I guess I don't take it for granted like in the article that replacing something is necessarily bad. What specifically is the metric that is bad here? Landfill space? Material waste? Ikea furniture is less dense so sort of wins here. Cost to the consumer? His original sofa is $5,000 in today's dollars. Will it last longer than multiple consecutive Ikea sofas? Recall that because of the time value of money, an Ikea sofa today is maybe $1,000 but a replacement 5 years from now is likely only to be "worth" $700 in today's money, and then one 5 years from then will be $500, and so on? So for $5,000 today you could have a "lifetime supply" of Ikea couches. Maybe the problem is carbon released in the manufacturing? I'm not sure an artisan making trips to a lumber supply store and making a couch a day wins out vs. an Ikea factory producing hundreds an hour supplied by ships and trains and trucks.
To the extent this raises a problem about capitalism, it's that increasingly price discovery doesn't work anymore. Competition has been the driver of efficiencies and progress for centuries, but it doesn't really work if every purchase you also have to go "but what about the carbon?" "what about the workers' conditions?" "what about the animal welfare?" "what about the landfills?". In other words, there are so many externalities conscientious consumers have to search the history of the company and rely on branding and marketing to make a decision. Many, like Mr Bray here, just throw their hands up and say the whole system is flawed.
Cheap things should be the goal. If we had a carbon tax, appropriate labor laws combined with tariffs or trade agreements, costs for landfill space or whatever, then you just need to buy the cheapest thing and that will be the most efficient!
I know I personally tried to live this philosophy 10 years ago when I purchased a $400 pair of handcrafted boots (trying to follow Vimes's philosophy), and I regret it. They've not held up well, though at least I was able to re-sole them at a cobbler here in town.
To the extent this raises a problem about capitalism, it's that increasingly price discovery doesn't work anymore. Competition has been the driver of efficiencies and progress for centuries, but it doesn't really work if every purchase you also have to go "but what about the carbon?" "what about the workers' conditions?" "what about the animal welfare?" "what about the landfills?". In other words, there are so many externalities conscientious consumers have to search the history of the company and rely on branding and marketing to make a decision. Many, like Mr Bray here, just throw their hands up and say the whole system is flawed.
Cheap things should be the goal. If we had a carbon tax, appropriate labor laws combined with tariffs or trade agreements, costs for landfill space or whatever, then you just need to buy the cheapest thing and that will be the most efficient!
I know I personally tried to live this philosophy 10 years ago when I purchased a $400 pair of handcrafted boots (trying to follow Vimes's philosophy), and I regret it. They've not held up well, though at least I was able to re-sole them at a cobbler here in town.