Skip to main content

Peak Stuff? Really?


I just saw a BBC News interview where the anchor asked an economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics whether recent sales data indicated that we had reached 'peak stuff' yet. [1][2]

A sort of anchor piece at the Guardian website offers a brief overview as of late 2011 of this idea of peak stuff with some data on what's going on. [3] More recently Ikea's sustainability officer said similar things. [4] If one wants the wiki experience while reading about this tripe one can try the P2P Foundation. [5]

One thing that caught in my craw about the interview - and about discussion of the latest Guardian story online - was that the question included the economic fallacy of planned obsolescence. [6]

But going back to the Guardian overview from 2011, one sees that it's all about just raw quantities of stuff, not economic growth. Tonnage of household waste, food and fertiliser, cement, paper, water, and energy usage are the main contenders. The other example was total car purchases. The author is quite interesting on the why of dwindling auto sales;
I suspect dwindling vehicle sales are being driven by lots of factors working in parallel. These might include our increasingly urbanised population, better car design meaning that each vehicle stays on the road for longer, the birth of car clubs, and the fact that we only have a certain amount of road and parking space.
Quite interesting that in there the author basically admits that the longevity of automobiles has only increased, which brings up a massive sore point of mine re the interview. That is that, carrying on from a few paragraphs up, planned obsolescence is not a quantity in real life product design and never has been. [7]

The fact that the folks writing at a major newspaper and in the alt-econ blogosphere don't actually know what economic growth is doesn't surprise me but it's always disheartening to encounter their ignorance time after time.

Economic growth and increasing quantities of stuff used are not the same thing. Economic growth comes from increases in the value-added from exchange over time. That's it. Love ya, learn econ.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1]
http://makewealthhistory.org/2011/11/14/has-britain-experienced-peak-stuff/

[2]
http://makewealthhistory.org/2016/01/20/did-ikea-just-admit-to-peak-stuff/

[3]
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/nov/01/peak-stuff-consumption-data

[4]
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/weve-hit-peak-home-furnishings-says-ikea-boss-consumerism?CMP=fb_gu

[5]
http://p2pfoundation.net/Peak_Stuff

[6]
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/6773/peak-stuff-big-business-starting

[7]
http://ecomonyblogtime.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/built-in-obsolescence.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...
Post a Comment
Read more

RIP Macroeconomics

This post has no intellectual rigour, but I'm posting it anyway, because neither does macroeconomics. Most economists love spending all day doing macro, preferring it to the prosaic small-scale world of microeconomics. This is where the brazen hypocrisy of many heterodox folks will make itself known, as they decry the fallacies of composition rife within neoclassical economics and then go away and commit the same daft mistakes themselves (sometimes quite well disguised) using aggregates of demand, supply, and labour time. Further friction for modern economists can be had when contending with the tripartite division of economics into land, labour, capital, and the action of classes (the 'class' praxis) of the owners of those three economic resources. So, to all of macroecon... you're drunk. Go home and rethink your life.* * Yes I know I just committed a fallacy of reification.
Post a Comment
Read more

Foreign Policy hates you...

In Foreign Policy a hardcore fluff piece * talks about young Americans falling out of love with capitalism. The closing paragraph is very artful but also insipid and inaccurate. Read it and weep! ~~~ * A fluff piece that does a very bad job of grappling with a subject that is actually important.
Post a Comment
Read more