value. Customers only act on the basis of the first decision they make.

Consumers are irresistibly lured to free goods or even clearance sales, which is incompatible with making good choices, for example, for gifts. However, nothing is free, in terms of either costs or difficulty of use.

Personal choices are not independent of the choices made by others. We want to stand out and display a certain personal image, which reduces its satisfaction. However, this only really exists in the eyes of others.

To have or to be? “To have” is still considered as a more normal behavior for good living. The industrial and commercial society thus submits the consumer to the imperatives of economic and financial growth, which seeks to have more. However, the meaning of ownership now seems to be weakening, although behaving in the mode of “being” seems to be more difficult and delicate. A society that is more convivial, with more well-being – can we not conceive of that? True well-being must be more detached from economic growth⁷. We no longer need to sacrifice the consumer/user in order for this growth to be false.

Family structures are changing. A society of “networks”, related to the decline of marriage, celibacy and cohabitation, and the increase in divorce, births outside of marriage, etc., will act following patterns of consumption, also pushing toward individualism. This is the basis for economic liberalism, which corresponds to a certain selfishness.

Adolescence evades the common forms of consumption. It propagates its own design by consuming differently than parents. By thinking less about others, its desires seem to be without limits.

Products are quickly designed, quickly made, quickly eaten and quickly replaced. This is the “McDonaldization” of society. Made up of things that are ready-to-eat, ready-to-wear, ready-to-use: this is the paradigm of modernity.

Well-being and true “progress” cannot be found in the oversupply or mismanagement of products, often useless gadgets, “to sell”, but in already being aware of a powerful kind of economic resourcefulness. There is no need to bite the bait set by illusions.

The economic crisis should be an opportunity to rethink its modes of consumption. Money has become too important, and justifies any type of commercial activity.

1.2.9. Supply and demand

The market economy relies on the laws of the market, the laws of supply and demand, in a competitive environment.

Why are there 800 models of toasters that are all more or less the same on the market in France?

With a commercial and economic environment all too often referred to as “connected”, or in any case more intangible, everything blurs together and becomes subjective. Historically, consumption was developed by supply in a society that had huge needs to be met. During this period of “supply”, the manufacturers incorporated “standardized” products that corresponded to the capability of their manufacturing equipment and to the swift satisfaction of basic needs.

However, with the evolution of the markets’ supply, the products no longer found more customers, who became much more demanding. Consumers, through marketing, imposed more and more requirements and desires, in a period driven by “demand”. Marketing has thus begun to listen to customers. Industrialists should do as much as possible to satisfy their customers.

The balance of power between supply and demand will remain ambiguous, so long as the real environmental and usage qualities are not clearly evaluated. There are always doubts about the veracity of the information of those who provide “offers”. In addition, the requirements and operations of usage desired by consumer/users are still poorly analyzed, and just as poorly expressed.

Price is a component that is too major and too simple. It gives the buyer and the seller, in comparison with the competition, the desire to buy or sell the product. Adjustment of price, whether increasing or decreasing, is an essential parameter for facilitating a sale. The provision of a more advantageous price makes it easier to decide to buy. The higher the price, the more sellers are willing to sell, but the fewer buyers are willing to buy.

The economy is affected by the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of products. It has little interest in their design and the information used to make choices.

Consumers are therefore “useful” from an economic point of view. In a market that is purported to be “free”, the exchanges between buyers and sellers are determined by their mutual agreement (to sell and to buy).

1.2.10. Purchasing power

Consumers can only buy what they earn. “Purchasing power” is a concept that is reductive, related only to the purchase price and not the actual costs of use. As an example, the vast majority of people in France have a high purchasing power – in any case, in comparison with the rest of the world. However, this frequently mentioned purchasing power seems to dissolve, despite an increase in revenue.

The erosion of purchasing power is a core matter of concern for consumers. After a good 10 years, the growth of the minimum wage has been greater than the growth of the average net wage. The purchasing power of employees paid at the minimum wage, while low, has increased faster than the purchasing power of other workers, on average.

Consumers would rather develop a “buying knowledge” which allows them to choose better before they buy, because their “buying power” is likely to decline.

An increase in purchasing power is always possible through the accumulation of debt, which will inevitably be overtaken by a necessary future decline in the purchasing power in order to repay this debt. It should be noted that assessment of the purchasing power of households should do a better job of taking into account the households’ size.

The economy has never been so unsatisfactory and illusory. Growth impoverishes us. We cut back on everything to try to maintain the growth of this fleeting purchasing power.

For example, will technological material progress kill social progress? Without denying the real financial difficulties of all people, it certainly makes sense to expand on this simplistic notion of purchasing power that is mainly used in politics.

Moreover, consumers who have a low purchasing power do not necessarily buy the products that are the “least expensive”; a relevant consideration would be the cost of use.