Short skirts, pollution and War.

the hemline index has been replaced

You probably remember the ‘hemline index’? Three years after an economic downturn, dresses and skirts get longer.

Three years after an economic boom, they get shorter.

Yes, I know, I’m sorry. Kilts don’t change length, and they aren’t skirts nor are they dresses!

Would it surprise you to know that changes in air pollution levels cause changes in consumer spending? Well, this seems to be the case, at least in South Korea. As particulate pollution levels increase, so too does consumer spending on so-called hedonistic goods. How wild is that?

So we get more pollution and more consumption, which increases pollution, which increases consumption. Unfortunately for the economies of some countries ;-), Australia and New Zealand, for example, the air is relatively clean. This means lower relative consumer spending. Some cities have managed to ‘clean their air’ a bit, such as Beijing and Rybnik in Poland, which is bad news for their economies, so to speak. In general, however, it’s all ‘OK’. As the WHO points out, ‘99% of the world's population lives in places that do not meet recommended air quality levels.’ So that’s good news for the global economy and the industries that produce hedonistic goods.

It’s all a bit of a conundrum, though. If we reduce pollution levels, consumer spending won’t rise, which means that the economy won’t boom and hemlines won’t rise either. The latter means that people stay with their existing wardrobe, which means lower consumer spending and lower economic growth. Gosh.

The other problem with reducing air pollution is that it means fewer people falling ill. This results in lower demand for pharmaceutical products and hospital and mortuary services. This is a form of consumer demand and results in lower economic growth. On the flip side, however, if fewer people fall ill from air pollution, it means they are more active as consumers of other goods, except they aren’t consuming as much because there is less pollution. It’s all complicated enough to make you want to pull your hair out! Except if you do that, then you’ll consume less shampoo and take shorter showers; this will reduce consumer demand, leading to less air pollution, which leads to less consumer demand. It’s interesting to note that 72.7% of economists are bald, so that’s not good for the economy.

Sanghwa Kim, who co-authored the South Korea study, says, "pronounced among pleasure-seeking categories—from gourmet snacks and entertainment gadgets to wellness products—due to their ability to lift the mood of consumers." This, however, can cause "developing unhealthy and addictive routines in addition to negatively impacting households with revolving debt accumulation." But Kim, this is a good thing, isn’t it? More debt equals more consumer spending, which equals more pollution, which leads to more consumer debt and more spending.

There has to be something wrong in the calculations, somewhere. Perhaps it’s using economic growth as a parameter of human health and well-being? I wouldn’t be the first to suggest this. What these sorts of studies help reveal is the absurdity of the production/consumption/debt spiral that pushes economic growth and at the same time destroys the environment and human health.

We are burdened with a political elite for whom economic growth is the El Dorado. Well-developed theories about zero-growth, stable state economies, thought up by serious economists, are ignored, at best, and vilified, at worst. Theories about de-globalisation and the development of sustainable local economies are seen as coming straight from the mouth of Satan or someone similar. One reason for this is that a growing economy means more wealth that can be harvested by the wealthy elite to increase their stockpile.

Measured as the fraction of income going to the richest 1% of residents, income inequality has been rising since the 1980s. The fraction has doubled in both China and the United States during that time, increased by 50% in Europe, and one-third worldwide.

Up until the 2000’s global standards of living tended to increase, as Hans Roslin pointed out. He didn’t point out that this was at the expense of the environment and the environmental services on which we depend. Global inequality has been increasing, and so too has environmental degradation. We rid ourselves of the 19th and early 20th century smog to replace them with invisible PM2.5 smog that kills just as effectively. We reduced lead pollution but increased that from so-called eternal molecules and plastics. All in the name of economic growth.

To take our minds off it all, we are being led back into a world at war, and this, of course, increases the demand for munitions and hospital and mortuary services. What we tend bizarrely to call ‘a victory’ for some people will result in increased consumer spending, people will change their wardrobes to get stuff with shorter hemlines, which will increase consumer spending, and so on. I agree with the Pub landlord about the war thing, well, I mostly agree with him!

Isn’t it about time to say STOP? Let’s go pro-social; let’s work together, all of us, to sort this mess out.