Skip to main content

Planned Obsolescence

Image result for desoto

When I was young, there was a lot of talk about "planned obsolescence," especially in the automotive industry.

The idea was that the Detroit Big Three (who dominated the auto manufacturing world in those distant days) were deliberately creating cars that would wear out in four to five years and need to be replaced. This was understood to be both rational and predatory behavior, a sign of how buyers and sellers are necessarily at odds. Because how could makers not want repeat business? And how could motorists not want long lasting vehicles?

Nobody uses that expression any more today. Perhaps the theory now seems somewhat silly. The duration of cars has significantly expanded since the days when that expression was a thing. And the Cubans have demonstrated throughout the Castro era that it is perfectly possible to keep even 1950s era Detroit vehicles on the road in working condition into the second decade of the 21st century. How? Did the "planning" go wrong, or was it never directed as the cliche implied in the first place?

The underlying idea seems to involve hidden assumptions about interest rates.   Suppose I make a product (just call it an 'x') that lasts three years. Smith, my actual or potential competitor, has a design on the drawing board for a product that will do everything my x does, but will do it for six years.  The implication of the cliche is that t I approach him and say, "Don't ruin a good thing. Why don't you keep your product life down to three years, and we'll both get return business?"

But he has prepared to sell something that will be valued by the public more highly than what I am selling. The market could very well have room for both of us; the low-priced x and its higher priced but longer-lasting cousin. It isn't obvious my proposal would be riveting to him.

Now, you object, he'd have to charge a much higher price than mine, since his revenue is in effect going to have to last him twice as long product-for-product. Wouldn't that higher price have to be twice as high?

No. Just as an arithmetical matter, his income stream will be at parity with mine so long as the premium he charges is enough for him to buy bonds with it, such that the income from those bonds plus the principal he's already earned will add up to the price of that second x, the one he is not going to be selling at the start of year 4.  Of course he'll want low-risk bonds for this purpose.

My conclusion: planned obsolescence is a theoretical possibility that becomes more likely the longer interest rates are kept low by central bankers, for in that environment the longer-lived products may become less likely to pay for themselves.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…