senpaithatignoresyou

Ah yes. This was pre-globalization. This backfired in the 80s when Ronald Reagan allowed Japanese automakers to expand in the american market.

Suddenly quality became a big selling point. "Americans are enamored with the appliance like durability of the Japanese automobiles" The end result is that the US automakers are still struggling, while the Japanese automakers are dominating the market.

We are witnessing history repeat itself in other markets now. GE will be scrapping their consumer appliance branch of the company soon. They just could not compete in that market anymore.

Planned obsolesce is a dumb business model for most products, and these companies are learning the hard way.

piedeity

"GE will be scrapping their consumer appliance branch of the company soon." They sold it to Haier two days ago.

senpaithatignoresyou

Damn, i need to keep up with things.

Next you will be telling me that someone hacked their predix operating system and turned off an aircraft engine or shut down a turbine....

Kal

This, in my opinion, is one of the many big problems with capitalism. How many different products have had quality reduced just so you will have to keep buying them again and again, I wonder.

What if these light bulb manufacturers, instead of being entirely profit driven, had focused on research and development in the 1920s instead? I believe that we would have bulbs that would never fail at this point.

This logic applies to so many things in which capitalism has only delivered inferior products to what was being produced half a century ago by companies that took pride in the products they produced. Those companies were swallowed up by multi-national corporations and now we live in a Wal-mart world where you will be hard pressed to find a product that will still be functional in a couple years.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not touting socialisms ability to move humanity forward any better than capitalism. It seems to me we need some sort of happy medium between the two with sound science and forward thinking guiding it.

In my opinion we really need to evolve beyond the black and white socialism vs capitalism dynamic as soon as possible. Too much of either has proven disastrous time and time again.

NotToBeContrarian

Mutualism?

a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.

Atarian

I think it boils down to one thing - we like cheap shit.

A lightbulb that lasts virtually infinitely is possible - there's a lightbulb that still works from the day it was made in 1912.

The question is: would you pay $200 for a lightbulb? $3,000 for a dishwasher? No, you want cheap, affordable, mass produced crap at rock bottom prices, not heavily engineered, craftsman made stuff. Hell,we all do. Most of us can't afford it. That's why we go to Ikea and not to a cabinet maker (if they even exist any more).

I don't think it's a question of a conspiracy. It's a question of what you are willing to pay for. I would expect a Rolls Royce to last a hell of a lot longer than a Suzuki Alto.

Sciency

You know, I feel like today's LED bulbs are pretty close to outlasting the people that buy them, short of 24/7 use.

As for the capital/commune duality, I remain hopeful that consumer education will take care of this problem to some degree as time goes on. The internet is an amazing educational tool, and people need to realize their purchasing habits not only select the quality of their goods, but also decide a massive amount of political policy pushed by lobbyists for those corps. Dollar votes baby, its the system we live in, and we need to learn how to play the game.

KoKansei

Capitalism is not necessarily perfect because it is the product of a messy emergent process. Unlike socialists, people who have studied economics to the point of achieving a basic understanding of market mechanisms will not claim that a market system is "perfect" or "fair," only that markets are, without exception, better at satisfying the economic needs of those who chose to participate.

The truly big, fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism, IMO has nothing to do with which system is economically more productive (though that distinction handily goes to the free market), but rather which system is morally superior. Capitalism is a system based on voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions between consenting adults, while socialism is by its very nature coercive and violent, requiring petty theft just to sustain itself.

If you accept the above premise, the "happy medium" argument loses a lot of its appeal.

Mylon

You have to account for imperfect implementation of both systems. Socialism means the planners are likely to steer things so they can skim off the top. Capitalism is set up so once competition is limited they're likely to collude and skim more than the usual or participate in regulatory capture.

selpai

It's not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with corporatism & monopolies. In an ideal economy, there would be so much competition that the invisible hand would sort it out.

Mylon

Also information asymmetry. Capitalism is rife with exploiting unaware consumers. If you displayed the "lifetime cost" of light bulbs or any other product then consumers are less likely to pick planned obsolesce products.

It's like the inkjet printer model. Consumers get lured in by a $100 printer that does everything. And when it runs out of ink 4 weeks later they have to spend $60 on ink. And then do it again in 3 months.

JunOS

I dont think companies' goals are long lasting products. It's market shares and making money.

Businesses crumbled because of that making great products. Great producys mean less people wanting your goofs. Making a product cheap that'll expire/drains/dies sooner is 100% accurate to surviving the free market.

I don't think that it's a conspiracy of it 100% true.

Thanks for sharing.