Skip Navigation

What would happen if Americans stopped buying new consumer goods for a month?

The current hostile corporate takeover in the USA and the clear loss of political power of the common people, I started wondering what happened if people used consumption as their leverage. Since the system is designed for continuous growth, what would happen if a mass movement of people stopping buying new non-essential consumer goods?

It would send a much stronger message than angry public protests. Thoughts?

Edit 1: Received some fantastic responses one of these highlighted February 28th as the "National No Spend Day" that we can consider the rehearsal.

*Do not make any purchases Do not shop online, or in-store, No Amazon, No Walmart, No Best Buy, Nowhere!

Do not spend money on: Fast Food,Gas,Major Retailers Do not use Credit or Debit Cards for non essential spending

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Only buy essentials of absolutely necessary (Food, Medicine, Emergency Supplies) If you must spend, ONLY support small, local businesses.*

This movement is the definition of equitable, not spending means everybody can contribute within their means, and if you can't afford to buy shit anyway, you're already doing your part!

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2025/02/12/national-no-spend-day-economic-blackout-amazon-walmart/78410711007/

77 comments
  • The main problem with these things is people buying stuff before, so they can boycott the next day. Makes absolutely no difference.

    Obviously, what you're describing is different.

    • agree. the main idea is to shift away from buying new to buying used, bartering, using cash. there's such abundance of used goods in the US people actually wouldn't have to compromise their lifestyles and this could continue on for months and months and months.

  • I've already planned with my wider family that for the next 4 years we aren't doing jack shit for holidays. No black friday (tbh we never did anyway), no cyber Monday. No gifts for Christmas.

    • I've been doing homemade gifts or local market goods for xmas the past couple xmas

    • I haven't celebrated xmas for several years now and it's seriously been so liberating.

  • If even a relatively small number — say 10-20% — just refused to buy anything other than the bare essentials (like food, energy, utils) until action was taken, you'd probably see more action than if those people got out in the streets and protested.

    • That action would be increasing the price of bare essentials to compensate

      • So, some of this would occur but I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be a linear tradeoff. I dunno why but I decided to write a scroll about it, even tho nobody is gonna read it.

        1. "Bare Essentials" are price competitive - Basic groceries like milk, eggs, dry goods, canned goods, etc., are produced by a large arrangement of producers, and also quasi-local (big ag owns all the farms, but certain farms produce for specific regions). This means that it's hard to corner the market on these goods. Keep in mind brand-name foods collude to push against this price competition, but only to a certain extent because grocery store "value brands" can become irresistible if they're half the price. The price of kraft mac and cheese is tethered to within a couple bucks of the value brand next to it on the shelf.
        2. The "Not Bare Essentials" products (Entertainment [incl. Tourism, Dining], durable goods, luxury items and electronics) are produced by different corporations than the bare essentials groups. Megacorps like Amazon do have some stratification across the entire goods spectrum (mostly by reselling/market tolls) but they're also exposed because the margins on the nonessentials are better because of issue #1. So a boycott of these groups would have a significant effect on all retail and retail-adjacent companies. That's like 12 out of the top 20 companies in the US, roughly 3.2 trillion in revenue that could take a 20% hit to their balance sheet. That's 2% of the US GDP out of those 20 companies alone, enough to flatten the GDP curve in a given year. That kind of effect would result in a panic among global decision-makers.

        However, there are major issues with the 'buy nothing boycott' plan:

        1. the idea of getting 10% of the people in the country to buy into the plan is pretty far-fetched. Buying things basically daily is a (bad) habit of nearly all Americans and breaking that cycle will not be easy. Not eating out, not taking vacations, not buying christmas or birthday gifts, and replacing these activities with zero or near-zero cost activities will come at an enormous social cost as compared to people not boycotting. This can be mitigated by trying to enact pacts with friends and family and entering into buy-nothing local groups, as well as focusing on a barter economy that sidesteps retail and services.
        2. the concept of a sustained boycott will get harder and harder in the imagined scarcity, planned obsolesce environment we live in. Cars break down, clothes wear out, everything requires upkeep, etc. Obviously this can be deferred and stretched (I'm never selling my already 10 year old car, for example) but the boycott will fray. This can be counteracted by more people joining than those exiting, via media and grassroots efforts.

        Overall: If 10-20% of Americans actually bought nothing (very unlikely) for a sustained (months, even more unlikely) period of time, the outlook of the GDP would be very noticeable. If that could be sustained (by more people joining than leaving) then you'd absolutely see major changes in policy. It would start with corporate layoffs, but then graduate to price cuts, sales of production facilities, drops of industrial output, and then finally decreased energy consumption and industrial inputs. That would be a national security emergency that would force bipartisan political change, because energy and industrial potential are the two primary metrics of nation-state success for both hard and soft power.

  • They'd buy more goods for a few weeks leading up to that month, then buy a bit less during, then buy more for two weeks after

    • Yup, delayed consumption would be the most likely outcome, but that's not necessarily a problem if people can apply this pressure in a meme-like fashion. It's sorta like the gamestop squeeze.

      Also the immediate personal pain could be mitigated by buying used stuff.

  • You see this (or used to, anyway) from time to time with gas strikes.

    If it's just a month of "don't buy," it wouldn't do much in the long run. All that does is time-shift demand to when the strike is over. If the company can anticipate well enough, they'd raise prices when the demand comes back and come out ahead in the long run.

    You have to use/consume less, and for an extended time period, not just change when that purchase happens.

    But yes, with that caveat, use less, and choose the lesser evil when you do need to buy something. The individual effect is small, but small things add up.

    • n the strike is over. If the company can anticipate well enough, they’d raise prices when the demand comes back and come out ahead in the long run.

      You have to use/consume less, and for an extended time period, not just change when that purchase happens.

      But yes, with that caveat, use less, and choose the lesser evil when you do need to buy something. The individual effect is small, but small things add up.

      The mitigation is to focus on used goods so it is much less painful. Unlike gas, people don't need that new TV, or that next phone, gaming console, their Nth streaming sub and use alternative (wink) ways to consume entertainment media.

  • Donald Trump has broken the Constitutional binding of Checks and Balances, upon which all law in the United States is governed. Ask yourself what that means to business contracts which depend on those laws to be guaranteed, and what the loss of faith in the underlying system means to all commerce in this country and between this country and foreign individuals, corporations, and nation states.

    Anycahoots, that's my long way of answering, What would happen if Americans stopped buying new consumer goods for a month? with: you are going to find out

    • Ask yourself what that means to business contracts which depend on those laws to be guaranteed,

      Agree. If they feel the rules of engagement can be changed unilaterally, we can show that this can go both ways.

  • I haven't bought stuff in over a year. AI laptop let me check out completely and mostly offline all the time in general except for mobile like now

  • We could even make an app that shows stephen miller, steve bannon, or one of the dogeshits talk whenever people got tempted to buy shit.

77 comments