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

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...
Post a Comment
Read more

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...
Post a Comment
Read more

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...
Post a Comment
Read more