You are 100% correct. At this point it's become anti-American to even suggest spending less money.

This episode of EconTalk addresses the issue of transaction costs for things like lawnmowers and drills, and how future apps might solve that problem: https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-sharing-transacti...

But there's more to it to desire an own mower:

1. Everybody wants to mow at the same time

2. Community goods are often treated careless, leaving me with a dirty or non-functional mower when it is my turn

3. Who is responsible for repairs

Not only that, but the last lawn mower I bought (with my first house) lasted me 20 years. Whereas I'm sure a lawn mower that is used 15 times a week wouldn't last much more than a season or two.

Off topic, but when I bought a new mower last year, I couldn't believe how far the technology has come. No more primer bulb, starts easily on the first pull, and a few other items I don't recall off the top of my head. Same with cars, for example if you get out of it while it is still in gear it automatically puts itself in park, and it can limp home with loss of coolant (it fires every other cylinder pushing air through the others for cooling).

There are many different grades of mowers. A cheap residential mower is cheap and lasts just long enough that you don't think it was junk when you have to replace it. A commercial mower is used more in a month than most people mow in a lifetime and is built to higher quality (and price).

The neighborhood mower would cost 10x as much last just as long and serve the needs of 20 people - so a better deal in the long run. However what price are you willing to pay to not have to use the mower on your neighborhood's schedule - owning your own is probably worth it for you.

Do you have a reference for the car engine thing? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything yet. Sounds really interesting, I'd like to read more.

Here is the owners manual for my car: http://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/Catalog/owner... On page 259, under the heading "Fail-Safe Cooling".

  If the engine reaches a preset
  over-temperature condition, the engine
  automatically switches to alternating
  cylinder operation. Each disabled cylinder
  acts as an air pump and cools the engine.
  When this occurs, your vehicle still
  operates, however:
  • Engine power is limited.
  • The air conditioning system turns off.
  Continued operation increases the engine
  temperature, causing the engine to
  completely shut down. Your steering and
  braking effort increases in this situation.

Ford has been doing this for decades (I think I saw it mentioned in the docs for EEC IV.) It turns off fuel for a cylinder here and there intending to pump heat out of the engine (a cylinder with no fuel is an air pump.)

It doesn't really let you operate with no coolant. Might get you farther before you die if you push it.

You are correct, that the manual doesn't specifically say it can operate without coolant (now that I re-read it). What it does is active fail safe mode, then will shut the engine off once the temperature goes above another (higher) threshold. So I guess if coolant is completely gone (instead of just low), you may be able to drive for a few minutes then be shut down for a while before driving again (the main purpose is to give you enough time to find a safe spot to stop).

> it can limp home with loss of coolant (it fires every other cylinder pushing air through the others for cooling).

Wow, this really cheered up my morning. Thanks.

Slightly ironically, your desire (understandable) to own your own mower overall contributes to the ultimate community good, the world, being left dirtier and non-functional.

This is not true. What happens in the real world is that the communal mower will be hogged by the committee members put in charge of managing the mower. They need to do this for the good of the community. Pretty soon they will need to manage other community resources. Some animals are just more equal than others after all.

You could ask the same question about coffee makers in an office, but we don't have coffee makers on every workers desk.

I think you have less congestion. I can come back 10 min later if the maker is blocked. That doesn't work with mowers.

Start a landscaping cooperative?

Nobody wants to drag a lawnmower from the other side of the neighborhood every time they want to mow their lawn.

And over the long run, sharing lawnmowers wouldn't even reduce total lawnmower production. The shared lawnmowers would run more hours per week and need replacement sooner.

> And over the long run, sharing lawnmowers wouldn't even reduce total lawnmower production. The shared lawnmowers would run more hours per week and need replacement sooner.

This is only true if people fully utilize their personal lawnmower before discarding it. I doubt this is the case. It seems that sharing would result in less discarding of under-utilized lawnmowers, and thus reduce the number of lawnmowers needed. Of course, I'm not saying anyone should be forced to do this.

Working lawnmowers get sold and used, not discarded. So that has virtually zero impact on the number of lawnmowers needed.

I feel like I am the only person around me who maintains (changes oil, rebuilt carb etc.) equipment and people seem to treat lawnmowers the worst. I swear I think people throw them away because they're out of fuel sometimes.

Unused working lawnmowers can rust and stop working.

Lawnmowers rust if they're not properly maintained, regardless of use. There's no evidence that shared lawnmowers would rust slower. Probably the opposite because when people own their own lawnmowers they're move like to maintain them properly. So no, sharing wouldn't reduce the net demand.

I understand the point you're making. (lawnmowers are simply a single example of a resource people do not wish to share)

But, they're also a great example: we shouldn't have lawns which add nothing to the ecosystem and require resources to maintain.

[edited]

Most things won't pass your "test" on worthiness. You might be in a lonely group thinking it's a great test.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Most of us have a lot of things which add nothing to the ecosystem and require resources to maintain. Why single out lawns?

Because each yard out there could in principle support at least a little biodiversity: at least some plants, some insects. Curated lawns tend to the opposite.

But plants are "weeds" and insects are "pests." So people spray neurotoxins, and see how much biodiversity they can destroy.

There's no shortage of biodiversity where I live, and my kids sure seem to enjoy the lawn. If there's a problem with certain lawn care chemicals then address that through the appropriate legislative process.

I'm glad to hear it. I'd much rather be wrong on the internet, and have it turn out that you guys have some nice plant and animal life.