[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][
Date Index][
Subject Index]
Re: OT Hot paper
- Subject: Re: OT Hot paper
- From: Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:17:26 -0500
Flash wrote:
There are other important factors, too. For example, the need for
corporations to occupy a workforce steadily. Supposing the ten-year light
bulb could be made profitably, as Harry describes. Supposing it would
require some slightly longer amount of time to build one of them than to
build the sort which lasts only one year. What is the workforce going to
do the rest of the nine years waiting for the first generation of bulbs to
burn out? The manufacturer is going to pay them to sit around on their
buttocks?
I don't follow you here. Light bulbs aren't sold to only one customer.
There's no waiting around, it's a permanent change in the structure of
production. If it takes less labor to make the more durable light bulb,
that's a *good* thing. The labor that had to be used in the production of
light bulbs is not available for the next-most urgent task (as signalled by
the wage rates, according to supply and demand).
Also, most consumers buy on price (that's how Wal-Mart got to be the
world's number one retailer); only a few consumers buy quality regardless
of price. And even those who do buy quality, don't buy everything on
quality. They buy only some things for quality regardless of price, and
the rest they buy on price. One consumer might buy a top quality
automobile and his light bulbs on price; the next consumer might buy
quality light bulbs but cut-rate cars.
Yes. The job of the company is to produce whatever the public, through it's
dollar-votes, demands. If more people want cheap, disposable products (a
preference not to be faulted), businesses should and will supply them
instead of the higher-quality more durable versions. My point is that this
means the opposite of "planned obsolescence"--which is supposed to be some
nefarious business practice foisted on unwilling consumers. Put it this
way: if the consumer *wants* "obsolescence"--products that are cheaper but
less durable--the "planning" here is being done by the consumers not the
businesses.
Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx