So: limited means your point about capitalism not being wasteful still stands? No. Planned obsolescence of any kind means your point is wrong. Capitalism causes waste.
That could be the end of the comment, but not only is your point disproven, but you’re wrong about limitations in industry as well.
Wait so your argument is that if capitalism is ever wasteful, capitalism as a whole is a wasteful ideology?
If a factory in North Korea produces more tractors than the farmers need in order to meet the Dear Leader’s quarterly quota, does that make socialism as a whole wasteful?
If I’m a vegan who rides my bicycle everywhere and lives in a tiny apartment, but occasionally like to treat myself to a hot bath, does that make me a wasteful person?
Also, all your examples are the one type of product I already said is susceptible to planned obsolescence, which is quickly iterating consumer tech. Again, fair point, but it’s a very small sector of the economy as a whole and already we are seeing movements toward more long-term durable/supportable products.
Incandescent bulbs are not an example of planned obsolescence, it’s just an older, inferior technology that is being steadily replaced with a more durable, energy efficient alternative in LED bulbs. Printers are screwy with the expensive ink cartridges but that isn’t an example of planned obsolescence either.
Finally, sorry, I’m not going to change my worldview just because you asked nicely.
No, your argument was capitalism isn’t wasteful. One counterpoint is enough to disprove that. If you want to say it’s less wasteful than some other system, that’s a different point and not what you put forth.
If anybody thinks they have a good point while ignoring evidence contrary to it, I think they look like an idiot. Are you doing that? I’m not asking you to change your idea for me, I’m saying you should change your idea because you can’t defend it. Or put your head back in the sand, whatever. But you’re not really interested in a conversation where your ideas are challenged and you have to consider something beyond “Nuh uh!”. (I would be, but you haven’t said anything remotely challenging.)
That’s semantic nonsense. If something is less wasteful than its alternatives, its common to refer to it is being efficient or not wasteful. When you say something is not wasteful, you are not saying that it is completely free from waste, you are just saying it is efficient.
Cartels are an example of a trust, which are illegal in America and pretty much anywhere else with a free market. Cartels and monopolies are bad, but an economic system with good antitrust enforcement will root them out. And a singular cartel that managed to enforce planned obsolescence on one particular product over 80 years ago doesn’t carry very much weight with me.
Again, printers (well, really, printer ink cartridges) are a shady business, but the claim of planned obsolescence is pretty tenuous. Even the most extortionate ink cartridges will usually run until they’re dry. The only example of actual planned obsolescence in your link is of Brother toner cartridges that ask you to replace the toner when it gets low - which you can override with a menu option. So maybe you can get an extra 10-20% out of your toner cartridge with that setting with that brand… again, in the grand scheme of things this is a pretty small example.
You can nitpick inefficiencies in the massive, sprawling, international centuries-old system of capitalism all day, I’m sure. My fundamental point is that a system that is centered around producing goods and services at the highest margins possible is going to have a strong emphasis on eliminating waste wherever possible. When American Airlines found out that a lot of people weren’t eating the singular olive in the salads they served passengers, they removed it for savings of something like 100k in today’s dollars. Covid was a supply chain disaster, but that actually showed just how lean the supply chain actually was—goods were being produced at exactly the right rates for customer demand, so when those demands shifted slightly and some factories shut down due to unprecedented circumstances, there were some shortages.
Anyways, when I say that capitalism is not wasteful (or that it’s “efficient”, or “less wasteful”, or whatever), what I’m really saying is that is the least wasteful economic system when compared to the others. Certainly in the Soviet Union they used more resources to produce fewer goods than the United States (and less aligned with what people wanted and needed). If you have a real-world example of a system that can produce goods more efficiently than capitalism at scale, I would be interested to learn about it.
So: limited means your point about capitalism not being wasteful still stands? No. Planned obsolescence of any kind means your point is wrong. Capitalism causes waste.
That could be the end of the comment, but not only is your point disproven, but you’re wrong about limitations in industry as well.
Printers, incandescent light bulbs, cars.
I had a Nest thermostat before they were bought by Google, which then closed the API and forced people to control it through Google’s ecosystem. And soon you won’t even be able to do that: https://www.tomsguide.com/home/smart-home/google-announces-end-of-support-for-1st-and-2nd-gen-nest-thermostats-what-you-need-to-know
Hue bulbs discontinued support for their first generation bridge https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/philips-hue-is-killing-off-support-for-the-original-hue-bridge/
https://www.androidcentral.com/wearables/older-tizen-os-galaxy-watches-to-loose-support-in-2025
I’ve been through this bullshit a bunch. Maybe you’re lucky you haven’t, but the examples aren’t nearly as limited as you claim.
Please update your ideas instead of doubling down on ideas you can’t support.
Wait so your argument is that if capitalism is ever wasteful, capitalism as a whole is a wasteful ideology?
If a factory in North Korea produces more tractors than the farmers need in order to meet the Dear Leader’s quarterly quota, does that make socialism as a whole wasteful?
If I’m a vegan who rides my bicycle everywhere and lives in a tiny apartment, but occasionally like to treat myself to a hot bath, does that make me a wasteful person?
Also, all your examples are the one type of product I already said is susceptible to planned obsolescence, which is quickly iterating consumer tech. Again, fair point, but it’s a very small sector of the economy as a whole and already we are seeing movements toward more long-term durable/supportable products.
Incandescent bulbs are not an example of planned obsolescence, it’s just an older, inferior technology that is being steadily replaced with a more durable, energy efficient alternative in LED bulbs. Printers are screwy with the expensive ink cartridges but that isn’t an example of planned obsolescence either.
Finally, sorry, I’m not going to change my worldview just because you asked nicely.
No, your argument was capitalism isn’t wasteful. One counterpoint is enough to disprove that. If you want to say it’s less wasteful than some other system, that’s a different point and not what you put forth.
Light bulbs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
Printers https://www.christopherroosen.com/blog/2022/7/4/printer-toner-planned-obsolescence
If anybody thinks they have a good point while ignoring evidence contrary to it, I think they look like an idiot. Are you doing that? I’m not asking you to change your idea for me, I’m saying you should change your idea because you can’t defend it. Or put your head back in the sand, whatever. But you’re not really interested in a conversation where your ideas are challenged and you have to consider something beyond “Nuh uh!”. (I would be, but you haven’t said anything remotely challenging.)
That’s semantic nonsense. If something is less wasteful than its alternatives, its common to refer to it is being efficient or not wasteful. When you say something is not wasteful, you are not saying that it is completely free from waste, you are just saying it is efficient.
Cartels are an example of a trust, which are illegal in America and pretty much anywhere else with a free market. Cartels and monopolies are bad, but an economic system with good antitrust enforcement will root them out. And a singular cartel that managed to enforce planned obsolescence on one particular product over 80 years ago doesn’t carry very much weight with me.
Again, printers (well, really, printer ink cartridges) are a shady business, but the claim of planned obsolescence is pretty tenuous. Even the most extortionate ink cartridges will usually run until they’re dry. The only example of actual planned obsolescence in your link is of Brother toner cartridges that ask you to replace the toner when it gets low - which you can override with a menu option. So maybe you can get an extra 10-20% out of your toner cartridge with that setting with that brand… again, in the grand scheme of things this is a pretty small example.
You can nitpick inefficiencies in the massive, sprawling, international centuries-old system of capitalism all day, I’m sure. My fundamental point is that a system that is centered around producing goods and services at the highest margins possible is going to have a strong emphasis on eliminating waste wherever possible. When American Airlines found out that a lot of people weren’t eating the singular olive in the salads they served passengers, they removed it for savings of something like 100k in today’s dollars. Covid was a supply chain disaster, but that actually showed just how lean the supply chain actually was—goods were being produced at exactly the right rates for customer demand, so when those demands shifted slightly and some factories shut down due to unprecedented circumstances, there were some shortages.
Anyways, when I say that capitalism is not wasteful (or that it’s “efficient”, or “less wasteful”, or whatever), what I’m really saying is that is the least wasteful economic system when compared to the others. Certainly in the Soviet Union they used more resources to produce fewer goods than the United States (and less aligned with what people wanted and needed). If you have a real-world example of a system that can produce goods more efficiently than capitalism at scale, I would be interested to learn about it.