Wikipedia on Free Market Theory: In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.
Anarchism.. in my definition, is the lack of a singular authority. Not to be confused with "chaos".
I see this example (Buy Nothing Project) breaking the linear-ness of economy. Harvest, Build, Sell, Consume/Use, Discard. No re-use, no re-cycle. This is not sustainable, especially with population growing. We need to re-use. I don't think that anyone is doing (donating/giving away) to hurt the profits of XYZ company, I strongly believe that we all got so much 'garbage' in our home, things that we haven't touched/used for a looooong time, that as the Minimalists said (the first 120 podcast episodes - after Patreon I dropped them) "find this thing a new home".
Circular economy is what we should be working towards, to get the most possible utility out of any given resource, rather than squandering them in the mistaken belief that there's always going to be plenty more where it came from.
> "I don't think that anyone is doing (donating/giving away) to hurt the profits of XYZ company, I strongly believe that we all got so much 'garbage' in our home, things that we haven't touched/used for a looooong time"
Both motivations are true for my girlfriend and me. We both want to make sure we don't get bogged down with superfluous stuff, so we give them to people who will appreciate and use them, but we also see it as an opportunity to not support corporations that do not have our (societal) best interests in mind.
The less stuff we buy, the less our money is used for purposes we disagree with or even abhor, in many cases. By buying the few things we do buy from small companies with responsible profiles, that's another step towards our money going to better purposes.
I don't really believe in the "power of the consumer" or "voting with your wallet" (both of which just lead to unnecessary consumption), hence why we try to buy as little new stuff as possible and prefer buying second hand whenever possible, but at least the little money we do spend won't be going (directly) to the exploiter's pockets.
I buy a lot of pre-owned stuff, and sell or give away stuff I'm done with whenever possible, for the same reasons. I especially can't stand IKEA, because they embody throwaway culture so much, with their cheaply made furniture. And, if it prevents other peoples' stuff from being thrown out, while I get to save a little money at the same time, so much the better.
The thing with Ikea is that they're known for cheap/disposable furniture, but they also carry furniture made from proper wood, rather than cardboard. My dining table is made from solid wood and you wouldn't think twice about standing on it. Obviously it's more utilitarian than pretty, but it feels like it's made to last. However it also cost a lot more than the flimsy cardboard alternatives right next to it, so it's obvious what people end up going home with.
I will also say that their kitchen cabinets are significantly higher quality than their other lines of shelves and cabinets. Better fasteners, hinges and so on. Yet again, they are significantly more expensive than most of the other furniture they carry.
Still, the amount of proper hardwood furniture in second hand stores is baffling to me, when you see people lugging home glorified cardboard disguised as furniture.
i'm reading piketty right now and have to say, some overwhelmingly clear and rigorously collected data in this one book alone convincingly contradict this ill-informed statement
First of all, the observation that US's shrinking middle class is attributable to an increasing upper-middle class is objectively true, it's not that controversial [4].
Second of all, Piketty's argument is more that capital's share of growth will necessarily outpace labor's share of growth (r > g).
Third of all, Piketty isn't gospel. There have been a number of rebuttals published since his findings that make fairly strong refutations.
The IMF studied empirical evidence to see if it matches up with Piketty/Saez/Zucman's theoretical models, and was unable to validate their finding[1].
Further studies showed that r > g almost entirely goes away when you exclude land/housing appreciation, mostly attributable to restrictive zoning regulations [2].
Auten & Splinter found that Piketty failed to account for existing taxes and transfers. When you do that, the perceived growth in inequality goes away almost entirely[3][5].
