Is there any tangible technology out there that is not bound by a monetary society?

There's a reason why commercial tech is obsolete after a year. It's totally possible to create something to last. The technology is there, but innovation + sustainability does not equal profit, therefore it's not created. Is there ANY options in opting for a "product" not based on a profit-based society? For example a phone or car that does not break down after 2-3 years, inevitability of becoming obsolete, etc. What are your thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I don't know, but you should all know that planned obsolescence is a lot more prevalent than you ever could have taught.

I'm training to become an hvac technician and there are so many parts that are made to fail. There is a particular part in all ac units that requires oiled ball bearings to function. Now, this part costs about 800 bucks and it could last potentially FOREVER if only the manufacturers MADE A FUCKING PORT TO REPLACE THE OIL. But of course THEY FUCKING DON'T. And the part runs out of oil in 5 years and the unit breaks down.

Now, my question is more general, why is planned obsolescence allowed to exist? If a competitor just made an ac unit that lasted as long as possible, it would immediately outsell its competitors, won't it? That's basic capitalism.

PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE SHOULD EXIST IN CAPITALISM, BUT WHY DOES IT?

*planned obsolescence shouldn't exist in capitalism

There is one.
The knife. It's the same since it's invention and has multiple uses.

Pls answer economyfags

My guess would be that major corporations would just make their life hell with civil suits trying to use patent law.

Almost all parts in modern ac units are not under patent though. There must be another reason

Bounded rationality. You would have to know as much about the product as the manufacturer to identify all the intentional defects. Also economies of scale preventing new entries from succeeding in the market.


Also this.

Maybe because all the companies are really owned by the some kind of Rothshilds?
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

No. This (idealistic) fallacy presupposes omniscience of all consumers. Most people will buy what is cheaper. Corporations sell what is cheaper. This is why half things are crap. Nobody could be a perfect expert in all things (it's industrial society we are having).

You need to run a mandatory consumer co-op, with experts in their respective fields, advising people what to buy, if you want to avoid this. But that's futile attempt: any sane corporation would want to bribe their way in and take over this gig. Since it's capitalist-run society, there is no way to resist it in the end.

The second half of crap comes from corporations being better organized. They can look into the future and act accordingly. It doesn't cost much to make sure that there will be lots of additional customers in a several years.

Adorable. There are no moral obligations for socio-economic processes. Since planned obsolescence is everywhere, it is obviously not a grand conspiracy, but a natural consequence of Capitalism. Though, it might be lots of minor conspiracies.

Nope. Material of the blade is weak, actually. It's also thinner than necessary. Result? It breaks sooner, rather than later.

Hey this thread seems interesting, but unfortunately I have to take a sleep. Does leftypol have an archive? Is so CAn you email me a link?

archive.is

Does that update automatically?

No

But see, this is what is crazy for me to think about. Its like capitalism in the real world doesn't work like capitalism in theory does.

I remember taking an economics class online once because I had wanted to start a business and there was a section talking about the benefits of capitalism. And almost all the points it discussed simply did not hold true in the real world.

Like, it said that in capitalism you always have a drive to produce the highest quality goods since the highest quality goods are what sell the best on the market. Thus, a capitalist is always someone who works to create things that helps people because people buy things that help them!

So theoretically capitalists are people who seek to produce what makes people happiest and most satisfied, but in reality they only produce what sells and thier only goal is to sell the most and maximize the profit of they sell.

Bump

why does everyone reply to stupid b8 and not to this?

Capitalism only works on paper where there is a fully informed consumer and a fully competitive market. We have neither right now. Even if we had both, it is extremely easy to recreate those conditions again.

Yeah. It's as if someone is deliberately engaging in propaganda campaign to stay in power.

Only last part is correct. Nobody cares about volume. Capitalists are routinely destroying produced goods to keep price of things high.

Because drama is more entertaining than economics.

Contrary to what libtards and ancraps tell you about capitalism it is much easier to collude togeheter to maximise profits than to fight eachother. Competing companies got a number of ways to hurt eachother from bogging them down in legal matters even if they know they don't stand a chance of winning, buying out suppliers or doing contracts with suppliers, even buying out the product without planned obsolescence for more than it could ever make so that it won't go into production and/or doing smear campaigns against the competitor to have them stay away from it. Of course on top even if everyone bought what is best of them to buy(they won't, see apple) the company would hurt their own profits if they made units that lasted forever.

Light bulbs are deliberately designed to burn out. Around 1925 a lightbulb would last for 2500~ hours, by 1935 they were dead at 1000 hours.

Supposedly the manufacturers of LEDs are starting to get in on the planned obsolescence game too.

And most importantly, the point of capitalist economics is that destroying is just as good for profits as creating.

Someone post the interview with Richard Wolff talking about the differences between economics schools and business schools for this faggot. Apparently he doesn't know the difference between the two and I don't have the webm on hand

...

it seems open source and freely-available designs makes things less susceptible to planned obsolescence