5 ms·

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

by 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.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
You're lying, or simply not reading what I'm writing. Like I said, the Reddit comment I linked to cites a chart showing the rise in the average lifespan of cars. This criticism is also a case of extreme hypocrisy. You provided no evidence at all for a general tendency of capitalism to produce planned obsolescence, while criticizing me for not meeting standards of evidence that you didn't even bother trying to meet. This incredible obstinance shows a complete lack of respect for people who disagee with you, which makes it all the more reckless when you're advancing economic theories roundly rejected by experts in the field. >Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field. No, it is not reasonable at all to discount an entire social science, with over a century of scholarship backing it, without having studied that social science for yourself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not this lazy half-baked analysis based on anecdotes, vague assertions, and unsubstantiated conjecture. What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists.
- jahaja 6y ago
  > You provided no evidence at all Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked" No evidence at all: "8 links, including an economics professor and an article form an economic journal in a self-evident subject" Gotcha. > What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists. Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked" My demonstration of the growing lifespan of cars was more than you provided. You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim. You also edited your comment afterwards to include those links. I didn't see those links when I responded the first time. The quote from the Yale Economics professor is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it, where companies were deliberately reducing the lifespan of products, not as a side effect of reducing their costs to provide lower prices, but as a deliberate objective to get more reorders. It was referring to consumers choosing cheaper products at the expense of shorter product lifespans. This would be a trade-off preferred by a consumer, not a deliberate handicapping of product lifespans, that solely reduces economic value, as a way to gain more reorders. The study you referred is primarily focused on theoretical incentives to engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists, which is already a known source of economic-rent seeking, and an outlier market structure not characteristic of most of the market. Monopolies/oligopolies engage in a host of exploitive rent-seeking practices, and the study merely gave theoretical support for planned obsolescence being one of them. This is hardly the same as your original claim. So no, you haven't come close to proving that planned obsolescence is a general property of market economies. Even the single study you referenced doesn't provide support that assertion. >>Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list. Like I said, claiming Economics is coopted by a capitalist oligarchy to push a fundamentalist ideology for their own benefit, and with nothing more than anecdotes, vague assertions and unsubstantiated conjecture to support your very serious accusation, is absolutely irresponsible quackery, and reminicient of all of the narratives I referenced.

by jahaja 6y ago

CryptoPunk 6y ago

You're lying, or simply not reading what I'm writing. Like I said, the Reddit comment I linked to cites a chart showing the rise in the average lifespan of cars. This criticism is also a case of extreme hypocrisy. You provided no evidence at all for a general tendency of capitalism to produce planned obsolescence, while criticizing me for not meeting standards of evidence that you didn't even bother trying to meet. This incredible obstinance shows a complete lack of respect for people who disagee with you, which makes it all the more reckless when you're advancing economic theories roundly rejected by experts in the field. >Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field. No, it is not reasonable at all to discount an entire social science, with over a century of scholarship backing it, without having studied that social science for yourself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not this lazy half-baked analysis based on anecdotes, vague assertions, and unsubstantiated conjecture. What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists.

jahaja 6y ago
> You provided no evidence at all Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked" No evidence at all: "8 links, including an economics professor and an article form an economic journal in a self-evident subject" Gotcha. > What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists. Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked" My demonstration of the growing lifespan of cars was more than you provided. You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim. You also edited your comment afterwards to include those links. I didn't see those links when I responded the first time. The quote from the Yale Economics professor is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it, where companies were deliberately reducing the lifespan of products, not as a side effect of reducing their costs to provide lower prices, but as a deliberate objective to get more reorders. It was referring to consumers choosing cheaper products at the expense of shorter product lifespans. This would be a trade-off preferred by a consumer, not a deliberate handicapping of product lifespans, that solely reduces economic value, as a way to gain more reorders. The study you referred is primarily focused on theoretical incentives to engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists, which is already a known source of economic-rent seeking, and an outlier market structure not characteristic of most of the market. Monopolies/oligopolies engage in a host of exploitive rent-seeking practices, and the study merely gave theoretical support for planned obsolescence being one of them. This is hardly the same as your original claim. So no, you haven't come close to proving that planned obsolescence is a general property of market economies. Even the single study you referenced doesn't provide support that assertion. >>Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list. Like I said, claiming Economics is coopted by a capitalist oligarchy to push a fundamentalist ideology for their own benefit, and with nothing more than anecdotes, vague assertions and unsubstantiated conjecture to support your very serious accusation, is absolutely irresponsible quackery, and reminicient of all of the narratives I referenced.