8 ms·

I think buying new things is great, not only in that you get something new and shiny to play with, but it also has great social benefits, stimulating economic g

I think buying new things is great, not only in that you get something new and shiny to play with, but it also has great social benefits, stimulating economic growth, rewarding entrepreneurism and people who create things, and creating jobs. So I applaud the throwaway culture that loads of people seem to complain about. We need more of it!

JoachimSchipper 14y ago
If repair is cheaper than replacement, buying a new one is a waste of resources. This smells like the broken window fallacy.
- alexkearns 14y ago
  Limiting use of resources should not be humanity's main ambition. Encouraging human creativity - which buying new things does - is more important, in my view, than minimising use of resources. It is only this generation's environmentalist mindset that make such a big issue of resource use, at the cost of almost anything else. Having said that, I am not saying that people should not repair stuff - people can do what they want. I was just pointing to the benefits of buying new things, which has somehow become a contentious issue nowadays. Hence, the downvotes...
  - JoachimSchipper 14y ago
    I'm not convinced new things is the best way to encourage creativity: consider buying a new (factory-produced, line) car vs. a cheap repair plus commissioning a nice painting. (I think scarce vs. abundant resources is too big a topic for a HN comment thread; suffice to say that I disagree, especially with the notion that we "make such a big issue of resource use, at the cost of almost anything else.")
    - alexkearns 14y ago
      I agree. Buying a new painting would certainly encourage and reward creativity, which is kind of the point I am making.
  - Someone 14y ago
    "Encouraging human creativity - which buying new things does" Citation needed/please explain.
    - alexkearns 14y ago
      See great grand parent
      - Someone 14y ago
        That does not talk about creativity, but of creating things. Even if it did, I do not find it a valuable argument, in the current large-scale economy. Making him/her richer may stimulate the creativity of that entrepreneur, but the price of that is a horde of zombie consumers who cannot express his creativity by making/repairing stuff themselves. In a small-scale economy, say where every village has a blacksmith, a tinker, a tailor, etc. the net effect might be positive, because it allows many people to spend time to become good at expressing their creativity.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window. If person A throws away his widget which could have been repaired for $2 and buys a new, identical widget for $10 his balance sheet shows $10 of assets (scenario A). If person B repairs his widget, he now has a widget worth $10 plus the $8 cash he saved - his balance sheet shows $18 of assets. Thus, person A destroyed $8 of assets by behaving irrationally/inefficiently. One may say person A's frenzied purchasing of widgets drives R&D dollars into the development of better widgets. A good counter-argument is that it was more important to develop things other than widgets and that by focusing so much on accelerating widget development scenario A forsook technological progress in more productive areas. We saw this happen with the construction industry across the developed world siphoning dollars and talent away from other areas that would have produced more long-term benefit.
- alexkearns 14y ago
  I take what you say but I don't think that the term "throwaway culture" is to do with throwing away broken things. It is more to do with throwing away old or unfashionable things. And actually this desire for better, shinier versions of existing things drives creativity, forcing companies to innovate and endlessly create newer and shinier things. I think this process of renewal and innovation is generally a good thing, rewarding creative people. The downside, you could argue, is in this scenario all the cash goes into shiny new products, rather than some boring but vital product or services. There, I suppose, is where the government comes in.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- 5deadaccounts 14y ago
  "If person B repairs his widget, he now has a widget worth $10 plus the $8 cash he saved - his balance sheet shows $18 of assets." Definitely, if the widget can be repaired for $2 then it should be. However, assuming that there is no material cost to repairing the item, $2 doesnt pay for much labour. Seems like an unlikely scenario.
brc 14y ago
Broadly I see what you're saying and agree with you. When it is more efficient to produce a new thing on an assembly line than fix it, we actually all benefit. But knowing where that crossover is is tough. You can't use the same rule for everything. The worst case of throwaway was the 'cash for clunkers' scheme. That saw wholesale destruction of large amounts of serviceable vehicles, with replacements being created on production lines. It was wealth destruction all around and benefited nobody but a couple of car salesmen who got better comission checks that month.
- AkThhhpppt 14y ago
  And air quality, and road safety. That kind of scheme is an incentive to lower the externalities of motoring - older cars burn more fuel, produce more pollution, and have less safety features.
  - bandy 14y ago
    And drove the price of used cars through the roof. A car that might have run you $100 twenty years ago ("drive it until it's dead") will now run you a cool kilobuck - granted, the high value of scrap (a Geo Metro is worth about $300 locally at a scrap yard) - if you can find a bargain. Here's a 19 year old car that the owner is asking $2300 for: http://kansascity.craigslist.org/cto/3003688305.html http://kansascity.craigslist.org/cto/3003688305.html
    - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
      I'm not in the US. Over here, the idea of a car worth driving costing only 100 euros is ludicrous, and was so even before the local scrappage schemes took plenty of 10-years-or-older cars off the road. (100 euro cars used to be found; people who don't want to admit their car's worth nothing. They were often bought by teenagers, driven psychotically for a night, and burnt out. These days I assume they're being driven into the ground instead.)
      - bandy 14y ago

JoachimSchipper 14y ago

If repair is cheaper than replacement, buying a new one is a waste of resources. This smells like the broken window fallacy.

alexkearns 14y ago
Limiting use of resources should not be humanity's main ambition. Encouraging human creativity - which buying new things does - is more important, in my view, than minimising use of resources. It is only this generation's environmentalist mindset that make such a big issue of resource use, at the cost of almost anything else. Having said that, I am not saying that people should not repair stuff - people can do what they want. I was just pointing to the benefits of buying new things, which has somehow become a contentious issue nowadays. Hence, the downvotes...
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  I'm not convinced new things is the best way to encourage creativity: consider buying a new (factory-produced, line) car vs. a cheap repair plus commissioning a nice painting. (I think scarce vs. abundant resources is too big a topic for a HN comment thread; suffice to say that I disagree, especially with the notion that we "make such a big issue of resource use, at the cost of almost anything else.")
  - alexkearns 14y ago
    I agree. Buying a new painting would certainly encourage and reward creativity, which is kind of the point I am making.
- Someone 14y ago
  "Encouraging human creativity - which buying new things does" Citation needed/please explain.
  - alexkearns 14y ago
    See great grand parent
    - Someone 14y ago
      That does not talk about creativity, but of creating things. Even if it did, I do not find it a valuable argument, in the current large-scale economy. Making him/her richer may stimulate the creativity of that entrepreneur, but the price of that is a horde of zombie consumers who cannot express his creativity by making/repairing stuff themselves. In a small-scale economy, say where every village has a blacksmith, a tinker, a tailor, etc. the net effect might be positive, because it allows many people to spend time to become good at expressing their creativity.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window. If person A throws away his widget which could have been repaired for $2 and buys a new, identical widget for $10 his balance sheet shows $10 of assets (scenario A). If person B repairs his widget, he now has a widget worth $10 plus the $8 cash he saved - his balance sheet shows $18 of assets. Thus, person A destroyed $8 of assets by behaving irrationally/inefficiently. One may say person A's frenzied purchasing of widgets drives R&D dollars into the development of better widgets. A good counter-argument is that it was more important to develop things other than widgets and that by focusing so much on accelerating widget development scenario A forsook technological progress in more productive areas. We saw this happen with the construction industry across the developed world siphoning dollars and talent away from other areas that would have produced more long-term benefit.

alexkearns 14y ago
I take what you say but I don't think that the term "throwaway culture" is to do with throwing away broken things. It is more to do with throwing away old or unfashionable things. And actually this desire for better, shinier versions of existing things drives creativity, forcing companies to innovate and endlessly create newer and shinier things. I think this process of renewal and innovation is generally a good thing, rewarding creative people. The downside, you could argue, is in this scenario all the cash goes into shiny new products, rather than some boring but vital product or services. There, I suppose, is where the government comes in.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
5deadaccounts 14y ago
"If person B repairs his widget, he now has a widget worth $10 plus the $8 cash he saved - his balance sheet shows $18 of assets." Definitely, if the widget can be repaired for $2 then it should be. However, assuming that there is no material cost to repairing the item, $2 doesnt pay for much labour. Seems like an unlikely scenario.

brc 14y ago

Broadly I see what you're saying and agree with you. When it is more efficient to produce a new thing on an assembly line than fix it, we actually all benefit. But knowing where that crossover is is tough. You can't use the same rule for everything. The worst case of throwaway was the 'cash for clunkers' scheme. That saw wholesale destruction of large amounts of serviceable vehicles, with replacements being created on production lines. It was wealth destruction all around and benefited nobody but a couple of car salesmen who got better comission checks that month.

AkThhhpppt 14y ago
And air quality, and road safety. That kind of scheme is an incentive to lower the externalities of motoring - older cars burn more fuel, produce more pollution, and have less safety features.
- bandy 14y ago
  And drove the price of used cars through the roof. A car that might have run you $100 twenty years ago ("drive it until it's dead") will now run you a cool kilobuck - granted, the high value of scrap (a Geo Metro is worth about $300 locally at a scrap yard) - if you can find a bargain. Here's a 19 year old car that the owner is asking $2300 for: http://kansascity.craigslist.org/cto/3003688305.html http://kansascity.craigslist.org/cto/3003688305.html
  - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
    I'm not in the US. Over here, the idea of a car worth driving costing only 100 euros is ludicrous, and was so even before the local scrappage schemes took plenty of 10-years-or-older cars off the road. (100 euro cars used to be found; people who don't want to admit their car's worth nothing. They were often bought by teenagers, driven psychotically for a night, and burnt out. These days I assume they're being driven into the ground instead.)
    - bandy 14y ago