keccers
@keccers.eth
We shouldn’t want more, more more. We should want BETTER — GDP be damned https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-marie-gluesenkamp-perez.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk8.44CF.NSAEB1UCxIjl&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
8 replies
1 recast
39 reactions
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Planned obsolescence is Moloch. We must defeat it
3 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Leeward Bound
@leewardbound
free-markets can be expected to trend towards this tho as population grows, # of buyers and sellers both increase, and the goal of the marketplace naturally trends towards "selling *more* items to *more* people", which drives down the quality of the goods there's relatively little incentive for selling the best pair of shoes ever made... you can buy "luxury shoes" but (in general) they aren't actually of the "last longer" variety... the proof of this is actually on every shelf in every store - there's surprisingly few consumer choice scenarios where you can spend more on something for it to last 10x longer or do a 10x better job. if there's a "this will last me forever" option, you usually have to buy it custom or special order. the qualitative race to the bottom is fairly universal. the only resolution (that i can see) is some kind of progressive market-share-based tax rate that makes it more and more expensive to capture a significant portion of the annual sales in a given vertical
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers
@keccers.eth
This to me is a cultural issue. People CHOOSE cheap and shitty over long-term durability. That’s not a market failure. Punishing scale directly seems like the wrong move. The lawmaker in this piece is advocating for labeling law that forces mfr to list the expected lifespan of certain products on the box. I would be down for that
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
