Yawn!

Planned Obsolescense is nothing new, nor is it some scinister secret.  Almost everything we buy comes with either an expiration date, or a warranty date.  Do you think they come up with those dates out of the blue?  No, they are based on how long the product was engineered to last.  Yes, obsolescense is part of the reason for the engineering, but the bigger force behind it is the market.

How long does the average person keep the particular type of product before they decide to look for a new one?  Industries have different formulas for it, but basically they are interested in having the next generation of a product ready for the consumer about the time they are back deciding to get rid of the old one and buy a new one.

If your conspiracy theory were true, all some company would have to do is not practice planned obsolescense and everyone would be beating down their door for their product. The fact is, as long is the product lasts until we are ready to buy a new one, we rarely care how much longer it "should" be able to last. Case in point, how much would you be willing to pay for a dining room table that will last 100 years? My guess is (unless you have a love for handmade wood products), you own a dining room table that will last 40 or 50 and laugh at anyone who would pay over $1000 for "the same thing".

As far as the V1, I don't buy it.  How did they get the people who owned them to just give them up?  How did they keep it quiet? 

Conspiracies depend on enough people keeping the secret to make it stick.  If all of the sudden a bunch of Greenies were told they couldn't keep their green car, and had to return to an internal combustion engine, most of them would forget that they are anti gun or anti violent.

I'm pretty sure they were leased and GM refused to continue the contracts.

You have a point about planned obsolesence.  But are wrong about the government.  It is their nature and function of government to be concerned about the welfare of the citizenry, and one of the biggest aspects is for them to have jobs.  Planned obsolescence does that.

After all, China is one of the most tightly controlled societies in the world by the government, and they are also one of the worst offenders of shoddy products (and waste - but that is a different issue).

 

As far as the V1, I don't buy it. How did they get the people who owned them to just give them up? How did they keep it quiet?

As Cacto already stated, GM didn't allow people to buy these cars. They were all leases only. When GM decided to scrap the program many of the people who had driven these vehicles begged the company to be able to buy them. GM refused.

Yawn! Planned Obsolescense is nothing new, nor is it some scinister secret.

You're right, it's not new but it's only gotten worse over the last few years! Nor did I ever say it was a conspiracy or sinister secret. It is however a very serious problem that hasn't been addressed after all this time. It's simply not sustainable, and is a complete and utter waste of resources.

While there are lots of offenders out there, every part of society has given in to this throwaway mentality. Even housing. A house built today vs a house built 100 years ago will probably only last half as long as the older house. And then there's the issue of dumps. Refuse thrown into dumps pretty much makes that land unusable for a long time. No quick fix or easy way out of that one. And land is one thing they're not making anymore of. Cars are only meant to run on the roads for 10 years. From the consumer perspective and the business perspective this is great, as already stated it keeps the factories humming. From a practical perspective, this kind of lifestyle is sheer idiocy, and if we don't pay for it our children or children's children will!

It is their nature and function of government to be concerned about the welfare of the citizenry, and one of the biggest aspects is for them to have jobs. Planned obsolescence does that.

 

Fair enough but at what cost? Would a citizenry be maybe put to better use by having their energies directed to more long lasting beneficial projects (I don't know, public infrastructure in the states needs a big overhaul, new deal anyone?) instead of having them sitting in a factory building widgets that will be thrown away soon after they leave the assembly line? Not only that, but manufacturing has been hollowed out in north America, yet we're the biggest consumers of this crap. So we're not really helping our economy by purchasing all this throwaway junk made in China.

Fair enough but at what cost? Would a citizenry be maybe put to better use by having their energies directed to more long lasting beneficial projects (I don't know, public infrastructure in the states needs a big overhaul, new deal anyone?) instead of having them sitting in a factory building widgets that will be thrown away soon after they leave the assembly line? Not only that, but manufacturing has been hollowed out in north America, yet we're the biggest consumers of this crap. So we're not really helping our economy by purchasing all this throwaway junk made in China.

In a centrally controlled economy, they can try.  As some have done, but it never works.  The government is not inherantly evil in trying to dictate every facet of life (it may be, but that is beside the point), but it is supremely incompetant.  For the same reason that I cannot decorate your house to your likings.

As for "hollowing out", on that I disagree again.  For the same reason that we do not grow food with sickles any longer.  We have found a better way to do it, and have others do it for us now.  This works with a global economy - as is present - and breaks down when the world is at war (and is probably a greater stabilizing factor on world peace than the UN ever will be).  As long as we can freely trade with other nations, nations not qualified to do higher order jobs (yet), then all benefit.  Our manufacturing base was gutted by the depression as well (since no one was buying), yet when needed, it came back to life fairly well.

It is one thing that you and I will never agree on, and that is the Alphabet soup.  Yes, it did many good things, but the disagreement is in the cost.  I think the cost was too high and retarded the recovery from the depression.  Government was just sapping up all capital and not allowing businesses to rebound in a timely fashion.  It was well intended, but very inefficient. And ultimately, not very effective other than to provide work for welfare.

As for "hollowing out", on that I disagree again. For the same reason that we do not grow food with sickles any longer. We have found a better way to do it, and have others do it for us now. This works with a global economy - as is present - and breaks down when the world is at war (and is probably a greater stabilizing factor on world peace than the UN ever will be). As long as we can freely trade with other nations, nations not qualified to do higher order jobs (yet), then all benefit. Our manufacturing base was gutted by the depression as well (since no one was buying), yet when needed, it came back to life fairly well.

Well I definitely appreciate the civilized manner in which we can have these discussions....as to whether or not the current out-sourced production method is actually better or a step backward that remains to be seen. These things tend to have unforeseen circumstances- look at the "green" revolution in the 50's and 60's- while it drastically increased food production it also drastically increased the demand on aquifers and fresh water sources.... there were a few concerned folks who put forth the observation that these improved methods placed an unsustainable demand on freshwater and now we're just starting to run into problems because of it!

while it drastically increased food production it also drastically increased the demand on aquifers and fresh water sources....

Very true!  The nature of "progress" is to maximize the usage of the most available resource - one because of its abundance, and 2 because of its price (cheap).  Thus the natural tendancy is to overuse the resource as more and more turn to the new way of doing business (in the case you cite, irrigation).  This leads to shortages, and again as you point out, puts a limit on the "new" methods. The cost of the "new" method then goes up as either the resource is over used and thus becomes scarce, or society puts a price on replenishing the resource making it too costly in relation to other ventures.

Thus the market is pushed back into equilibrium.  But like the 3rd law of dynamics, the pendulum does not swing to the center, but usually over compensates before finding that equilibrium. So we have opportunity, followed by problem, followed by solution.  It does not happen over night, but allowed to progress, it will always find the equilibrium (just look at the Central Valleys of California).

The mess comes in when government thinks it can do a better job and starts monkeying with not the resources (as society and by extension, the government has to manage the natural resources), but with the supply and demand.  And they will always mess it up.  The Cry of "let the market decide" is not a call for complete laissez faire, but in letting the market do what it does best, and society do what is its charge.

And given the premise I stated (the world at peace - relatively speaking), the markets always will.  As long as government leaves it alone.  War creates an imbalance in markets because goods and services cannot flow freely.  So that does queer things.  But during times of peace, there is no need for "the government outta" as while the intentions are almost always good, the end results are almost always disasterous.

WWII was the last (so far, thank god) real global armed conflict.  But the cold war was a conflict as well, that was won not by arms, but by markets.  The USSR will not become a shining example of a free market over night, but it is getting there.  As is China, and no one need raise a finger in war against them.  They are changing because they must.  And they will not bury anyone (they have not buried Taiwan yet, have they?).  But will simply be "assimilated". Roddenberry's tales are not only grand space opera, but his views on the current and recent past history of the planet.

I wish I had time to discuss and debate more, but my time is limited now.  I do appreciate your articles.  As we see, we do not agree on all things, but that does not mean we cannot respect each other's beliefs and discuss our differences.

I wish I had time to discuss and debate more, but my time is limited now. I do appreciate your articles. As we see, we do not agree on all things, but that does not mean we cannot respect each other's beliefs and discuss our differences.

Exactly the same predicament I find myself in- let me ask you this though... the economy is not a "natural" thing, it is entirely man-made. Could it be possible that this man-made contraption we call economics, combined with ever changing technology and the ability to produce and consume ever more resources succeed in stripping the planet of too many non-renewables? I agree with the concept of the supply/demand cycle and the theoretical balance that it brings but it seems that the over-arching premise is really an attempt to develop or exploit every square inch of the planet in the name of profit. And the issue of what is to be done with all the garbage thrown in landfills that only a year before was counted as GDP still needs to be addressed... while the market itself may cycle in and out of equilibrium, it does not change the fact that there are so many billion mouths to feed, backs to clothe and heads to shelter (not to mention educate too, hopefully) Now if oil naturally replenished itself a little quicker than the current pace it might not be such a big deal.

the economy is not a "natural" thing, it is entirely man-made.

Of course.  It is not made up of the physical laws of the universe, but of the psychological laws that man, as a mob, conform to - out of a survival instinct.

Could it be possible that this man-made contraption we call economics, combined with ever changing technology and the ability to produce and consume ever more resources succeed in stripping the planet of too many non-renewables?

Given a "pure" environment, that is the natural conclusion.

I agree with the concept of the supply/demand cycle and the theoretical balance that it brings but it seems that the over-arching premise is really an attempt to develop or exploit every square inch of the planet in the name of profit.

Agreed.

Now if oil naturally replenished itself a little quicker than the current pace it might not be such a big deal.

True again.  All of what you state is true. In a world that has no goal but pure capitalism and where capitalism makes the laws, it is the natural evolution to trend this way.  But while man makes economics, economics does not make man.  The balance is established through society - and by extension government - imposing restrictions on pure capitalism.  That is what we have.  And yes, what we need.  Society does not want to drink dirty water, or breath bad air, so they must impose a cost on the production of polutants.  When the cost of such polutants reach the point of equilibrium with the production of goods, we have what many people call responsible capitalism.  Goods that cost more to limit the waste that is produced in their production.

Continued below.

(I thought of making a separate article with the rest, but I am enjoying this dialog too much, and don't really have the time to do it justice.)

The forces at war here are the health of the people.  If prices are too high, they cannot live a healthy and happy life because of cost.  Too low, and they cannot due to the waste that is produced by their consumption (it matters not that you can buy the best camping gear in the world if you have no place to use it).  In poor societies, as we see, the government is trying to promote basic standards of living that include daily meals, shelter, and clothing.  Because the populace has nothing, the cost has to be very low, and therefore, the cost to produce is kept low.

As societies become more affluent, and the cost of the necessities of life are no longer an issue, then the society has leisure time.  And they want that leisure time to be quality as well.  Thus they want to impose costs on manufacturers in order to reduce the cost of pollution to enjoy that leisure time.  And the cost of goods must increase to support that.

But when the government stops thinking of the "quality of life" and starts on a jihad of purity, then things get out of balance.  Removing 99% of mercury from the water supply is good and can be done with only marginal costs.  removing 100% is unfeasible and cost prohibitive, as even nature will sabotage that effort.  And provides no real incremental good over the 99% figure.  When one side gains the power to DICTATE that is where the system breaks down. 

Note the word dictate.  That is what a monopoly will do in a pure capitalist society, or a government due in a pure dictatorship.  The government, by design, should not allow a dictatorship.  But with all things human, flaws are the rule, not the exception. So while the government of China is trying to lift its people out of the depths of subsistence, and thus are not shepherding their resources wisely, the government of first world countries are doing the opposite.  Not utilizing their resources due to a mistaken belief that 100% must be the goal, not 99%.  It is a flaw in human nature, not the pure design model (which cannot exist as you note because the system is based on human laws, not physical ones).

Eventually the pendulum will swing back.  Through shortages, or war (hopefully not the latter).  Manufacturing fled the country not because of greed, but because of over regulation that pushed the cost too high (or high enough depending upon your view).  Should the need arise - and in time it will - then the regulations will be reduced to allow for exploitation of the existing resources and manufacturing will return.

While economics is based upon human rather than physical laws, one physical law seems to have precedence over the system.  And that is Newton's third law.  A body in motion tends to stay in motion.  Thus while the pendulum between a clean environment and a prosperous life style swings between the 2 extremes, it will never stop in the "edenic" position.  It will swing too far to one side, and then too far to the other.  Overcompensation.

The real problem occurs when one side gains control over both sides of the equation.  Production and regulation.  Right now, the "greenies" control the government of most first world economies.  So the production side cannot fall under their control, or their wish to push us back to third world status will become a reality.  Conversely, during ramp up to get to first world status, often, the producers have complete control, and that is why the worst pollution is in third world countries (there is no time for leisure, so there is no time for greenies to worry about pollution - most of life is taken up with just creating a living environment).

A long way to make a point, I know (and should be longer, but time is running out).  That is why I don't get into the scare tactics of Greenpeace, ELF or ALF, Al gore, or the other leaders of the GW religion.  Given a pure capitalistic society, where we are all borg and therefore do not care about the quality of life once we have reached the necessities of life, I would agree and join them.

We are not there, and indeed, we do not need fanatics.  We do need rational and sane husbanding of our resources.  Which the producers have been pushed to that point.  So now is not the time to give more power to the fanatics of one side.  But to seek that ever illusive eden point.  All of which is to say that I do not trust pure capitalism to get us there, but we are not in that danger now.  Abuses occur, and companies are dinged for it.  And the smart ones do not break the laws.  But more laws is not what is needed.  Sane laws are. SO that is why I am not going to grab a pitchfork and join a green crusade.  I fight them not because I think we should have a polluted planet, but because we cannot have a 100% pure planet as they want.  Man is a part of nature, not a cancer on it.

Thanks for such a well thought out response Dr. Guy. Definitely deserves an article of it's own! I guess here is where we disagree-

When the cost of such polutants reach the point of equilibrium with the production of goods, we have what many people call responsible capitalism.

I think the idea of responsible capitalism is absolutely wonderful. Sadly I don't believe the current system is anywhere near responsible. Part of this is because we've been able to outsource such a large portion of our manufacturing overseas, we don't have to deal directly with the consequences of the goods produced for our consumption. Out of sight, out of mind. We don't have to live near dead lakes and rivers contaminated from benzene spills, or worry about heavy metal poisoning in the water tables. It is for this reason that I disagree with the assertion that most first world countries governments have swung in the green direction. As to the image they project you are quite right, they do appear to be more environmentally conscious but the sad reality is that we are just as or even more wasteful than before, only now we have managed to put our problem somewhere far away from the pretty artificial suburbs that we call home. Instead of taking out the trash we have simply brushed it under the rug, but it's still there!

To say that these developing countries willingly produce these goods in our name in such a cheap, wasteful fashion is only partly true. Because if they don't produce goods at dirt cheap levels, we pull up the factories and move them somewhere that will, which only continues the abuse. This hapenned to the Phillipines and a host of smaller asian countries already, and when China gets fed up (or if they get fed up, remains to be seen) then the manufacturing will move somewhere else. That, or they'll use the massive trade surplus they're sitting on to buy up all of the soon to be in recession U.S and put americans to work under similar conditions to support their economy. Wouldn't that be a twist of fate?