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.

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.

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.

Moving the goalposts. I said that planned obsolescence is not, as you originally alleged, a general property of a market-driven economy.

>If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence?

Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success. The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation for product quality played a massive role in the growth of its sales and it becoming the most valuable company in the world.

>>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?

Again with the bad faith disingenuity. The so-called narrow definition is the only one economically harmful or involving deceit and consumers being worse off. It's the one almost universally referred to when activists use the term.

If you're now going to try to claim you were talking about the looser definition all along, then I'll respond that the type of activity under this looser definition, like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones because they judge the up-front cost-savings to be worth the more frequent replacement costs, is not economically harmful. It's what people want for themselves, and their judgment on what is in their own interests is more credible than yours.

>>You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays.

It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity. If that were the case, every major product class would see a trend toward shorter lifespans. There certainly wouldn't be a major product class not only maintaining product lifespans, but increasing them.

Any way, the burden of proof was always on you. I just provided that link to show that these angsty lift-wing comments about the world are often not corroborated by what you actually see in the world when you take a closer look.

>>hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence

Again with the blatant lies. When people are complaining about how capitalism allegedly produces planned obsolescence, they are not talking about a general consumer preference for disposable products.

Read any of your own links and you'll see what kind of behavior they are referring to when they use the term.

They are talking about the phenomenon where, unbeknownst to consumers, companies are reducing product lifespans to get more reorders.

You can pretend otherwise to try to avoid admitting you were wrong, but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.

Of course we're dealing with natural language with a lot of the meaning of statements extrapolated from the wider context of where they appear, so there's no formal proof you are lying now. Only reasonable conjecture that you're free to dismiss as part of your culture war against the people you imagine to be your enemies.

>>But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing

A lot of your links were from left-wing sources and were not scientific sources or even primary evidence showing declining product lifespans.

Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.

I had to ask, because that's otherwise your MO.

> Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success.

There's no brand reputation risk if most large manufacturers have similar durability.

> The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation

How can you keep using Apple as an example when it has been one of the most obvious offender and is also one of the giants within the most obviously offending industry - smartphones.

> It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity.

No, it just shows that technology has moved forward with regards to a advanced industrial product.

> like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones

You've cherry-picked the only type that fits your narrative, preference for disposable products (which I actually agree with you on, but causes of this is an interesting topic in itself). But to pick that and not to explain the type where billions of dollars each year are spent on trying to create new non-essential needs that aren't really there making the existing products obsolete, a.k.a "Perceived obsolescence"? How is this "efficient"?

> but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.

This is my original comment: "Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though."

How is this inconsistent with focusing on the inefficiencies of all kinds of planned obsolescence of the free market?

> Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.

Once again, you linked to a single reddit post, eat humble pie.