I think this idea can only work in a society that has less wealth gap and people have somewhat similar purchasing power. Also when it's about communal services like communal libraries by a government.

However in case of certain goods it won't work like someone's house or anything essential.

Unfortunately this idea is used to promote unnecessary subscription.

I was discussing the state of the world with a friend and remembered that the World Economic Forum predicted that by 2030, we will own nothing and be happy about it. How realistic is this prediction, and what would that scenario look like? Also, why do they believe we will be happy owning nothing?

Seriously. I think it angers me because it can be used to critique both anticonsumer practices in form of endless subscriptions and socially shared things (which are good for anticonsumption movement). I hear this from reactionists and conservatives a lot and I think they are ruining its meaning.

To adress what I mean by stupidness of this argument:

• I go to public swimming pool instead of building one myself. You will own nothing and be happy.

• Then I jump to public jaccuzi instead of buying my own. You will own nothing and be happy.

• I use taxis since 70s. You will own nothing and be happy.

• I go to laundromat because I don't need a whole machine for one person. You will own nothing and be happy.

• I read books at library because I prefer to lend them and save money. You will own nothing and be happy.

etc.

Are people through their purchasing un-consciously accepting the premise ‘you will own nothing but be happy’?

I don’t think people will be happy, but it seems to me they are already accepting owning nothing. Has the average person given up on owning a home, accumulating wealth and instead choose to yolo it where possible?

40 years ago companies like Starbucks wouldn’t have customers. People would laugh at the prospect of spending what they would earn in an hour in a coffee shop. Alanogous examples exist all over the economy. Think of the cost of concerts, cinema, football etc, we have complained but mostly supported this economic model by continuing to purchase. If the average person takes on debt to own the latest phone (via a contract with the phone company), to buy a car, even to go on Holliday does it now follow that the average person is increasing inequality with their purchasing choice. Is it not the case that this behaviour is in of itself increasing the wealth gap? Gary’s answer is to tax the rich, I don’t disagree, but isn’t it a bit ‘rich’ to offer this as a solution when it’s our frivolous purchasing and taking on or debt to fuel it that is increasing wealth inequality on a daily basis.