Selfsufficientish.com

The Financial Times has started using the word "austerity" in headlines - and charity shops, the face of the second hand market, have experienced a boom. A swathe of retailers, the purveyors of brand new things, have gone bust. Does this mean we are saturated with stuff? Or do we still need to keep on spending on new things to keep the economy moving? Is designed obsolesence soon to be obsolete? Or should we keep on refreshing our material possessions to keep the economy moving?

The public vote this month on ooffoo.com is "Is re-use good for the economy?"

"http://www.naturalcollection.com/market ... onomy.aspx"

Hope you'll pop across and vote, and check out some of the debate that's going on.

Clara

Rather than go there ( for now as i'm in a hurry for a bath) I'd say that reuse is bad for the economy in general as there will be less spent but in a macro economy such as what i spend my money on then no it won't damage that.

Having said that on this weeks INEBG there were designers who were using the sweepings off the floor and making dresses that you and I could knock up and selling them for £245 a pop. One designer was taking second hand tee shirts cutting bits out and sticking his label on them and charging £80 to £180 FOR A BLOODY TEE SHIRT !!! My mam had the right idea when she would say about designer gear... "Eee lad that's a five quid tee shirt with a fifty quid label on it !! "

Who gives a sh!t about the economy, reuse is good for people and the planet at large...I'm damn sick of the economy being treated like it's some kind of sentient being.

Clara wrote:Who gives a sh!t about the economy, reuse is good for people and the planet at large...I'm damn sick of the economy being treated like it's some kind of sentient being.

Bit of a rough day with the baby kicking lumps out of you Clara ??

I believe that reuse is good for the economy, and so is saving and frugality. Our culture has built up a huge economy based almost solely on debt-purchasing, which, I believe, looks good on the surface, but is rotten underneath. Sooner or later, the supports, that is, the credit that keeps it running, will rot out. In other words, the credit will come due sooner or later, and the bubble will burst. We saw it happen in 1929, and are headed the same way now. What good is a large economy, if it won't last? Frugality and reuse will not give us as large an economy as we currently have, but it will give us one that is sustainable for the future.

I don't think re-use is good for the economy, but then, the benefits of that economy seem to have been squandered on a cocaine, champaigne and Porche lifestyle. A real, local, economy would have a great deal of re-use in it. Mostly as a gift economy. I remember 38 years ago, when my lady and I first got together, people round about gave us items of furniture as a matter of course. As they did for other couples. Looking at the wedding present lists of some of the young people I encounter through work, I can't see them settling for 2nd hand chairs, cookers etc. (However, looking at some of the photos of other Ishers it pleases me to see how young a lot of them are! You'd be sensible and accept items of use rather than status! All is not lost!)

Love and Peace
Jim

reusing (and reducing consumption) is bad for the growth economy. If we had a different economic model then maybe resuing would be good for it. Won't know till we get there.

Cocaine, champaigne and Porsche lifestyle was mentioned in my previous post. Just listened to Radio 4 Today discussion about bank bonus payments. Robert Peston asked what was the difference between City Bankers and the Baader Meinhoff terrorists. Answer? There are some people who still have sympathy for the Baader Meinhoff.

Rminded me of last October when I was in Cork. I expressed surprise at seeing a bank security van delivery being protected by two military vehicles and submachine gun wielding Irish soldiers. A passer-by commented to me, "That'll be from the days when people robbed the banks. You won't be seeing soldiers stopping the banks from robbing the people!"

Sorry to get off topic. If we're not careful, one day we'll have re-use, mining the wreckage in order to survive!

Love and Peace
Jim

Big Al wrote:

Clara wrote:Who gives a sh!t about the economy, reuse is good for people and the planet at large...I'm damn sick of the economy being treated like it's some kind of sentient being.

Bit of a rough day with the baby kicking lumps out of you Clara ??

ha ha ha, ok I admit not very eloquently expressed, but I stand by the sentiment, it seems that the powers that be think that stimulating "the economy" far more important than stimulating the quality of people's lives, or saving the planet or stopping humanitarian atrocities like that happening in Gaza. At the risk of sounding like a naive ranting teenager, it's just wrong.

I think the questions wrong, Vegbox Clara. Maybe you should ask if the economy is good for anything.

This whole thing is driving me wild - I spoke to a friend the other day who's just thrown out most of her beautiful, nearly new furniture, to buy new while all the good deals are on!

Let's have a proper consideration of the question.

How many times does something need repairing in order to make it reusable? Quite often (as in the dented telly, scratched furniture, ripped clothes, toys that need a touch of TLC) what is required is someone with the skill to work on "stuff" to make it reusable. Now if we can get more people trained to do repairs we will be providing employment.

If we can find people with skills to take used material and make proggy mats/quilted bedspreads/recover chairs and sell the results then we are creating employment.

If people sell their reusable goods on eBay, at car boot sales or wherever, then income is provided and it maybe allows the seller to go and buy something that they really need. That's good for reuse and good for buying from the new economy.

If you have a need for something new because you are unable to obtain the need any other way - then that's fine too. If you are shopping for a want and roar off to buy lots of stuff new when it's only a want - then I fear that is bad. It's the wants and the availability of credit from institutions that should know better which have caused the present debt problem.

I see nothing wrong in buying needs new if you have the money available and are unable to obtain second hand.

But the adjustment to a society of savers where new is only available when you have cash in hand and reuse is quite normal will be one heck of an economic change. It will also impact on the producers of goods who have relied on us to buy their products. As for example the Chinese who have a lot of redundant employees returning to the land to see if they can keep body and soul together at the moment (oh and unfortunately one major food producing area of China presently has a severe drought). And for example the lady employees of Asian garment factories who for the first time in the history of their countries have some economic independence and are no longer tied by the old social regimes where they are second class citizens.

Whether reuse, reduce and lack of credit for individual members of society are good things or bad things in the greater scheme of things is a hard call. Fine to reuse in rich countries which have the produce of the poorer ones to recycle. Not so easy for those who come from societies which are not so self sufficient in food, clothes, shelter, heat, water and even a few items of furniture for each home. They possibly have nothing to reuse and are in need of the results of economic activity to acquire even what we regard as the basics of a civilised life.

The question is irrelevant. The economy is broken, to the extent that no amount of throwing stuff away and buying new will help. The derivatives market is worth $300trillion (conservative estimate - I've seen $500trillion quoted) and global GDP is $50trillion.

Reuse has become at last, thankfully, a necessity.

...and that's without considering the environmental impact of production and shipping of 'stuff'.

...and yes, I too got fed up with politicians and captains of industry telling me how I should work harder for less and spend my way into personal bankruptcy to support their economy.

Flo wrote:How many times does something need repairing in order to make it reusable? Quite often (as in the dented telly, scratched furniture, ripped clothes, toys that need a touch of TLC) what is required is someone with the skill to work on "stuff" to make it reusable. Now if we can get more people trained to do repairs we will be providing employment.

How very true Flo.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record with "I remember when ..."
I remember when every town/village had a boot & shoe repairer, seen one of those lately?
Every radio and TV shop had a workshop out back to do repairs, try finding the repair shop at Currys.
Every village had a forge and blacksmith to repair broken garden tools etc.
Clock and watch repairers who could repair a clock and not just change the battery.
And talking about clock/watch batteries, when did it become de rigeur to mine nickel, cadmium, mercury and other heavy metals to save you the trouble of winding a spring by muscle power?
Of course the obvious answer to the questions posed above is that to repair shoes/radios/garden spade is almost certainly more expensive than buying new and because of that the skilled people who could do those repairs couldn't make a living and have ceased.

So to turn the thread question sort of on it's head .... The economy is BAD for the re-use industry!

Well as I have decided to buy nothing new this year then I think that it can still help the economy. Obviously people should still buy a certain book (second print run underway, in shops again 24th feb ) . I still seem to be spending the same amount of money that before I just don't buy things that I only think I need.

I strongly believe that we have manufactured enough stuff to last us at least a year, in fact perhaps even 10. the trouble is we suffer from selfish capitalism in this country we are fooled into thinking that our lives are somehow more enriched if we have a new phone every six months and can store more songs on it than we have listened to in that six month.

If you have a telly look at it, I bet it is bigger then your TV was 10 years ago and I also bet that you have a DVD player, Set top box, perhaps still a VCR and even a games console. Now the economy has to increase by 4% every year in order to be considered healthy, in roughly 20years* that means a doubling of purchases. So we have twice as much stuff every 20 years. This to me is a nonesense, yet I still have to stop myself from wanting a new computer/printer/Tv or whatever as the system is too good at tricking us into believing it's nonesense.

I believe, well actually I hope that what is happening at the moment rather than being a bad thing is sorting out what we need from what we think we need or want. This is why places like woolworths have gone bust as it was full of stuff that no one really needs.

The second hand market need not be bad for the economy as it still means an increase in the flow of money and it also means that wealth goes to people who really need it rather than the 1% of the population who own most of the money.

Hey, some really good coments here, you lot obviously have plenty of common sense
I say that our super affluent lifestyle, luxurious and wastefull living, and (previously) booming economy, has been based mainly on the availability of almost free energy.
Free, that is, only as of right now. we're going to pay dearly for it later.
If you say that energy isn't almost free, it's expensive, then just try doing all the stuff done with oil or whatever derived power, with human or animal energy. We've just been squandering what the sun and earth has built up over millions of years.
I would say re-use IS good for the economy, or would be if there was not this still very cheap energy available.
The earth is still giving us 'money' in the shape of all this stored energy. Unless that stops it will always be cheaper to make new and throw out the old, than it is to repair.

Marc