7 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- jahaja 6y ago
  > You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim. I cherry-picked 8 articles? There are so many articles about it that it's not hard to produce 20 more if you want. Or perhaps info about the court proceedings in France? > is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions. There are several types of planned obsolescence as you can read in the Wikipedia link. All are still a product of the incentive to get more profit. > engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists Yes, and these are also the product of free market incentives.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>I cherry-picked 8 articles? Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets. >>Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions. Your argument is made in bad faith. It's totally disingenuous pedantry. You and I both know that you weren't claiming that 'consumers in a market economy consciously choose lower cost disposable products', when you claimed the market economy produces planned obsolescence. And I don't deserve the accusations you're levying at me. I am debating in good faith, and making sincere arguments that reflect my honest beliefs. I am not lying to myself just to make myself believe I'm right. I'm objectively and fairly assessing what you're saying before responding to your comments. You on the other hand are only trying to win the argument, truth and decency be damned. This pedantic appeal to the 'planned obsolescence' used in an entirely different context than we both know you originally used it in, and subsequent attempt to criticize me for pointing that out, being a case example.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets. That was like just the first 8 articles describing it, as I said, there are certainly many more if you were willing to entertain another perspective than your own dogma. So do you deny that the entire concept of planned obsolescence exists at all, or that there is something other driving it than the free markets pursuit for more profits? If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence? > You and I both know that you weren't claiming Haha, alrighty then. You know what I actually meant. Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives? The last self-congratulating paragraph is not a good look: "I'm good, honest and righteous. You, however, are purposefully lying and have no time for truth and decency." You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays. That's blatant cherry-picking. How is that honest and in good faith? I expect someone that's honest to research the topic and try to find other examples contradicting ones idea, and that is not very hard as I shown with a few links. But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing, and yet again try to hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence, even though it was in direct reference to the supposed "efficiency" of the free market.

by jahaja 6y ago

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.

jahaja 6y ago
> You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim. I cherry-picked 8 articles? There are so many articles about it that it's not hard to produce 20 more if you want. Or perhaps info about the court proceedings in France? > is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions. There are several types of planned obsolescence as you can read in the Wikipedia link. All are still a product of the incentive to get more profit. > engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists Yes, and these are also the product of free market incentives.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>I cherry-picked 8 articles? Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets. >>Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions. Your argument is made in bad faith. It's totally disingenuous pedantry. You and I both know that you weren't claiming that 'consumers in a market economy consciously choose lower cost disposable products', when you claimed the market economy produces planned obsolescence. And I don't deserve the accusations you're levying at me. I am debating in good faith, and making sincere arguments that reflect my honest beliefs. I am not lying to myself just to make myself believe I'm right. I'm objectively and fairly assessing what you're saying before responding to your comments. You on the other hand are only trying to win the argument, truth and decency be damned. This pedantic appeal to the 'planned obsolescence' used in an entirely different context than we both know you originally used it in, and subsequent attempt to criticize me for pointing that out, being a case example.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets. That was like just the first 8 articles describing it, as I said, there are certainly many more if you were willing to entertain another perspective than your own dogma. So do you deny that the entire concept of planned obsolescence exists at all, or that there is something other driving it than the free markets pursuit for more profits? If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence? > You and I both know that you weren't claiming Haha, alrighty then. You know what I actually meant. Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives? The last self-congratulating paragraph is not a good look: "I'm good, honest and righteous. You, however, are purposefully lying and have no time for truth and decency." You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays. That's blatant cherry-picking. How is that honest and in good faith? I expect someone that's honest to research the topic and try to find other examples contradicting ones idea, and that is not very hard as I shown with a few links. But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing, and yet again try to hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence, even though it was in direct reference to the supposed "efficiency" of the free market.