It's mostly because of earthquakes, they got used to buildings being temporary.
Also sismic regulations are constantly evolving, so newer is safer (because more resistant to earthquake thanks to modern technics) and after some time it's more effective to destroy a building than do the necessary (and mandatory) work to keep up with the regulations.
So no, the Japanese don't want new houses because it's shiny and they're bored of the old ones.
Same with cars. There is apparently little/no used car market in Japan. Lots of our (USA) spare parts for economy cars come over on ships from Japan. Because, no market there.
Even Japanese buildings/houses are rebuilt every N years for the newness. Might not be really sustainable.
This isn't really true. A lot of people buy used cars in Japan. Not sure how you got that information.
At least historically, that's because the inspection process for keeping old cars on the road is so onerous that many people don't want to bother an just got new cars[1]. I don't know how things are now, but it sound like the inspections are still expensive[2].
[1] (90s) http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/world/why-the-cars-in-japa...
[2] (more recent) http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2022.html
http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/buying-a-u...
You also rarely see old cars on the road because (my understanding is) that taxes incentivize people to ditch old cars quickly and get new ones.
My thinking is this extends through various parts of Japanese society, and combined with various taboos, is used by the government to help keep the economy moving. Otherwise, the culturally thrifty Japanese population would just keep everything they have forever and the economy would be in worse shape than it is now.
But I guess in Japan most of the portion of savings goes into international investments, which is good.
Yes it does. Modern economic systems are built on consumerism. Saving large sums of money acts like a vacuum on currency and brings markets to a halt. Flowing money lubricates the economy.
That's basically the sum total of the most recent economic crisis, money wasn't moving, so two presidential administrations through gigantic sums of money at the economy, like spraying it down with WD-40, until it started moving again.
> Either the person spends that money on something else or sticks it in their savings account and the bank loans some of it out for someone else to spend.
The problem is that in aggregate, if nobody is spending money, it doesn't move around at all. If nobody takes out a loan, then that money just sits in the bank. Sitting money means nobody needs to manufacture anything because nobody is buying anything, which means there's no reason to employ anybody, so nobody makes money. Because times are bad, they save what they have even more and spending continues to go down.
Fairly quickly the economy goes into a death spiral, and while plenty of people may have money, there's nothing to spend it on anyway.
China is using the same economic trick that's been used time and time again, in the U.S., Japan, other places, to kickstart their economy. It's dumping money into the economy in huge works projects, mostly construction related, and letting that money slosh around. Japan did it in the 80s, but it's no longer working as well as it once did, because pretty much everything they need to build is built, and the population is shrinking so they need even less things.
Believe it or not, there really is only so many other things that people will buy before you start thinking to yourself "hmmm...I'm not using these things at all and they're taking up space, perhaps I should stop buying useless things".
It's like my Steam account, hundreds of games I'll never have time to play and I have no idea why I bought them. So I've stopped paying attention to Steam Sales and Bundles.
There's only so many appliances, couches, nick-nacks, clothes, electronic goods that you can fit in your house, and only so much time per year to travel. At some point (and this really happens), you just stop buying stuff you don't need to and it just gets piled into various forms of savings.
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper,
James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to
break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a
scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact
that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty
of them, by common consent apparently, offered the
unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an
ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and
what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were
never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory,
which it will be well to show up in this simple case,
seeing that it is precisely the same as that which,
unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical
institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you
say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's
trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of
six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against
it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his
task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in
his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that
which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as
is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break
windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the
encouragement of industry in general will be the result
of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your
theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no
account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six
francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another.
It is not seen that if he had not had a window to
replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes,
or added another book to his library. In short, he would
have employed his six francs in some way, which this
accident has prevented.
Frédéric Bastiat,
in his 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas"
(That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen)
This is correct. You have to pay a hefty bi-annual inspection fee (beginning three years after a new purchase) to keep a vehicle on the road if it's over 250cc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor-vehicle_inspection_%28Ja...
At some point in a vehicle's life, it becomes more economically viable to get rid of it than to keep it up to snuff to pass the inspection. The other vehicle taxes are also based on displacement, so you'll see lots of cute little 1.3L or lower displacement inline-four vans riding around. I kept turning my head because I thought I was hearing motorcycles!