How can we stop buying so much stuff?

How can we stop buying so much stuff?

Raphael Cohen Susewind (RCS): You found it, I think. Where did you find it?

Julia Cohen (JC): I found it. On the side of the road somewhere [

RCS: In Brixton

JC: And was like, this was so cool, but it was huge. It's enormous because it's a vertical record player with a tape deck and a radio. It'll get really, really heavy.

RS: ... The funny thing about this machine is because it's old, it's actually all screwed. Like it's not glued together. It's easy to repair and open up.

RS. And Youtube where you just look, watch someone repairing, something like this or repairing a record player or explaining it or repairing a coffee machine and then you follow along. It's kaput already.

Sue Windebank (SW): Amid the sounds of family life, Julia Cohen, from LSE's Department of Geography, and her partner Raphael Cohen Susewind, also an academic at LSE, are discussing their shared passion for rescuing and repairing things that might otherwise be discarded.

The rare vintage vertical record player found on the side of the street.

The phone with a battery that needs replacing.

The toaster that doesn't pop up anymore

Things that would otherwise be thrown away as the detritus of our modern lives.

Welcome to LSE iQ, the podcast where research meets real life. We ask social scientists and other experts one intelligent question – and talk to people directly affected by the issues we explore. I'm Sue Windebank, and this month we're asking 'How can we stop buying so much stuff?'

I'll hear how reusing printer cartridges led to a police raid in India.

How a customs loophole led to six billion parcels arriving in the UK from China in just one year.

And, how companies shape our desires, often without us even realising it.

SW: When she’s not fixing things herself, Julia Cohen – formerly Julia Corwin - is an urban ethnographer interested in waste, recycling and repair. Her research led her to India, where she initially thought she would focus on the hazards involved in the disposal of electronic waste. Instead, she became fascinated by the thriving re-use and repair industry.

South Delhi’s Nehru Place is a market where, among the traders selling cheap children’s toys, socks and smartphone cases, you can also find skilled repairers and savvy traders offering printer ink refilling services and electronics that have been refurbished or remanufactured and resold.

Julia tells me about ‘Printer Uncle', a retired government officer who opened one of the first printer and cartridge repair shops in Delhi in the mid 1990s.

JC: He had a whole array of printers that were test printers. And so, he would put in a cartridge and have it print. And then he could look at a piece of paper. And based on what that printer cartridge had printed, he could tell you what was wrong with the printer cartridge. He had learned all of this himself just by observing. And it was to me, one of the evidences of like, to me, if it's got streaks one way versus lines, versus it didn't have dots, versus it did have dots.

To me, this is all just an unreadable piece of badly printed paper. But he was able to see the story of what was wrong with the printer cartridge and was able to then assess what needed to be repaired or replaced. And essentially, he made it so that these printer cartridges could be endlessly repaired because he could always either fix it or replace a part. This obviously was going to infuriate printer companies. He did tell me at some point, I think in the early 2000s, he got raided by the police because some company had reported him. And then nothing ended up happening because he was not actually doing anything illegal.

SW: Printer Uncle’s work made toner and ink cartridges endlessly reuseable. And – although it probably didn’t win him any fans among the well-known printer manufacturers - his shop significantly reduced the waste of these otherwise one-time use items.

At Nehru Place, Julia also saw the creative remanufacturing of electronics, that would have otherwise been discarded.

JC. There was a lot of collection of used laptop batteries that were used to make all different types of batteries for other things, because laptop batteries need to power a laptop, which is quite powerful. But it could become the battery for a kid's toy, for instance. Or actually, a lot of these became batteries for power packs for your mobile phone or something.

I saw batteries being reused to make lighting systems for the market that I was mainly doing a lot of my research in.

SW: Julia observed flexibility, creativity - and also playfulness.

JC. A lot of repair and reuse is about trying to find new ways to either make things work or to use things in different ways. And to not be so stuck to the idea that things are built only for one thing or only for one person and cannot have all of these various different lives. There's a Hindi or a North Indian word jugaad, which is making do with materials that aren't exactly what you would need.

It's used a lot to talk about hardship or the inability to have the exact things that you need. So, then you make do. You kind of think of it a little bit as bricolage, but we don't really have an English word for it. Sometimes they translate it as DIY and that doesn't encapsulate it at all. But it is a mentality of making do and finding new ways to use things, which is inherently creative.

SW: But while their work kept materials out of landfill, Printer Uncle and the repairers and scrap dealers of Nehru Place did not see what they did as environmental work.

JC. it is quite significant that they are essentially reducing waste through their work. And a lot of the scrap guys that I talked to in India, they would not have framed their own work as environmental, but they definitely understood the West as wasteful and understood themselves as not wasteful. They used the term in English, 'use and throw'. They called the US and the West in general a use and throw country. And understood that in comparison with that, they were really focusing on the value of things that did not have to be new.

SW: The traders and repairers of Nehru Place see value in things that many of us would throw away. But in wealthy countries, we're often encouraged to do exactly the opposite. Products are replaced long before they've reached the end of their useful lives.

So where does this urge to keep buying new things come from? I spoke to Dr Fred Basso from LSE's Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science.

Fred Basso (FB): You can go back from the very beginning of the 20th century. For instance, you had, it was the head of research for General Motors, and his name is Charles Kettering. And he actually published an article in which he explains that we need to keep the consumers dissatisfied. You need to keep them dissatisfied because if they are dissatisfied, they want to buy more. If you satisfy people's needs and if they're happy with what they have, then they don't want to buy more. And he says, "Look, in the current economic system, we can't have this because if people don't buy more, then what are we going to do? How are we going to maintain our economic activity?" And we need to understand that this is baked into the economic system.

SW: For Charles Kettering, widespread satisfaction threatened economic growth. If people were content with what they owned, demand would slow and the economy would grind to a halt.

FB: And there is this assumption that is that we have unlimited wants. If we study people and look whether they have unlimited wants, we don't find this out. We know that people have needs and these needs are limited. So we could think differently about our wants and our needs.

But one thing that is key is that we do believe that we have unlimited wants because our wants are engineered and they are engineered with quite advanced and sophisticated techniques. You have generations of people who have been trained to basically foster people’s wants and to make sure that they buy more. Two main techniques that exist are quite well documented in the literature. You have planned obsolescence, so you make sure that the products are not going to last too long so that then you have to buy more and you have to buy a new product. And there is also the logic of fashion or collection. So basically we create new product, new product lines, and we foster this desire for something that is different.

SW: The washing machine that is cheaper to replace than repair. The phone that slows with age. The shirt that suddenly feels out of fashion. These are all examples of planned obsolescence – products designed to become unusable, undesirable or unfashionable, pushing us towards the next purchase.

FB: We are in a society where there is an increase of individualism. And this individualism is associated with what we call the development of multiple selves. So think of the way you portray yourself on LinkedIn and the way you portray yourself on Facebook and the way you portray yourself on Instagram. Actually, every time you are speaking to different people. And it could also be the way you portray yourself on Tinder or Bumble or whatever. So these apps, you can read them as illustrations of the multiple selves that we could have.

And we see what we possess as a form of what we call in the literature sometimes the extended self. So you extend yourself through your belongings. They represent something that is about you. So we have this kind of extension of the self that is fostered by materialism, by individualism, that is nurtured in our society. And it becomes today very difficult for people to think about themselves without increasing, for instance, consumption or buying new things and so on.

SW: According to Fred, as individualism has grown, so has the idea that our identities are something we create for ourselves. As we move between different social worlds, consumption helps us express and reinvent who we are.

SW: Is there a sense that people are trying to gain meaning through buying things? And if so, why is that?

FB: So in psychology, social psychology, sociology, what we call critical sociology also, there is a sense that we cannot find meaning at work anymore. And why is that? We don't find meaning at work because the work is standardized to a large extent for many people because we don't have that much control over what we do.

SW: Workplace models such as Fordism and Taylorism emerged in the early twentieth century as manufacturers looked for ways to boost productivity and lower costs. By breaking work into specialised tasks and concentrating decision-making at the top, they made production more efficient but often left workers with little control over their daily work - and a growing sense of disconnection from it, says Fred.

FB: So basically we divide labor to maximize the output, so the productivity. And when we do that, we ask people to become, in some way, to accept that they are a cog in the machine. And so the meaning of your economic activity on a daily basis is not something that is that rich. So you feel alienated from your work. As you don't find meaning at work, you think that what is left to you is to find meaning through your consumption. So you are looking for meaning outside of your work. So you keep producing things that are not meaningful to you. It's standardized work. So you have to do it. You have to make a living. And then with this, you find some form of expression of yourself that you don't have at work through your consumption or through your leisure. But leisure takes a bit more time than consumption.

And everything is also facilitated for you to consume. Everything is meant for you to consume as easily as possible. We make it move, we make it easy for you to buy and so on. And so therefore we think that through our consumption, we are going to find meaning.

SW: If consumption has become a way of expressing who we are, technology has made that easier than ever. In recent years, wealthy Western societies have entered an era of hyper-consumption, with shopping apps putting an endless stream of products at our fingertips. Lilia Akatova, from LSE’s Centre for Economic Transition Expertise, explains how the e-commerce boom of the early 2020s helped drive this trend, with large volumes of very cheap parcels being sent directly from China to consumers.

Lilia Akatova (LA): In a few countries, including the UK, but also the US, but also in the EU in general, there is this deminimis exemption for low-value parcels and it was created a long time ago before they actually predicted that e-commerce might even exist someday. And then it was actually to make customs procedures and custom treatment of low-value parcels easy, considering that the volume of them was quite low and then they didn't have to deal with the lengthy procedures of the customs at the border to go and look through all of them.

But later on, I would imagine around 5, 10 years ago when all these e-commerce giants came to light, such as Shein and Temu, they just started using this loophole to get their products to consumers in the UK and the EU and the US. And the problem with that, that they didn't have to fill out any difficult customs form and they could export pretty easily a lot of products that they produced. And then this low volume turned into huge volume with the rise of this e-commerce giants such as Shein and Temu, even though their original system was not designed for them to exist and to use it.

SW: Do you have an idea of what kind of scale we're looking at here in terms of these parcels?

LK: It's actually, it's huge, it's tremendous. And in the UK, the latest estimate that was in the last financial year, 2024-2025, it was close to six billion parcels arriving per year. And even two years before, it was something like 3.5. So it's saying that it increased already by quite a huge volume even in the past year. And you can see how fast these e-commerce giants and I guess their business are growing.

SW: That’s extraordinary. What needs to be done to tackle this issue?

LK: So the UK government has recently consulted on removing this de minimis exemption for low-value parcels.

SW: This is the customs duty exemption that Lilia mentioned earlier, where parcels worth less than £135 can be imported into the UK without customs duties being charged.

LK: They're closing this loophole and they're introducing fresh additional checks, but also they're introducing customs duties that they previously didn't have to pay. I mean, in the UK at the moment, we don't know how it's going to evolve because they only closed the consultation some months ago in March 2026, but some countries are already ahead. So the US has removed it last summer in 2025 and the EU is going ahead now. So they don't have a very elaborated system in place now, but they started with a first provisional customs duty that's going to be in place from July 2026 onwards. And then they're going to charge a provisional fee of three euros per parcel.

So I guess it's not going to solve all the problems, but it's going to prevent some parcels from entering. And also they're going to undergo more rigorous checks than they currently do because also there is a huge problem with health issues and what materials they are made of and what they're being used for. And also because they are not checked for any kind of security or safety outcomes, they can just flood the market without being checked.

SW: Since we recorded this interview with Lilia, the UK government has announced it will end the customs duty exemption for low value packages by October 2028. Industry bodies, such as the UK Fashion and Textiles Association, have expressed disappointment that progress can’t be made faster. Their concern reflects how quickly Chinese and other manufacturers are able to respond to changing conditions.

LK: Since the US has already closed this loophole and the EU is closing it now, the UK might be the market that will be increasingly targeted. There is some first evidence on that happening. I mean, it's not that big yet because the EU has only acted quite recently as well. But there is a huge concern that they're going to redirect their transportation of their goods towards the UK, especially towards Northern Ireland, to then also bring them to the mainland Europe without having to pay necessarily necessary duties in the EU.

SW: Countries are acting to stem this flow of exceptionally cheap, unregulated, and potentially harmful, products from China. But wouldn’t it be easier if we could just convince people to stop buying stuff? Could demarketing be the answer.

FB: So demarketing is literally like trying not to sell, which is quite paradoxical because then we start talking to businesses and say, "Well, you could use techniques of demarketing. So basically you could try not to sell what you are producing." So I'm caricaturing, but it's basically a bit what is going on.

SW: Fred and his colleagues Dallas O’Dell and Ganga Shreedhar, wanted to find out if people could be convinced to buy less using this approach. They teamed up with a sustainable toiletries company to create a series of Instagram-style adverts. Some adverts encouraged people to make greener choices, while others took a more radical approach, asking people to simply buy and consume less.

But the ads had little effect on people’s desire to buy.

FB: There is that kind of self-contradiction in there in people's minds because you are in the marketplace and when you're in the marketplace, you behave as a consumer. And when you go as a consumer, well, you go there to consume.

SW: Patagonia’s famous 2011 advertising campaign illustrates the point. Committed to reducing unnecessary consumption, the outdoor clothing company ran an ad in The New York Times urging readers: “Don’t Buy This Jacket”.

FB: When Patagonia did this campaign, it actually improved the perception of the brand as a brand that is activist and dedicated. And so what people thought is that actually they wanted to support this kind of a corporation. And when you go through the market, the only way you can support the organization is basically to buy. So you end up with this kind of irony, which is like they do a 'Don't Buy' campaign and they end up with increased sales.

SW: Patagonia's sales surged and the company went on to post record profits. The irony raises a difficult question – can we tackle the environmental costs of consumption without consuming less?

Many businesses believe the answer lies in the circular economy, which keeps materials in use for longer rather than throwing them away.

JC: So, the circular economy in responding to the linear economy is saying we're going to bring materials back into the system. And so, I think there's been from, I don't know, a lot of like more economic or industrial theoretical perspectives, they think it's great. It's like the new buzzword. Industry loves it because it makes them feel green. I think it's essentially a greenwashing concept, because if you still have companies that are dependent on the production of commodities in order to exist. If they made the perfect product that worked forever, we would not buy any more of their things. And so, yes, it's better to use some recycled things rather than using all new materials. I mean, recycling is better than using non-recycled materials, but it's still hugely energy intensive. It's going to contribute to climate change. It is hugely materials intensive. It uses a lot of water. It is not the perfect solution to things. And instead of the circular economy, I would suggest that we move towards more of a reuse and repair economy, where we are not remaking new things, which is continuing this assumption that we need new commodities. We need to have a new phone. We need to have a new, whatever, house. We need to have a new car. Everything needs to be modernized and updated constantly to think about what it would mean to instead just repair them or reuse them in the sense that somebody else might find them useful. And it can be new to us, but not an actual new product.

SW: What would a reuse-based circular economy look like? And is it even possible?

JC: It is definitely possible. I mean, unfortunately, I think it's very difficult in our current economic framework. I think we have a sort of hypercharged commodity-based capitalism and commodity capital depends on the constant purchasing of things. Most of the companies that we use and buy and exist with and work for, this is what they're doing. And you can think about immaterial labor and immaterial things, but everything is based in the material world. And it is all having environmental consequences and labor consequences. And it would be difficult. I think it would need to be a larger scale change. There needs to be structural change. But I think that we can all embody this ourselves.

And I don't like putting a lot of pressure on personal decisions because I don't think that is a fair way to enact change, to put a lot of pressure on individuals. But I think there can be a loveliness to a repair perspective and a reuse perspective, where you begin to really respect the things that you use in an everyday basis. The idea that we can have a caring relationship with our things, that we don't have to just assume because they're inconvenient or not working or something, that we just get rid of them. Instead, we think about maintaining and repairing them. And I think that overall approach to life and the material world and our things we can all embody.

Things cannot be recycled forever. At some point there is an actual end of life for most things. But if you can delay that and give it a lot of different lives with a lot of different people, you can actually have a very rich life with things while also passing them on to people and really reduce our dependence on buying new things.

SW: For Julia, there's an important difference between making consumption more sustainable and reducing it altogether. While the circular economy focuses on recycling materials back into production, she believes a more transformative approach should focus on repairing, reusing and caring for the things we already have.

This is a perspective echoed by Lilia Akatova.

Lilia Akatova: We need to attach more emotional value to things we have, to clothing items we have. For example, when something is broken or has like a minor flaw, maybe we can repair it instead of throwing it away and finding a new item. And I feel like when we cherish what we have, we care more about it rather than throwing it away straight away after a minor problem.

SW: Repairing rather than replacing may help us break the cycle of overconsumption.

But Fred Basso believes we need to radically rethink not just what we consume, but how our economy is organised and who it ultimately serves.

Fred: It's so easy to buy today. Everything is meant for you to buy. So we can't blame people because they buy.

Since 1990, we emitted more greenhouse gases than since 1850. So in 30 years, we polluted it much more than since 1850.

You see that we increase pollution since shareholder capitalism is literally like dominating the system at a large scale since the '80s, '90s. So now economic democracy thinks completely differently from that because economic democracy, it's people who work in an organization are actually the owners of the organization. So I am working in an organization and this organization belongs to me as much as it belongs to my colleague and so on. And so the way we make decisions is not because someone has a lot of shares and they can decide on what is going on. It's because everyone has a vote. So one person, one vote.

So we are around the table and we are going to make decisions. And we're going to say whether we want to do this kind of economic activity or not. But think about that, how much it matters because the people who are on the table in this organization, they are living next door. They have their kids. They have their families. They have their friends. They care about what is going on in their surrounding. And so perhaps they will think twice if actually increasing the activity is going to pollute their own surrounding because they don't want their kids to drink polluted water because they don't want people to breathe like terrible chemicals and so on. And of course, if it belongs to the communities, then we are going to start creating products that may be very different, the ones that might benefit to the local needs of the community and not that are generated with a specific purpose in mind, which is just to raise money and to make profit.

So there could be a very different way of approaching economic life. And if we do it that way, then it becomes more meaningful because you start thinking of what you do in connection with your community. And that is called purpose. That is called meaning. It's, "Oh, now I'm doing something for the people around me. I'm not doing something for this abstract hedge fund that is very far away, but doesn't give a damn about my own existence and that is basically looking or more return on investment.

SW: This episode was written and produced by me, Sue Windebank with script development by Sophie Mallet and edited by Joshua Aderinola. If you’d like to find out more about the research in this episode, head to the shownotes. And if you enjoy iQ, please leave us a review.

If you liked this podcast, you might like 'Inspiring Economics', a new podcast from LSE's Centre for Economic Performance. In the latest episode Professor Richard Layard, co-director of the Centre’s wellbeing programme, talks about the research paper which inspired him to change course and dedicate his career to finding ways to make us all happier. Listen to this and other episodes wherever you get your podcasts.