3 ms·

> It is not obvious at all. There is no evidence at all of a general trend toward planned obsolescence. This is another layman's talking point. All incentives

by jahaja 6y ago

> It is not obvious at all. There is no evidence at all of a general trend toward planned obsolescence. This is another layman's talking point. All incentives in capitalism encourages quick cyclic consumption, and corporations spend vast amounts of resources to various forms of obsolescence [0]. This can't just be ignored even if you would like it, because it blatantly shows how wasteful the current system is. > You didn't even address what I provided about Pareto Efficiency "I ignored your questioned and posted something else, now please answer what I posted meanwhile I'll keep ignoring the question". > Yes it is alleging a conspiracy, and you're claiming Economics in general has been coopted by it. This is no different than anti-vaxxerism. A field of study with so close connections to power and wealth must be seen with skepticism. It's like not questioning the upper-classes theories of society of old. There's a lot of examples of theories justifying their privileges. There's also an important distinction to be made. It's true that capitalism/free-market produces alot of stuff. But it's certainly not true that it produces freedom, happiness, and justice for all. The problem is that you will take the former to justify the latter injustices. That's obvious bias. [0] Planned obsolescence: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/15/the-right-to-repair-planned-obsolescence-electronic-waste-mountain https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/15/the-right... https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/resources/A%20circular%20economy%20for%20smart%20devices.pdf https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/resources/A%20circular%20e... https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/23/were-are-all-losers-to-gadget-industry-built-on-planned-obsolescence https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/23... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-about-the-planned-obsolescence-of-tech https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-... https://www.consumersinternational.org/news-resources/blog/posts/built-to-fail-is-planned-obsolescence-really-happening/ https://www.consumersinternational.org/news-resources/blog/p... https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/origin-and-myths-of-planned-obsolescence/ https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/origin... "Yale University economics professor Judith Chevalier explained to the BBC that companies react to consumer tastes, and that planned obsolescence is not simply a deception by manufacturers, but in certain situations the fault lies with consumers, who do not value a more durable product, but one that possesses the latest technology." (admits to its existence, but just blames it on the consumer instead) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence" https://www.jstor.org/stable/1884176?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1884176?seq=1

CryptoPunk 6y ago
Again with the layman's characterization of what incentives exist in capitalism. A free market rewards products that win consumers over, and product reputation is a major factor that goes into consumer decisions. Look at Apple. It developed an extremely good reputation for both quality and durability long before the first version of the iphone was released. Today Apple is worth $2 trillion making it the largest company in the world. There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science. You're debating me in bad faith, with seemingly no care to ensure your statements have been rigorously fact-checked and stand up to critical analysis. In other words, you're not taking any responsibility for the accuracy of what you claim. There's no humility in your arguments, in that you don't demonstrate concern about the damage you may be doing if you're wrong, or even that you may wrong. Making broad claims of deep flaws in the socioeconomic structure, without an ironclad argument that you have verified for yourself genuinely stands up to scrutiny, is reckless, and shows total irresponsibility. As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite, and you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself.
- jahaja 6y ago
  You just keep replying with shallow anecdotes and telling me that I'm a ignorant layman without saying why. Apparently ignoring the links as well. Apple is one of the most common examples of planned obsolescence, so much so that nations (France especially) have recently gone about to sue and create laws to oppose their practices. So I'm not sure why you're using that example and also adding that it's a large company like that is relevant in any way shape or form. The entire point of planned obsolescence is to make more money ffs. If anything, that is some strange mental gymnastics. > There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science. You haven't spent a single minute refuting anything in any thread I've replied to you in. It's all just hot air from you, every single time. If it doesn't fit your free market narrative, like planned obsolescence this time, you just ignore it or dismiss it with extremely shallow cherry-picking. > As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite, Not really. I am however disagreeing with the notion that the "free market" objectively leads to the best outcome possible, so history should stops with free market Capitalism. That no more progress is possible. That a much more equal economical system, and thus society isn't possible - "because free market economics have said so!". And I do think that the field of economics is biased towards the current status quo due to the incentive structures that are present in that field, among with the fact that the current system is what is the core of what is actually studied. > you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself. Yes. Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field.

by jahaja 6y ago

CryptoPunk 6y ago

Again with the layman's characterization of what incentives exist in capitalism. A free market rewards products that win consumers over, and product reputation is a major factor that goes into consumer decisions. Look at Apple. It developed an extremely good reputation for both quality and durability long before the first version of the iphone was released. Today Apple is worth $2 trillion making it the largest company in the world. There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science. You're debating me in bad faith, with seemingly no care to ensure your statements have been rigorously fact-checked and stand up to critical analysis. In other words, you're not taking any responsibility for the accuracy of what you claim. There's no humility in your arguments, in that you don't demonstrate concern about the damage you may be doing if you're wrong, or even that you may wrong. Making broad claims of deep flaws in the socioeconomic structure, without an ironclad argument that you have verified for yourself genuinely stands up to scrutiny, is reckless, and shows total irresponsibility. As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite, and you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself.

jahaja 6y ago
You just keep replying with shallow anecdotes and telling me that I'm a ignorant layman without saying why. Apparently ignoring the links as well. Apple is one of the most common examples of planned obsolescence, so much so that nations (France especially) have recently gone about to sue and create laws to oppose their practices. So I'm not sure why you're using that example and also adding that it's a large company like that is relevant in any way shape or form. The entire point of planned obsolescence is to make more money ffs. If anything, that is some strange mental gymnastics. > There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science. You haven't spent a single minute refuting anything in any thread I've replied to you in. It's all just hot air from you, every single time. If it doesn't fit your free market narrative, like planned obsolescence this time, you just ignore it or dismiss it with extremely shallow cherry-picking. > As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite, Not really. I am however disagreeing with the notion that the "free market" objectively leads to the best outcome possible, so history should stops with free market Capitalism. That no more progress is possible. That a much more equal economical system, and thus society isn't possible - "because free market economics have said so!". And I do think that the field of economics is biased towards the current status quo due to the incentive structures that are present in that field, among with the fact that the current system is what is the core of what is actually studied. > you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself. Yes. Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field.