This is Purchasing Power Parity adjusted dollars. So, it already takes that into account.

Yes, by exchange rate dollars $12k can buy you much more in many countries. But with PPP dollars calculations, it buys a similar amount.

Talking BS? Ok. Then discuss the proper methods. Tell me why my graph is using "BS" methods, while the one you cited is the correct method.

No, there isn't. Global GDP per capita is around $12k a year. Even with perfect redistribution, that's still poverty, mate. For everyone. And nobody (not even Marx) says we can have perfectly equal distribution. That system is not viable.

I know you didn't "create" it. 🙄 This is getting silly. Have a good one.

The graph you cited that had nominal depreciation going up. You simply dismissed my graph as "fancy" without acknowledging the result: the depreciation rate has actually been declining, not increasing as you claim.

"forever" is a hyperbole. And they already can buy vehicles that last a million miles. But they don't want to pay for it.

Folks don't want vehicles to last forever and it's not clear they should. Semi truck engines last a million miles. And they cost it, too. But it's worth it in the case if a transport capital expenditure. That said, vehicles do last far longer than they used to. Instead of 100k now they get 200k+

Data requires as much technical precision as a vehicle. Your graph made two rudimentary mistakes and you misinterpreted it. I corrected those mistakes using standard methods. The rate of capital depreciation has decreased. That's a plane fact.

You'll find that if we divide by nominal GDP (so that will take care of both of these issues, as inflation gets cancelled out as well), we see that the share of the economy going to depreciation is declining. It especially started to decline in the 90's.

fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Nip9

You've made two errors with your graph. 1. You're using nominal, not "real" measure. So, you're capturing a lot of price effects. (notice how I said earlier that few folks can calculate "real GDP") And two, you're not doing this as a share of the economy. Are we depreciating at a higher rate now?

Ok, I really don't see how that is relevant. How many people can tell you how to calculate real GDP? Or how the IS-MP-PC model works. Expertise in different domains is the key to economic prosperity.

Do you have a measure of exactly how much "waste" you think is out there?

Reducing "planned obsolence" could be part of degrowth. But it's not even clear how much that's exists. And there is no evidence that the phenomena is large enough to make enough difference to solve our environmental concerns.

I've changed a timing belt on my 1991 Honda Civic. Does that count?

I've read a lot of degrowth papers over the years. Lowering the total production is the primary means to achieve environmental stability. But if they are serious at achieving environmental goals via lowering consumption, my points in the OP stand. A massive increase in poverty for the developed worl

You can't have large investments in new technology with a GDP per capital of $6k.

These numbers are PPP adjusted. While no measure is perfect, the magnitudes we are talking here mean a drastic increase in poverty for high and even medium income countries.

There is, actually. I'm not strawmanning. At only $6k a year per person, we wouldn't have the resources to massively invest in abundant green technology.

Deportations depress demand as well as supply. A lot of papers show a net negative for native wages.

It would have grown by 2.5-3.0 if it weren't for the tariffs.