Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence

[AyeYo]

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

What happens after they become commonplace?

[1714955670]

1714955670

[1714955670]

1714955670

[NghtRppr]

Dude... no... just... no.  Economics of scale has NOTHING to do with the prices being charged.  It has to do with procurement of supplies, logisitcs, etc.   It's based on purchasing power and thus size.  You REALLY need to hit up a school and get a simple footing in econ 101.

I'm afraid you missed the point. Let's say that, since you are a large company, you can make product X for $10 a unit and since I'm a small company, I can only make them for $20 a unit. What happens when you charge $30 a unit? I can make them for $20 and sell them for $29 and still make a profit. Therefore, your economy of scale only gives you a benefit if you don't charge as high of a price as you otherwise would. That's my point. An economy of scale doesn't enable a cartel to charge whatever price it wants. Try to understand what I'm saying before you begin with the childish name calling.

Says who?  Does the non-existent government put that law in writing?  I'll take you to the private court that my friend's company owns and sue the ever living shit out of you.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Yes, let's say that when you and I have a dispute we both go to different courts and my court rules in my favor and your court rules in your favor. There are two possibilities then. Either the courts have some policy in place to account for this, some other third party that settles the dispute, or they are what are known as "bandit courts". The problem is that since the bandit courts have to fight everyone all the time and since fighting is expensive they are going to lose money compared to the other courts that will only have to fight some of the time. The bandit courts will eventually lose out to the legitimate courts due to competition.

Not deal with them?  What are you just going to not show up because you think they're biased?  Fine.  I'll pay the private police force (that my other friend happens to own, perks of being a rich guy - hell, maybe I'll send my own police force) to come arrest you for not appearing for your summons at my other friend's biased court.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Nothing is stopping you but since your firm isn't recognized as legitimate, I can just hire a legitimate firm which will have more money due to lower costs of only fighting some people, some of the time, to protect me on a contingency basis. In other words, after they wipe your police force out, they stick you with the bill for my services.

[billyjoeallen]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

never said it did. The words "all","everyone", and "only" do, though, and I like your little ryme. It's like you graduated from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.

[AyeYo]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

never said it did. The words "all","everyone", and "only" do, though, and I like your little ryme. It's like you graduated from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.

Racist libertarian?  NO WAI!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HZW9JiudY

[Anonymous]

Benefit and value isn't defined by money alone.

[billyjoeallen]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

never said it did. The words "all","everyone", and "only" do, though, and I like your little ryme. It's like you graduated from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.

Racist libertarian?  NO WAI!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HZW9JiudY

DRINK!

[AyeYo]

Dude... no... just... no.  Economics of scale has NOTHING to do with the prices being charged.  It has to do with procurement of supplies, logisitcs, etc.   It's based on purchasing power and thus size.  You REALLY need to hit up a school and get a simple footing in econ 101.

I'm afraid you missed the point. Let's say that, since you are a large company, you can make product X for $10 a unit and since I'm a small company, I can only make them for $20 a unit. What happens when you charge $30 a unit? I can make them for $20 and sell them for $29 and still make a profit. Therefore, your economy of scale only gives you a benefit if you don't charge as high of a price as you otherwise would. That's my point. An economy of scale doesn't enable a cartel to charge whatever price it wants. Try to understand what I'm saying before you begin with the childish name calling.

I don't think you fully grasp the difference in production costs between a massive conglomerate of companies vs. a tiny start up.

Like I said, difficulty of speaking it and difficulty of doing it are worlds apart.  Hit up some business classes and get back to me when we can talk about this intelligently.

Says who?  Does the non-existent government put that law in writing?  I'll take you to the private court that my friend's company owns and sue the ever living shit out of you.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Yes, let's say that when you and I have a dispute we both go to different courts and my court rules in my favor and your court rules in your favor. There are two possibilities then. Either the courts have some policy in place to account for this, some other third party that settles the dispute, or they are what are known as "bandit courts". The problem is that since the bandit courts have to fight everyone all the time and since fighting is expensive they are going to lose money compared to the other courts that will only have to fight some of the time. The bandit courts will eventually lose out to the legitimate courts due to competition.

LOL  You can't be serious.  Fight what?  Fist fight?  Who is going to determine what court is actually right?


Regardless, my private police force is still coming to your house to arrest you on charge of pollution... no... wreckless endangerment... no... attempted murder, and then drag you to my friend's court who sentences you to hard labor... no... death.  Since I have more money than you, my much larger police... no... military force will simply come drag you from the court room before you even have a chance to protest and it'll be off with your head.  Who's going to stop me?

Not deal with them?  What are you just going to not show up because you think they're biased?  Fine.  I'll pay the private police force (that my other friend happens to own, perks of being a rich guy - hell, maybe I'll send my own police force) to come arrest you for not appearing for your summons at my other friend's biased court.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Nothing is stopping you but since your firm isn't recognized as legitimate, I can just hire a legitimate firm which will have more money due to lower costs of only fighting some people, some of the time, to protect me on a contingency basis. In other words, after they wipe your police force out, they stick you with the bill for my services.

Sorry, I'm a massive, international business and, just like in the real world, we stick together, so no one large enough will even give you tiny guys the time of day.  Even if they did, all the Joe Nobodies of the world aren't going to find "firms" willing to take on what will be the superpower military forces of Liberland.  No one is going to go to war (and it will literally be war) for one worthless guy and his failed lawsuit.


So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

[NghtRppr]

I don't think you fully grasp the difference in production costs between a massive conglomerate of companies vs. a tiny start up.

Like I said, difficulty of speaking it and difficulty doing it are worlds apart.  Hit up some business classes and get back to me when we can talk about this intelligently.

You haven't said anything of substance so there's nothing to argue against, just more insults. I think that's rather telling that your position is without merit.

LOL  You can't be serious.  Fight what?  Fist fight?  Who is going to determine what court is actually right?

Just like there is no final authority in disputes between countries there is no final authority between disputes between private courts. It's something that the market will have to sort out.

Regardless, my private police force is still coming to your house to arrest you on charge of pollution... no... wreckless endangerment... no... attempted murder, and then drag you to my friend's court who sentences you to hard labor... no... death.  Since I have more money than you, my much larger police... no... military force will simply come drag you from the court room before you even have a chance to protest and it'll be off with your head.  Who's going to stop me?

You won't have more money for long if you keep spending it on private police forces that don't turn a profit and wage costly wars over silly whims. There would be other companies not supported by one rich guy trying to abuse his power but companies supported by millions of middling but decent people. They would take my case on a contingency, protect me and then charge you for the service.

Sorry, I'm a massive, international business and, just like in the real world, we stick together, so no one large enough will even give your tiny guys the time of day.  Even if they did, all the Joe Nobodies of the world aren't going to find "firms" willing to take on what will be the superpower military forces of Liberland.  No one is going to go to war (and it will literally be war) for one worthless guy and his failed lawsuit.

Like I said, you might have more money at the start but if you waste it on fighting pointless wars, you won't for long. You might be able to oppress a few people, me included, for a while but in the long run you will lose.

[Anonymous]

So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

So, what do we do? We give all the guns to even bigger entities and with blind faith we trust that these entities won't deny our whims for their own.

Oh, but no. It would be totally unacceptable to give guns to everybody.... That might level the playing field. Gosh.

[NghtRppr]

So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

So, what do we do? We give all the guns to even bigger entities and with blind faith we trust that these entities won't deny our whims for their own.

Oh, but no. It would be totally unacceptable to give guns to everybody.... That might level the playing field. Gosh.

Notice how his argument is nothing but a defeatist "tyranny is inevitable so lets give up". Nowhere does he say anything about legitimacy or morality. I think that keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission is fairly important compared to a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that has never been tested.

[AyeYo]

LOL  You can't be serious.  Fight what?  Fist fight?  Who is going to determine what court is actually right?

Just like there is no final authority in disputes between countries there is no final authority between disputes between private courts. It's something that the market will have to sort out.

There is most definitely final authority.  They go to war and the last one left standing wins the argument.  For stuff short of war we have the UN.


So by "market figuring it out" what you mean to say is that you have no answer.

Regardless, my private police force is still coming to your house to arrest you on charge of pollution... no... wreckless endangerment... no... attempted murder, and then drag you to my friend's court who sentences you to hard labor... no... death.  Since I have more money than you, my much larger police... no... military force will simply come drag you from the court room before you even have a chance to protest and it'll be off with your head.  Who's going to stop me?

You won't have more money for long if you keep spending it on private police forces that don't turn a profit and wage costly wars over silly whims. There would be other companies not supported by one rich guy trying to abuse his power but companies supported by millions of middling but decent people. They would take my case on a contingency, protect me and then charge you for the service.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  My private military force will ENSURE my present and future profits - basically, it'll fill the role that the US military has today.

As for the rest... step outside and look around you.  Read a history book.  As idealistic a picture as you'd like to paint, it just doesn't work like that in the real world.

Sorry, I'm a massive, international business and, just like in the real world, we stick together, so no one large enough will even give your tiny guys the time of day.  Even if they did, all the Joe Nobodies of the world aren't going to find "firms" willing to take on what will be the superpower military forces of Liberland.  No one is going to go to war (and it will literally be war) for one worthless guy and his failed lawsuit.

Like I said, you might have more money at the start but if you waste it on fighting pointless wars, you won't for long. You might be able to oppress a few people, me included, for a while but in the long run you will lose.

Again, that's were you're wrong.  Those wars aren't pointless.  As an example, the war against you (which really isn't a war, just an offing on one guy) allows me to keep polluting your property with impunity, which keeps my production costs lower, thus boosting profits.


I hate to break it to you, but this is how stuff works in the real world.  This stuff isn't hypothetical, it's going on RIGHT NOW.  The only difference is that my private military force is currently a government military force.  My purpose in these examples is to show you that government is NOT necessary for this pattern of behavior to continue.  I (rich guy) can make do just fine with or without goverment.  I can keep you under my thumb by leveraging the power of government in our current situation and I can keep you under my thumb using my own power directly in Liberland.  Moving to Liberland matters not for me, and in fact saves me the time and effort of installing all my friends in government positions and saves me billions in lobbying costs.

[AyeYo]

So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

So, what do we do? We give all the guns to even bigger entities and with blind faith we trust that these entities won't deny our whims for their own.

Oh, but no. It would be totally unacceptable to give guns to everybody.... That might level the playing field. Gosh.

Notice how his argument is nothing but a defeatist "tyranny is inevitable so lets give up". Nowhere does he say anything about legitimacy or morality. I think that keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission is fairly important compared to a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that has never been tested.

Please tell me you can see the irony in this post.

[Anonymous]

Your international company cannot sustain its monopoly if other entities and individuals are capable of allocating the same amount of force.

[NghtRppr]

There is most definitely final authority.  They go to war and the last one left standing wins the argument.

Then you answered your own question. The private courts go to war and the last one standing wins.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  My private military force will ENSURE my present and future profits - basically, it'll fill the role that the US military has today.

Fighting wars costs money compared to not fighting. You may oppress people for profit but the people fighting back are fighting for their freedom which is a lot more motivating. Also, at some point, your private police force is going to have to start fighting their own families and that's going to destroy their morale especially when you don't have legitimacy. It's funny how you pretend that all the big companies will take over and oppress everyone yet the most powerful country in the world currently allows me to criticize the leader. Yet somehow, this is a magical property that only government can achieve.

Again, that's were you're wrong.  Those wars aren't pointless.  As an example, the war against you (which really isn't a war, just an offing on one guy) allows me to keep polluting your property with impunity, which keeps my production costs lower, thus boosting profits.

You can't even keep your own arguments straight. You were attacking me because a microscopic bit of tar got on your property, remember?

[AyeYo]

Your international company cannot sustain its monopoly if other entities and individuals are capable of allocating the same amount of force.

And the world can't stay in orbit if gravity ceases to exist.


You just love making this stupid statements, don't you?  Regardless, you're strawmanning the every living shit out of this thread.


Bottom line: MAN WITH THE BIGGEST GUN RULES  He who conquers the rest, will make the rules.  There is no justice, equality, or morality in state of nature Liberland.  There is only the powerful ruling the weak.

[AyeYo]

There is most definitely final authority.  They go to war and the last one left standing wins the argument.

Then you answered your own question. The private courts go to war and the last one standing wins.

Sounds like a society I want to live in.  Many thumbs up!

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  My private military force will ENSURE my present and future profits - basically, it'll fill the role that the US military has today.

Fighting wars costs money compared to not fighting. You may oppress people for profit but the people fighting back are fighting for their freedom which is a lot more motivating. Also, at some point, your private police force is going to have to start fighting their own families and that's going to destroy their moral especially when you don't have legitimacy. It's funny how you pretend that all the big companies will take over and oppress everyone yet the most powerful country in the world currently allows me to criticize the leader. Yet somehow, this is a magical property that only government can achieve.

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

Again, that's were you're wrong.  Those wars aren't pointless.  As an example, the war against you (which really isn't a war, just an offing on one guy) allows me to keep polluting your property with impunity, which keeps my production costs lower, thus boosting profits.

You can't even keep your own arguments straight. You were attacking me because a microscopic bit of tar got on your property, remember?

You're right.  Too many strawmen.  Point remains the same: man with the biggest gun makes the rules.  Liberland quickly devolves into global war and those who come out on top (and it'll be the ones that control all the capital) get to rule with an iron fist.  Doesn't really sound like a utopia of freedom to me.

[NghtRppr]

Sounds like a society I want to live in.  Many thumbs up!

It's the society you live in remember? You said that's how countries settle disputes. Somehow it's a different story when it's private courts?

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

That's just your baseless assertion.

You're right.

I know I'm right and it also defeats your point. Persecuting me frivolously is a waste of money and you'll go broke.

Bottom line: MAN WITH THE BIGGEST GUN RULES  He who conquers the rest, will make the rules.  There is no justice, equality, or morality in state of nature Liberland.  There is only the powerful ruling the weak.

I'd say that greater than 90% of the people on Earth are decent hardworking people that wouldn't want to be caught committing a crime and don't want violence in their daily lives. Your criticism applies only if most people are scum and it would equally apply to any form of society.

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

[billyjoeallen]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

[Mittlyle]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible.

Aha.  Have you considered the possibility that possibly planned obsolesce for some products is indeed the most effective use of resources?  For instance, cars should be assumed to have some accident after several years, so it is actually a waste of resources to design the engine and machinery to last forever.  Computer parts are most likely to become obsolete after ~5 years, so it is a waste of resources to over engineer the reliability at the expense of lower performance and higher cost.  Now, mind you, if you do want a piece of equipment to last forever, then you will have to pay.  Most of the computer logic that NASA sends out into space is designed with triple modular redundancy such that if one copy of a module fails, there are two other copies.

Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

Have you considered that maybe because silica and aluminum are so plentiful, it may actually not be worth the resources and labor (depending on the economics of a particular situation) to recycle in some cases?

In my opinion you are using bunch of straw-mans here.

By planned obsolescence I obviously mean that the product becomes obsolete before it's outpaced by development and it's natural lifetime. If that wasn't the purpose why even bother? Everything else is optimizing the use of resources which obviously is favorable. By regulations you could improve the use of resources significantly.

And yes, there are resources not worth recycling or using more efficiently. But there definitely are those which should be used better but that isn't cost-efficient under our regulatory framework. There are many ways to do that. Here I'll just say it's certainly possible.

First of all, it's always fallacious to compare our current system of fascism (privately owned business with public regulations) with a truly free market (privately owned business without public regulations). So don't think that our current system is any reflection of an actual free market unless you have taken into consideration all the ways in which the government is interfering.

I have no misconceptions of what free market ought to be. The difference in our views is that you label public regulations as inherently bad, I think they can be either bad or good. To summarize my view: bad regulation < no regulation < good regulation. My opinion is that the free market as said would be even worse system.

As to the rest of the conversation, it seems it's about whether competition functions properly under free market, and thus will planned obsolescence be a valid strategy. My opinion is that as long there are IPRs, barrier of entry to any industry is too large, and thus results in monopolies and cartels, which leads to my point. To be honest I think free market without IPR would be pretty good system even with little regulation, but as thats currently unreasonable I think the so called free market would be fatal.

[AyeYo]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.


I don't think you realize how difficult it is to argue this stuff against you because you have: A - no concept and understanding of history, and, B - no concept of understand of how/why we are where we are today, and how the system functions.

I'd highly recommend these two books to you.  They're no some BS pulled out of somebody's ass (i.e. Atlas Shrugged), but actual scholarly research works with real citations and backing up of claims, as well as tremendous amounts of first-hand research.  They will help you learn what you're lacking: the happenings of modern WORLD history (not the US/UK-centric history you get in school) and the highly entwined political and economic relationships of our current world system.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857