If it were socially acceptable to carry a man purse I would do so. I realize in today’s sophisticated age of reasoning and enlightenment I could buck social norms and tote a man bag anyway. One problem: I don’t live in Europe. I live in Idaho. And unless your man bag is carrying a dead pheasant or other freshly killed game, it’s not a satchel or briefcase or tote. It’s a man purse. And while thumbing my nose to the crowd is appealing, I just don’t have the resolve at the present time.

My new found desire to accessorize my wardrobe with such an item is not fueled by vanity or some brewing sense of social equality (if it’s good enough for women, why not men?!). No, this thought was ignited by a much nobler quest: Thriftiness.

Thrift has been an oft ignored concept until its recent comeback amid economic uncertainty and global market fear. The obvious solution is the man purse. That is at least until someone invents a device you wear under your clothes so you can smuggle regularly priced soda and candy with greater ease. I’m sure it would cost $19.99 so in just one trip it pays for itself! Oh and if it could give me great abs too that would help.

We are in an age of deflation, or so most economists would tell us. Inflation, they opine, would be a good thing. Housing prices are falling and the stock market is bipolar. Wal-Mart has even cut prices to win back shoppers who were finding less expensive shopping options. How bad is the economy when Wal-Mart is too upscale for you? Have you been in that place lately? It’s like going to the county fair, only you can’t win prizes from toothless carnies. And while we’re on the subject, wouldn’t Toothless Carnies make a great name for a band? But I digress.

The economist John Maynard Keynes is given credit for many modern macroeconomic concepts. One of which, oddly enough, is Keynesian Economics. He was also the first to popularize the concept of the paradox of thrift. This concept describes a phenomenon wherein the market pulls back and saves money rather than spending it. By doing so it drives up the savings rate. More people saving more money should, in theory, be a good thing. However, the argument can be made that doing so is actually bad for the economy as a whole—creating a paradoxical environment where the collective masses making wise decisions hurts the greater good.

By definition saving more means one spends less. Spending less means less consumer consumption, this means lower revenues for businesses, which in turn cut inventories and later prices in an attempt to drive up sales. If this continues long enough, these businesses must cut overhead in order to survive. This often leads to layoffs. So as fear of a future recession causes consumers to pull back, this collective behavior can actually cause a recession. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

If you go back to 2007, the Bush tax cuts were designed to spur the economy as tax payers who now had a few extra hundred dollars to spend would rationally blow that money on new flat screens, Snuggies, or other such consumer goods. Instead, the savings rate spiked—consumers behaved rationally, just not in a predictable way. Sensing the looming recession, they instead acted in their own best interest and used the tax cuts to pay down debt.

The great thing about economics is you can have any opinion, take any stand, and no one can prove you wrong. There are a myriad of theories that can prove you right or wrong at the same time.

With this comfortable shield to hide behind, I would like to propose the solution to our current economic crisis. Movie tickets keep going up even in this severe recessionary period. And somehow a large popcorn and drink cost you $20—more than a rib eye at most steakhouses in town. As a society we are now left with no greater solution than to go to a movie and purchase large tubs of popcorn and soda. After all, if you sneak your snacks in, then you may be to blame for a prolonged recession.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The New Economy: Death by Savings (fool.com)
• Is the Dollar So Safe that It’s Dangerous? — By: Kevin D. Williamson (corner.nationalreview.com)
• Why are companies hoarding so much cash? (economist.com)
• Keynes v. Hayek – 1932 Redux (volokh.com)
• Chancellor: That Awful Frugality (paul.kedrosky.com)
• Why We Are Moving Toward a Recessionary Era, and Why Keynes is Being Exhumed (wallstreetpit.com)
• Nothing can stop the spendthrift American (salon.com)