Less Stuff

Graham Hill on the merits of less stuff.

Related posts:

  1. Amazon: The Google of Buying Stuff Thinks I’m Japanese
  2. Fact-Checking the Apocalypse
  3. Silly Stuff About KP and Web 2.0
  4. What are a Few Sand Hill Roads Among Friends?
  5. VC Suckage in 1,511 Words

Comments

  1. Bill says:

    I'm all about living simply; I respect his "Ikea idealism." I can't help but to think, though, about the paradox of thrift effect that might be imposed were even 50% of Americans to "trim" as he so suggests.

    Maybe less IS more, as he says, but wouldn't mass-adopted decreased consumption also be MORE poverty and unemployment? (as the trickle-down of decreased consumption would inevitably make its way through the entire system)

    To his point, though, my old college dorm room and its pedestrian / bike friendliness beat the heck out of a large tract house in a gated country club.

    • The other Bill says:

      Not necessarily. If the money currently spent on useless things we never use was put to more productive use, it would be a net gain for the economy. Alternatively, more people leading simpler lives may require lower incomes, thus allowing for more broad-based hiring.

      When traveling to India, I was encouraged to litter because it provided a menial job for someone to pick up the litter. That didn't make sense to me, and I don't think it is all that different from the idea of not being thrifty for the sake of saving jobs.