Shoutback! | Give!

Is it right to spend £30 billion on Christmas when 2.5 billion people live in poverty?

Christmas is upon us once again. Most of those who celebrate Christmas in developed countries take part in a level of consumption that is beyond the imagination of much of the world. The Christmas period is the busiest and most profitable time for retail stores and supermarkets and this has barely been impacted by the recession. It is seems strange that a day or period that has been dedicated to celebrate the birth of Christ has become all about consumption and excess – it is about eating a lot of food and getting a lot of gifts. And we do this at a time when about 2.5 billion people live in poverty, over a billion people go to bed hungry every day, and the world is experiencing a climate and resource crisis.

There is enough food in the world so that no one should go hungry. So why, nearing the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, does hunger, malnutrition and famine persist? The bail-outs of the banks proved that when a cause is deemed worthy enough, money can be found to meet needs. Yet, although it would take comparatively very little to feed the world, nothing has happened.

We should all take a couple of minutes this festive period to think about those less fortunate than ourselves and ask ourselves: is it right to consume so much when others have so little?

Well said brother. Must do all we can.

I wonder if campaigns like positive presents are a good bridge between these two extremes? The charity Concern do Christmas gifts along these lines... Maybe UYDO should too? Or is this more of a 'hand out' as opposed to a 'hand up'?

"Positive presents" are ok, but it does not attack the root of the cause. Some people would argue that positive presents does nothing more but to clear our guilt for the holidays. We need to do something with our consumption, all the stuff we want, all the meat we eat, and so forth. The world does not have the ability to sustain itself with the consumption levels we have here in the UK and the US, and it is not fair that we enjoy all these riches when more than 1 billion people go to bed hungry every day. In order to do something about this we need to deal with the fundamental ways of living.

I agree that long-term solutions will have to look at the cause of the problem, i.e. the heavily consumerist way of living of the developed countries. But then again, that has become the foundation on which our societies have been built and it will be difficult to give it up!

I would argue that most people tend to operate in trend cycles. At the moment, our self-worth and popularity in society is based on how much stuff we have. For example, in Norway where I am from, kids are being teased at school for not having hip and cool clothes. But there is nothing saying that this trend won't pass.

If you view Maslow’s 'Hierarchy of Needs' for example, the last need is self-actualisation. I know people define it differently, but there is evidence that young people in society today are getting increasingly interested in 'making a difference' and having a purpose in life. So as we climb Maslow’s ladder we realise that being wealthy is not enough to be happy, and that there are other things to life than just that.

I personally think that we can change, but it will be very difficult and it will require a lot of work and time.

I came across an American organisation called Redefine Christmas who have a similar vision as this month's campaign. I like the idea of changing the status quo when it comes to Christmas. You see, I'm not religious and the traditional meaning of CHRISTmas means nothing to me. But I think this is true of many people in the UK (and the world over, I'm sure). To most people, Christmas is about time off from work, presents, lots of food, families getting together and eventually January sales! Most of this doesn't actually have to change.

Every year there are stories of people - often lower-income families - who spend £thousands on Christmas lights for their house. The concept of spending that kind of money on something used once a year - even if the same decorations are used every year for 5 years - is crazy when you consider what that money could be used for.

If you were to break down Christmas in to what is important and what isn't, I think we'd all have more efficient Christmases. For example, this year my family and I will spend a small amount on each for presents - only presents that are useful! In the past we may all have been tempted to buy the small plastic gadgets that only appear at this time of year, or oversized (and overpriced) festive packs of chocolate, but hopefully people are starting to think more economically.

Personally, I would be happy with good food, giving and receiving a few small presents and watching life slow down, if only for a couple of days!

And there are so many alternatives! Instead of buying and posting Christmas cards one can buy e-cards which are sent by email. These may cost a couple of pounds and the money spent goes to the charity who runs it. The alternative, of course, is buying a festive card which is posted using the Royal Mail (or worse, via aeroplane if internationally) and thrown away after a couple of weeks.

You don't have to get a Bah, Humbug feeling for thinking this way too! Help us change the status quo and make your Christmas more enjoyable!!

You can always invest in an entrepreneur on someone else's behalf as a Christmas present.

I think that alternative Christmas presents is a good idea. However, it wont facilitate for a long term sustainable change - in order to do that we need to approach the casual relationships.

Thanks for the link Chris!

It is just crazy how much we spend on Christmas. Next year I would like to spend a lot less and rather give away the money instead.

Great shout!

A friend just recommended a book called Scroogenomics, has anyone read it? It sounds like an interesting read, along the lines of this campaign, and I thought I'd give you all a heads up about it! Might be too late to ask for it for Christmas (ironic, when you know what it's about!), but treat yourself in the sales...

Thanks for the suggestion Chris. It is my understanding that the book is based on Waldfogel's paper: The deadweight loss of christmas. What he argues is that the purchases made for Christmas generates less value than those made elsewise. In other words, if you buy yourself a sweater, you buy one that you really want, while your grandmother (aunt or anyone else) might buy you a sweater you like less and consequently wear less - and thus add less value.

I am sure we all have experienced the times when you open a gift and find this weird item or ugly thing that you put in a box and never use again.

The argument is as I understand it that if you spend a total of £1000 on gifts, and equally (for simplicity sake) get £1000 in gifts. It adds more value if you rather spend £200 on gifts (and get £200) and use the remaining £800 on yourself - You spend the same amount of money but you spend it more efficiently (according to his argument)

So in a sense, it is not about reducing consumption for the sake of better allocation of resources (although as an economist he might argue that the above suggestions just do that), but rather about getting more 'value for money'. But for all means, it is still an interesting book.