We've ended up with an economic model predicated on everyone buying more stuff and demanding that the cost of producing said stuff is limited to the cost of the materials, the labour to produce it and a margin for profit. At no point is anything ever factored in for offering education/development to the production workforce or for the proper disposal of either the item it replaces or of the new item when it no longer functions/fits requirements. All of that before looking at other costs, such as clearing up pollution from the production process or dealing with environmental damage caused by the stuff when in use.
For example: for a few years now there has been a movement to stop people wearing cotton because it requires so much water to produce; it is only recently that the problem of synthetics shedding fibres when worn or laundered has been recognised, never mind solved. So which is worse: buying a cotton jumper and wearing for 5+ years before it is recycled, or buying a fleece which lasts for 2 years and sheds fibres every outing?
A fundamental re-balancing is required. We need appliances that can be fixed, and to train the people to repair them. And the whole fashion industry needs a re-think.
The fashion industry is a non-essential that is part of the consumption model. Yes we need clothes, but no, we do not need a new wardrobe of clothes every year. Nor do we need an industry driving us to buy wardrobes of new clothes several times a year.
(The current model encouraging people to wear clothes more is suggesting 30 wears of a garment should be considered a sensible number of wears. That still adds to the consumption models, says the person who's worn the jeans on her back for a lot more than 100 wears and the second hand charity shop jumper for more than 30. )
(The current model encouraging people to wear clothes more is suggesting 30 wears of a garment should be considered a sensible number of wears. That still adds to the consumption models, says the person who's worn the jeans on her back for a lot more than 100 wears and the second hand charity shop jumper for more than 30. )
I can think of a number of things I have where you could replace the "w" in the above statement with a "y", and it would be closer to my views on buying clothes. I don't think I could manage 100 years, but I've several garments that can certainly pass 20 years.
I've lived for up to 3 months in the Canadian north travelling by canoe. An economy based on fishing, eating simple staple things like dried peas and beans, bannock (fried flat bread), oatmeal, dried fruits; getting up and deciding where to go next or not to go anywhere. Writing, drawing, reading outloud, singing. Occasionally meeting people, though not often where the main trade item is conversation of the "where'd you come from? where you going, would you like some tea, can we give you a fish because we'd just be saving this one for tomorrow". We've reflected that it's on the other side of Eden from civilization.
I do think it is possible to inject some of that within typical existence in countries and cities. Trade in relationships with others, talk, helping neighbours. I get that being friendly is antithetical to some places. Some places are downright unfriendly. I don't think this is the basis of a good economy and a happy city.
It would seem odd to have an economy in which things were produced that nobody consumed.
By the conventions of national accounts, the production of things like buildings and machines used for manufacturing are considered capital investment (#2), not private consumption. Goods and services purchased by the government (#3) have their own category, even if they're things like school lunches that would be considered literally consumption in the everyday meaning of the word. Exchanges of goods and services with the rest of the world are also tracked separately (net exports, #4) - if Germany produces a lot of goods for foreigners, they won't be counted as part of Germany's private consumption (or Germany's capital investment, if they're machine tools.)
I'm reminded of a Star Trek story from the first series: "This Side of Paradise".
The enterprise crew are sent to remove conolists from a planet where radiation ('Berthold rays') has been found to be a danger to humans and animals exposed for long periods.
On arrival they are surprised to find a small group, happily living a simple life by growing crops and suffering no ill-effects from radiation. The attitude of the visitors is that the settlers have achieved nothing, made no progress, no expansion and have become a static community with no drive or purpose. The settlers response is that they are happy and healthy and they carved out enough land to grow what they need plus a little to spare for hard times and don't see any purpose in further expansion.
By the end of the story the settlers have 'come to their senses' and agree with Kirk and co. that they've achieved nothing by not working harder and expanding their domain.
I prefer their simpler life (though they did need the plants whose spores give them their health and protection).
You're right Marvin; I didn't mention the main thrust of the story but wanted to comment on their opposing views of the 'simple life' - meeting human needs with minimal ecological footprint in contrast with 'hard work and expansion'.
A few years ago the UK was plagued by cold-calls for house insurance. My response to the question What are the most valuable things in your hom of "the people" seemed to flummox them.
But the economy is currently a zero sum game while we continue to consume more than the planet can sustain. You personally may hold on to your life style, but if you insist on doing so your children or grandchildren will not be able to and will have a reduced life style. Or we can choose to reduce our consumption and hope our children and their children still have a planet to live on.
There are, of course, two classes of solution to the problem "per capita consumption is higher than the planet can sustain" that don't involve colonizing elsewhere. One of them is reducing per capita consumption
The other problem is that the planet cannot properly, and sustainably, support the current population. Urgent steps must be taken to get the population stabilised and then reduced.
The other problem is that the planet cannot properly, and sustainably, support the current population. Urgent steps must be taken to get the population stabilised and then reduced.
I don't accept the premise. The planet can't support the current population with current consumption levels of non-renewable resources. Whether technological developments allow the current population level to be sustained more efficiently remains to be seen. You could argue that we shouldn't gamble on being able to do that, but we've a long history of improvements in resource efficiency, and none of being able to deal with the social, economic and political effects of attempting population control. The one country that made a concerted effort, China, could only do so by being massively intrusive and repressive, and is still dealing with the social fallout.
It would seem odd to have an economy in which things were produced that nobody consumed.
By the conventions of national accounts, the production of things like buildings and machines used for manufacturing are considered capital investment (#2), not private consumption. Goods and services purchased by the government (#3) have their own category, even if they're things like school lunches that would be considered literally consumption in the everyday meaning of the word. Exchanges of goods and services with the rest of the world are also tracked separately (net exports, #4) - if Germany produces a lot of goods for foreigners, they won't be counted as part of Germany's private consumption (or Germany's capital investment, if they're machine tools.)
So it's matter of playing with words.
It's a matter of trying to define categories that allow people to discuss aggregate economic activity, hopefully in a useful way. (National accounts were originally developed around the start of the Great Depression by people who were trying to come up with a way to understand and describe what was going on in the economy.)
Keynes said something like “the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is consumption,” meaning that the point of the exercise is providing goods and services to meet people’s needs. When does the tail start to wag the dog?
The other problem is that the planet cannot properly, and sustainably, support the current population. Urgent steps must be taken to get the population stabilised and then reduced.
The most effective way of doing this appears to be serious investment in education - especially for women and girls, and serious investment in public health provision to reduce perinatal, infant and childhood mortality.
The boss of ASOS (a fashion company) was on radio five live this morning. As part of the conversation he said ‘ most of our clothes are worn at least fifteen times’. As it that was a lot?
What?
He doesn’t have a clue.
My clothes are worn 100s if not 1000s of times until they go in holes - then they are patched. I patched a pair of ten year old jeans yesterday. I’m wearing them right now.
My raincoat is 25 years old and still completely waterproof. It’s had one new zip. I’m hoping it ‘sees me out’!
First of all, there's a natural rate of growth so long as the population is growing. You can achieve a certain rate of growth just by virtue of there being more consumers, without constantly trying to make per capita consumption go up.
Population growth without a commensurate growth in how many resources are being consumed just means fewer resources per person.
This honestly reads as if you didn't understand what I said.
First of all, there's a natural rate of growth so long as the population is growing. You can achieve a certain rate of growth just by virtue of there being more consumers, without constantly trying to make per capita consumption go up.
Population growth without a commensurate growth in how many resources are being consumed just means fewer resources per person.
This honestly reads as if you didn't understand what I said.
It's possible.
The thing is, sustainability is all about how many resources we can take out of the planet without destroying it. Once that upper bound is reached* then we're at the maximum number of resources - allocate them differently, stretch them out so they go further, but no additional growth in the overall total of planetary resources is possible. It follows that continued growth in population means the average number of resources per person gets smaller.
To put it another way, there may be more consumers but is there any more for them to actually consume?
A lot depends on how well we can close resource loops. Say the experiments in microbiology bear fruit in turning plastic back into something resembling oil. Or maybe cheap and effective air to fuel technology. A lot of our resource issues could end up going away if we can improve our waste handling and have energy abundant enough to make it worthwhile. I'm not saying these are around the corner or easy but there is potential for current levels of consumption to become more sustainable.
The other problem is that the planet cannot properly, and sustainably, support the current population. Urgent steps must be taken to get the population stabilised and then reduced.
Taking a world-wide view, the current worldwide plague, and other local plagues aren't enough. Nor are wars, telling women that they must birth every fertilized egg but guard your borders so they both starve.
Keynes said something like “the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is consumption,” meaning that the point of the exercise is providing goods and services to meet people’s needs. When does the tail start to wag the dog?
I've trawled through Wikiquotes and can't find this. However I've formed the opinion that I would not invite Keynes as a guest if I was throwing a dinner party. He sounds too clever by half.
Keynes said something like “the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is consumption,” meaning that the point of the exercise is providing goods and services to meet people’s needs. When does the tail start to wag the dog?
I've trawled through Wikiquotes and can't find this. However I've formed the opinion that I would not invite Keynes as a guest if I was throwing a dinner party. He sounds too clever by half.
It's a very approximate quote from memory, and I was probably quoting someone else's paraphrase anyway.... But it makes perfect sense to me. And for a dinner party, isn't that exactly the kind of guest you want?
Keynes said something like “the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is consumption,” meaning that the point of the exercise is providing goods and services to meet people’s needs. When does the tail start to wag the dog?
I think a textbook would tell you that economics is the study of patterns of production, consumption and trade. And that while theory may have been developed with goods in mind, it applies equally to services.
So Keynes is right, but that says something about what we mean by "economic activity". If you produce something for your own use or to sell to somebody else for their use, i.e. for consumption, then that's an economic activity. If you produce something (?daisy chains ?) just for the fun of producing it, that's not economic activity.
Most of the time we're not very interested in what people produce for their own consumption. By "the economy" we mean only those goods and services that are traded.
The environmental imperative is to reduce the use of non-renewable resources and the production of nondegradable waste, and produce renewable resources sustainably.
Which shouldn't be confused with economic measures of the goods & services that we consume.
Comments
For example: for a few years now there has been a movement to stop people wearing cotton because it requires so much water to produce; it is only recently that the problem of synthetics shedding fibres when worn or laundered has been recognised, never mind solved. So which is worse: buying a cotton jumper and wearing for 5+ years before it is recycled, or buying a fleece which lasts for 2 years and sheds fibres every outing?
A fundamental re-balancing is required. We need appliances that can be fixed, and to train the people to repair them. And the whole fashion industry needs a re-think.
(The current model encouraging people to wear clothes more is suggesting 30 wears of a garment should be considered a sensible number of wears. That still adds to the consumption models, says the person who's worn the jeans on her back for a lot more than 100 wears and the second hand charity shop jumper for more than 30. )
I can think of a number of things I have where you could replace the "w" in the above statement with a "y", and it would be closer to my views on buying clothes. I don't think I could manage 100 years, but I've several garments that can certainly pass 20 years.
I do think it is possible to inject some of that within typical existence in countries and cities. Trade in relationships with others, talk, helping neighbours. I get that being friendly is antithetical to some places. Some places are downright unfriendly. I don't think this is the basis of a good economy and a happy city.
So it's matter of playing with words.
The enterprise crew are sent to remove conolists from a planet where radiation ('Berthold rays') has been found to be a danger to humans and animals exposed for long periods.
On arrival they are surprised to find a small group, happily living a simple life by growing crops and suffering no ill-effects from radiation. The attitude of the visitors is that the settlers have achieved nothing, made no progress, no expansion and have become a static community with no drive or purpose. The settlers response is that they are happy and healthy and they carved out enough land to grow what they need plus a little to spare for hard times and don't see any purpose in further expansion.
By the end of the story the settlers have 'come to their senses' and agree with Kirk and co. that they've achieved nothing by not working harder and expanding their domain.
I prefer their simpler life (though they did need the plants whose spores give them their health and protection).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Side_of_Paradise_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
It was a sci-fi take on the story of the Lotus Eaters in Greek mythology, not a commentary on economic systems.
There are, of course, two classes of solution to the problem "per capita consumption is higher than the planet can sustain" that don't involve colonizing elsewhere. One of them is reducing per capita consumption
I don't accept the premise. The planet can't support the current population with current consumption levels of non-renewable resources. Whether technological developments allow the current population level to be sustained more efficiently remains to be seen. You could argue that we shouldn't gamble on being able to do that, but we've a long history of improvements in resource efficiency, and none of being able to deal with the social, economic and political effects of attempting population control. The one country that made a concerted effort, China, could only do so by being massively intrusive and repressive, and is still dealing with the social fallout.
What?
He doesn’t have a clue.
My clothes are worn 100s if not 1000s of times until they go in holes - then they are patched. I patched a pair of ten year old jeans yesterday. I’m wearing them right now.
My raincoat is 25 years old and still completely waterproof. It’s had one new zip. I’m hoping it ‘sees me out’!
This honestly reads as if you didn't understand what I said.
It's possible.
The thing is, sustainability is all about how many resources we can take out of the planet without destroying it. Once that upper bound is reached* then we're at the maximum number of resources - allocate them differently, stretch them out so they go further, but no additional growth in the overall total of planetary resources is possible. It follows that continued growth in population means the average number of resources per person gets smaller.
To put it another way, there may be more consumers but is there any more for them to actually consume?
.
*= of course, many say we passed it years ago.
Taking a world-wide view, the current worldwide plague, and other local plagues aren't enough. Nor are wars, telling women that they must birth every fertilized egg but guard your borders so they both starve.
I've trawled through Wikiquotes and can't find this. However I've formed the opinion that I would not invite Keynes as a guest if I was throwing a dinner party. He sounds too clever by half.
It's a very approximate quote from memory, and I was probably quoting someone else's paraphrase anyway.... But it makes perfect sense to me. And for a dinner party, isn't that exactly the kind of guest you want?
I think a textbook would tell you that economics is the study of patterns of production, consumption and trade. And that while theory may have been developed with goods in mind, it applies equally to services.
So Keynes is right, but that says something about what we mean by "economic activity". If you produce something for your own use or to sell to somebody else for their use, i.e. for consumption, then that's an economic activity. If you produce something (?daisy chains ?) just for the fun of producing it, that's not economic activity.
Most of the time we're not very interested in what people produce for their own consumption. By "the economy" we mean only those goods and services that are traded.
The environmental imperative is to reduce the use of non-renewable resources and the production of nondegradable waste, and produce renewable resources sustainably.
Which shouldn't be confused with economic measures of the goods & services that we consume.