TODAY’S RANT: How’d I Get So Much Stuff?

IMG_5194I don’t  like to use words like “stuff”, “things”, or the vague but picturesque “crap.”  Such words have low information content and are thus semantic lightweights. However, there are few words for the random compilation of tchotchkes, trinkets, baubles, gewgaws, kit, tools, devices, objects, gadgets, contraptions, contrivances, gizmos, widgets, thingamajigs, and doohickeys that line the drawers, shelves, and closets of my house.

You may think I’m some sort of packrat, but the sad fact is– I’m not. I’d say our household buys  less than average for homeowners. For one thing, we have no children. For another thing, both my wife and I might be classified as, for lack of a more eloquent term, cheapskates. (She’s an accountant and I’m trained as an economist, what do you expect?)  Of course, many people, perhaps most people, organize their junk better than I.

I do have one consumption fetish, and that is books. If you live in a very small town (or a large city with many small, local libraries) I may have more volumes in my house than does your local library. However, two things have slowed me down in collecting [physical] books. First, I buy most of my books on my Kindle these days. Second, I’ve come to realize that the reason I’ve bought so many books is the hope that one of them would provide some impetus for me to say something interesting, insightful, and valuable, and the entire English language canon has failed me utterly in this regard.

Still, I have a lot of miscellaneous detritus floating around in my home. You’ve heard of the 500-year flood? I have 500-year tools; that is, tools that are specifically for some task that only comes up once every few lifetimes or so. In a reasonable world, one would rent such tools. However, most tool rental places are also tool sellers. Such businesses have learned that if the tool sells new for $60, they can rent it for $50. Most people will buy it on the principle of the matter, and if they don’t… CHA-Ching. Who would rent a tool that costs almost as much to rent as it does to buy? I’ll tell you who (you thought that was rhetorical, didn’t you?), people who have the good sense to think of every object that comes into their home as an item being warehoused at their expense. People who have garage sales are brilliant. They are getting paid to store their junk in your home.

When I’m doing spring cleaning, as I am now, I frequently find containers that contain nothing. I guess I’ve just kept them around in case some pressing containment needs pop up. I keep all sorts of things because I think one day I’ll need them. However,  I never do need such items again, except the day after I throw them out.  To avoid such a situation, I don’t pitch them. However, if I keep them I won’t need them. If Joseph Heller was still alive, he could write a novel about my life.

Of course, sometimes I do need such items, but–owing to my poor organizational paradigm–I can’t find them. I then face the ultimate dilemma. Do I put the new one that I just bought with the old one that I found after I made the purchase, or do I put it in an entirely different location in the hope that when I need it again I’ll have a better chance of finding it.

No place have I felt the weight of how much “junk”  is swirling through our planet as when I was in Bangkok’s Chinatown last fall. There are miles of cramped alleyways and corridors packed to the gills with little plastic-wrapped junk, much of which seems to serve no purpose other than to satisfy the aesthetic needs of people with really poor taste or as gifts for people to whom you really want to send a statement of loathing. I had to get out of there, owing to a fear that shelving would collapse and I would be buried alive under a pile of knock-off Hello-Kitty coin purses.  I can think of no death that is more embarrassing and yet apropos of life in the modern world than that.

Of course, one of the many downsides of an economics education is the knowledge that our high standard of living is dependent upon people making and buying ever more stuff. If you are saying “what high standard of living?” and you haven’t hand-churned your own butter, darned some socks, and killed a mastodon today, I would encourage you to look into how people lived in the past. People unburdened of an economics education can make statements like, “People shouldn’t be materialistic and everybody should have a job and all jobs should pay a living wage.” However, that is like saying, “I should be able to keep my cake and I should be able to eat it as well and somebody should pay me $100 for it.”

We are still hunter-gatherers. We just hunt for bargains, and gather up geegaws.

IMG_3804

BOOK REVIEW: It’s Getting Better All the Time by Moore & Simon

It's Getting Better All the Time: 101 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 YearsIt’s Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years by Stephen Moore

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Amazon page

The title says it all. The authors, Stephen Moore and Julian Simon, discuss 100 trends in 20th century America that give one reason to be optimistic about the future. These trends are grouped into the following areas: health, nutrition, wealth, poverty, children’s issues, labor, leisure, housing, transportation & communications, innovation, information technology, education, safety, environmental protection, natural resources, socio-cultural indicators, sports, women’s issues, racial issues, and freedom & democracy.

One of the co-authors, Julian Simon, died before publication of this book, but is famous for a bet that he made with Paul Ehrlich. The bet was that any five commodities of Ehrlich’s choosing would decline in price over the subsequent decade. Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, was a doomsayer, and believed the five commodities and most others would become more expensive. In other words, Ehrlich was betting resources would become more scarce as they were used up, but Simon believed our technological advances in discovery and extraction would outstrip our consumption. Simon won the bet. All five commodities became cheaper, though some have pointed out that if they had gone double or nothing over another decade the tables would have turned.

The authors attribute the world’s 20th century success to three technologies: electricity, vaccines/medicines, and the microchip. In answer to the question of why the United States did particularly well, the authors point to freedom as the main driver. Neither of these hypotheses are systematically evaluated in this work; they’re just presented with anecdotal support. I say this not so much as harsh criticism, but so as to make the reader aware that it is not that kind of book. The bulk of the book is one page of text for each trend, plus a line or bar graph to visually depict the trend.

This book makes some excellent points. People have a tendency towards pessimism, hence all the dystopian, zombie, nuclear holocaust literature. There’s also a common fallacy that there was once a golden age of humanity in the past that is never to be surpassed. One may find it hard to believe that it’s getting better all the time, but one can’t argue with the numbers. Life expectancy is up. Infant mortality is down. Housing is less crowded. We have more symphonic orchestras. On a host of issues, the quality of life of Americans has risen.

The previous paragraph notwithstanding, there’s room for criticism. While one can’t argue with the numbers, in some cases one might find oneself asking whether they are the right numbers or whether they tell the whole story. For example, the section on disease shows a strong decline across a range of diseases. However, it doesn’t cover any of the many chronic disease that arose in the 20th century and disproportionately affect wealthy countries such as diabetes and crohn’s disease. It’s hard to know how much of the trends represented are a function of data availability (covering so much ground, they had to rely on second-hand data) and how much reflects selection bias intended to support their argument. As implied in the preceding paragraph, some of the measures are undeniably the right ones. However, the reader may find themselves wondering about others.

It would be interesting to see an update to the study. For example, GDP growth is shown to be higher on average among the freest nations. However, with countries like China and Vietnam rocketing upward in GDP in recent years, it would be interesting to see if this trend has held.

There’s a CSPAN Book TV program with Moore available here.

Even though this book is 13 years old, I’d still recommend it. Given all the doom and gloom as of late, it might be a particularly good time to pick it up.

View all my reviews