Re: Zeitgeist Orientation

What I have to say about this:
I identify 3 dynamics mentioned in this film.
1. Producers plan obsolescence to extract more profit.
2. Producers restrict production to extract more profit.
3. People are more motivated by 'for the love of it' than profit.

1. Planned obsolescence. Consumer responsibility is a key concept in economics, both the consumers and the producers make rational self interested decisions. So when it comes to issues like planned obsolescence or nasty chemicals in food, the consumer DOES have the choice not to buy the product. It's kind of a 'who blinks first' type situation. Eg. say the producer makes a product, and in his self interest builds planned obsolescence into, figuring he'll make more profit. To reflect the genuine situation, let's say the producers rival sees this, and also builds planned obsolescence into his products. The consumer, knowing that products are going to break down quickly, can choose to go without. If he gives in, the producers win, and were correct in their belief that it would make them more profit. However, the consumer can hold out, the producers suffer loss, and creates a market gap for a non-planned obsolescent good to enter the market. I argue- the reason so many planned obsolescent goods are on the market - is because the consumer simply doesn't care, they go for the cheapest item now, rather than the more expensive quality item.

2. Scarcity means more profit. Sure - scarcity means per unit the producer makes more profit. But the producer may make a greater total profit by selling more units at a lower profit margin. This is economics 101. Indeed this is how Chinese production firms do so well, they sell products at a low profit margin, but sell very large amounts*.

3. Innovators not motivated by profit. Sure your mad scientist may be more motivated by the love of science than the attraction of material wealth, or an author for the love of literature. But not all inventions produced for the love of whatever, are going to be valued by society. Should we publish every book every aspiring author produces? No! We should publish just the books that people are going to buy. By allowing profit to determine what is innovated, means that only the things that people value are innovated.

I suggest the reason so many shoddy products are on the market - is because we live in an oligarchy - producing a car or electronic good requires a lot of capital, and it's difficult for a new firm to raise the capital, to produce a rival good that isn't going to break down. The people that do have the capital to spare are part of the oligarchy and don't want to see a more competitive product on the market. But this is a problem of a concentration of resources, not of capitalism itself. (It could be argued that captialism is responsible for concentrating the resources? - But nah - it occurs under any regime). One potential solution is to have 'consumer unions' - where the members agree only to buy union approved products, and the union bargains on the consumer's behalf for quality merchandise, as well as being able to financially prop up firms that produce items that consumers want.

The problem is that consumers very much do live for today. Part of it is the necessity to consume (eg food) - but also consumers are far less organised that producers.

*http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Columns&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=70663