Paradox: As buyers we want low prices – and that’s what we’ll get when we sell

We tend to choose the lowest prices we can find. An item may be not quite so pretty or well made as we might like it to be, or it may be produced in China under nebulous conditions – but as consumers, if we can find a product that’s a bit cheaper, we will often choose it over a more expensive version, that’s made the way it ought to be.

Likewise, we like flexibility. We want to order and have goods delivered at short notice. We want be able to change our mind. As consumers we don’t need to be loyal. We can pick and choose and shop around for the best offer. 

When we sell stuff, we experience that other side of this. We may want to do a good job, we may feel that we should have a decent pay for the work we’re doing. It would bother us to produce something that was not made in a decent quality. We try to build long terms relations and understand our customers.

Yet we experience that it’s nearly impossible to compete against cheap, low quality manufacturers in developing countries, or against companies that save costs by cutting corners on salaries or working conditions for their employees.

Why? Because that’s what we choose when we are buyers.

Paradox: Stuff will be cheap – but it’s hard to make money creating it

As Jeremy Rifkin points out, for many goods we’re heading to a zero marginal cost economy, where every extra unit costs next to nothing to deliver. Once the design and system of production has been established, whether it’s for software and digital content, pharmaceuticals, an iphone or electricity from solar panels, it’s very cheap to deliver an additional unit.

So lots of stuff will be very cheap – on the other hand, there will be very few jobs in producing it, and you can’t make much doing so.

Getting by will be cheaper, on the other hand: you may be broke.

Paradox: Raising productivity may give us less of what we need

Continuous growth is the natural state of the economy in capitalism, because everyone is struggling to remain competitive by improving their productivity. Companies compete by offering more for less, so they must continually streamline procedures, and automate and outsource work to cheaper suppliers. The remaining employees will need to work more efficiently. In return we get more stuff cheaper.

But – as many studies on happiness show - at some point, more stuff and more money, doesn’t make us much happier. We barely have the time or attention to consume it all. In extreme cases, products, whether it be clothes, toys or food, are produced, distributed and discarded virtually un-used – or they accumulate in attics and storage rooms. Instead, what we really need might be less stress, and more time to savour what we have.

Likewise, producing and consuming more typically translates into greater use of resource and CO2 emissions.

Paradoxically, we are running faster and spending precious resources in order to get more stuff we don’t really have the attention to enjoy.

Is this raising productivity or the opposite? Are we getting more or less? It’s not always clear. The problem is that we seem to be stuck in fast forward towards more and more. If you chose less growth, you will lose out completely in the competition  – and for most, that’s not very attractive either. Indeed a paradox.

Paradox: Stuff will be cheap – but it’s hard to make money creating it

As Jeremy Rifkin points out, for many goods we’re heading to a zero marginal cost economy, where every extra unit costs next to nothing to deliver. Once the design and system of production has been established, whether it’s for software and digital content, pharmaceuticals, an iphone or electricity from solar panels, it’s very cheap to deliver an additional unit.

So lots of stuff will be very cheap – on the other hand, there will be very few jobs in producing it, and you can’t make much doing so.

Getting by will be cheaper, on the other hand: you may be broke.

Paradox: The gig-economy creates jobs – and destroys them

Platforms like Uber, Upwork and Taskrabbit allow lots of people to get started on the job market and build a portfolio of gigs to support themselves. It’s great, if there are no conventional, steady jobs available – or if you don’t want a full time job and a boss. It’s an opening for many who might otherwise find it very hard to find any employment.

If you are coming from below, it’s a step onto a ladder, that could lead to a better income. But if you are coming from a steady job with regular salary and benefits, the ”gig-economy” may look more like a step down into uncertainty and hustling.

Furthermore, as employers discover the flexibility and savings from using on-demand workers, more people will find that their job has been outsourced to the net. In that respect, the gig-economy is replacing relatively steady jobs with well-defined rights and conditions for the worker with a very different category of employment. 
Serfs or micro-entrepreneurs… it depends where you are coming from. 

Paradox: Democracy is winning and losing

If there’s one thing we will fight for in the West, it’s democracy. We try to be tolerant of all cultures and customs, but we will send soldiers to fight to help to spread democracy. Free and fair elections. Every person has a vote and the same right to influence society – regardless of income. Freedom of speech, politicians chosen by the people and accountable to their constituencies. These are true marks of progress.

But while we’re sending troops and making high and noble sacrifices to support democracy, our own democracies are deteriorating and in need of some sort of overhaul.

Politicians often seem more concerned about re-elections and their placement in the poll of the moment, than in making decisions that are necessary but in-convenient. Politicians spend considerable time collecting funds for election campaigns – and obviously, in return the donors expect”their” candidate to defend their interests and listen to their lobbyists. When the masses occasionally get mad and go to the streets to be heard, they will be massively covered by special forces, documenting everything in detail.

The United States is a particularly clear example of these democratic shortcomings – but it is also an example of how democracy seems to be stuck in a super close tie between two increasingly polarized sides, unable to cooperate on solving even extremely pressing issues.

Churchill noted that ”democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." But it does seem that we need to take that it doesn't get worse.