Identifying the inherent problems of a monetary system

[IAchilleasI]

What I am saying is that mechanisation will render repair uneconomical thus increasing waste.

 

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

 

You gave an example of an energy product that is cheap and inexhaustible but would the oil companies keep it off the market. That is one of your conspiracy theories.

 

Your whole thesis is a conspiracy theory. The idea that obsolecence is deliberately planned into products. The idea that products are deliberately made scarce and the idea that automation will replace humans is just absurd nonsense. It suggests a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist.

 

May I first make a somewhat irrelevant point. Why does calling something a conspiracy theory automatically invalidate and make it worthy of scorn? Is it because a conspiracy theory cannot conceivably be true?

 

Back to your argument, a conspiracy theory implies a group of people coming together and consciously plotting to gain advantage over another group of people. What I am explaining on the other hand is different. Sometimes there is a confluence of interests, meaning people/groups share common interests. They don't actually cooperate or plot or work with one another to achieve them. A conspiracy theory also has the connotation of "evil" people scheming. I am not claiming that the oil industry is "evil".

 

As you say, there would have to be a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist. But the effects are still felt, as if this organisation does exist, when it doesn't. I realise it is a very fine line between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying, but its there.

 

 

Obsolecence is natural. A product either wears out or becomes obsolete. Are you still using Betamax tapes and doing your washing by banging it on stones down at the River Don?

 

Nope, but then again you are describing natural obsolescene rather than planned.

 

Automation cannot replace thinking, invention, management, control and a whole host of other human functions.

 

It cannot, at least not in the foreseeable future, but there are so many others it can and will replace. Look around you, even now jobs are disappearing due to automation. Today I went to the bank to withdraw some money from an ATM, went to the supermarket and used the automated till, paid some bills and bought some stuff online. Did you notice how I didn't interact with a single employee during all of this?

 

I work in construction and whilst mechanisation has made many tasks easier and reduced some unskilled labour elements there is still no way a machine can replace a skilled tradesman.

 

Why not? A machine would never make a mistake, it would never fall behind schedule, doesn't require a break and will never call in sick nor would be impeeded by bad weather.

 

I study graphic design, which is a profession that requires highly creative skills you would've though impossible to automate. I admit even I was surprised at how easier the work is because of it. Eventually, I'll just be narrating to the computer what colour or what shape or what texture I want and it'll do it for me.

 

As for deliberately keeping products scarce you'll have to give me an example because as someone else has already commented it makes no sense to create something and then keep it to yourself.

 

Artificial scarcity describes a scarcity that exists in spite of the technology and the capacity to create an abundance. Both products and resources are kept scarce to maintain profitability. For example, some digital media and software are a scarce product. Even though there are virtually unlimited copies of Windows 7, Microsoft restrains its abundance by charging for it. Open source software on the other hand is abundant.

[IAchilleasI]

Do you drive a trabant by any chance ?

 

I had no idea what a trabant is. I googled it and now I know. You learn something everyday.

[Longcol]

That is why I mentioned that the fact it took 15 years to arrive angers me; because it was being suppresed during this time.

 

 

 

15 years ago, the EV1 cost 34.000 dollars. Hardly unaffordable, keeping in mind that GM had no competition at the time and probably could've charged more for it.

 

 

Suppressed?

 

Oh and the cost was $34k - far more than your average car 15 years ago. And how often did it have to be recharged? Where was the infrastructure of top up stations to support it?

 

It was uneconomical and impractical for most people - no "conspiracy".

[Longcol]

 

'Perceived obsolescence' is a similar concept, but rather than reduce the quality they will market a new design aspect of a product thus ensuring that the 'old' style falls out of fashion and everybody must go out and buy the new styled product regardless of whether or not their old product has failed- for example, flat screen TV's replaced the old box shape of a TV and now you are considered old-fashioned or uncool if you own a box shape TV. It plays on our sense of the material object representing a status symbol, so in essence it's very manipulative- there's nothing particularly 'better' about a flat screen, it's just fashion.

 

 

 

Naturally we should have stuck with our old black and white TV's that had a tiny flickering screen and took up a quarter of the room.

 

No wait - we should have stuck to old valve radios - useless these transistors.

[Longcol]

 

Why not? A machine would never make a mistake, it would never fall behind schedule, doesn't require a break and will never call in sick nor would be impeeded by bad weather.

 

 

A machine would never make a mistake? Or break down or require maintenance? "Machines" get impeded by bad weather every time it snows.

[IAchilleasI]

I think we're getting bogged down too much with specifics. Arguing what a machine can or can't do and making sarcastic remarks about sticking with old technology is irrelevant to the initial post.

[anywebsite]

I think we're getting bogged down too much with specifics. Arguing what a machine can or can't do and making sarcastic remarks about sticking with old technology is irrelevant to the initial post.

 

2 of your problems assume monopoly capitalism & don't really exist in most markets, the other one just doesn't really exist.

 

Artificial scarcity & Planned obsolescence would need either a monopoly or a very tight cartel to operate. In a competitive market at least one supplier should see that they can gain a competitive advantage by overcoming these problems.

 

Technological unemployment happens, entire industries can be wiped out by advances in technology, but those advances bring with them new economic activity & a net gain.

[Mecky]

Technological unemployment happens, entire industries can be wiped out by advances in technology, but those advances bring with them new economic activity & a net gain.

 

Not always, pit towns still struggle after the decimation of the industry.

 

The fact is we can't compete in the exports markets against cheap foreign labour. Prices of finished goods and food are soaring because of corporate greed and the UK workforce has to ask for increased salaries from their employers to make ends meet, so the cost of labour is continually increasing. This coupled with the fact that a lot of UK-based industry is now foreigned own, so they can keep prices here high, means we're finished. Things won't pick up until the standard and cost of living abroad outstrips the UK and with extreme pverty in countries like China and India that's going to be a very long time, if ever. Only when it will be no longer a viable option to export to the UK, will our industry pick-up and I can't see them letting that happen.

[Tony]

Suppressed?

 

Oh and the cost was $34k - far more than your average car 15 years ago. And how often did it have to be recharged? Where was the infrastructure of top up stations to support it?

 

It was uneconomical and impractical for most people - no "conspiracy".

 

... and not even a mother could love this lumbering two seater with no boot space that cost twice the price of a Mondeo.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=EV1&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Nj9gT8CpGaKX1AXAq-ioBw&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=909&sei=QD9gT57zE-qn0QW_8LCcBw

 

There's no conspiracy or suppression here, just simple capitalism at work - nobody wanted one. However, because capitalism allows us to speculate and invest without answering to anyone but ourselves and the law, it served as a useful progressive test mule for General Motors while raising awareness among Joe Public who were quite at liberty to buy one if they needed their bumps feeling.

 

Capitalism is ruddy brilliant!

[Anna B]

In the interests of keeping this interesting, but inevitably growing longer, discussion, civil and on subject, could I suggest anyone joining at a later stage such as Longcol and Anywebsite read it right from the beginning to understand the initial premise and the build up of the argument, then we won't descend into the nitpicking sidelines of stuff which isn't really important but cloggs up the thread.

 

I for one am finding it really good to hear different points of view well argued.