The info about the trade-off between efficiency and bulb life was new to me, and I appreciate that info. It's something you could have referenced in your first post on the topic, but didn't.
You claim to give markets credit, but the market was left out of this decision. It was not made by markets. If different bulbs were on the market, with a whole spectrum of variations on that trade-off, the market could have responded. If the trade-off wasn't worth it, the market would sort that out. No need for companies to collude. But that's not what happened.
Engineers at corporations are employees. They advise the people who make decisions; they don't make the decisions.
Your sandals example is what shows you don't get the concept of planned obsolescence. You can argue that the limit on light bulb life was not the result of planned obsolescence, but that's beside the point that you've been using the term incorrectly. "That's just not what that term means!" in your last post is a non-sequitur.
I agree it doesn't take a conspiracy to have planned obsolescence, but stuff falling apart because it's cheaply made is not an example of it.On the matter of planned obsolescence: You don't need a conspiracy for that. All you need are market demands. There's a market demand for $2 sandals, so companies make them. It's not economically sustainable to make $2 sandals that don't fall apart, so $2 sandals fall apart.
Did I even use the word "system" in this whole conversation? This is from left field.fossiltooth wrote:An another thing: The word "system" has become to stigmatized. In reality you can't "smash the system." I mean, you can, but when you do, another one just pops up. And who knows? It may very well suck far worse.
Better perhaps to work to improve systems to be better and fairer for everybody. That's my take, anyway.