That was an interesting article. I think, however, that the author tends to assume the market is acting in its best interest which is not necessarily true. Often people make poor decisions for short-term reasons.

My own experience with this was as follows: when I was out of college and started to live on my own I had to buy an important implement: a can opener. So I went and bought an EKCO can opener for $0.69. You can find these cheap openers in any convenience store. Mine lasted for about 3 to 4 months. I bought another one. Then another one. Finally I said, “Forget it.” I bought the most expensive opener I could find, a $5.00 opener that said it was used on the Space Shuttle! Good enough for me.

That opener lasted 10 years during which time I would have otherwise bought at least 30 EKCO openers costing $20 or more.

The truth is my original decision was wrong because I was ignorant of some important things like the ultimate cost of buying the cheap item and inconvenience of repeatedly buying it and the poor performance of the cheap tool when it is in its “dying” phase.

Many people still make exactly the same blunder I did (and some even fail to correct it) so today the EKCO can opener is still the most commonly found opener.

Just because the market has this demand does not mean the consumers are acting in their best interest. They are making a poor decision because of ignorance just like I once did.

Mr. Chamberlain, after you tried the EKCO can opener and finding it wanting in features you needed, you instantly got an education on can openers. This is how people learn new stuff, by making mistakes. Thinking this is a flaw of the market is ignoring this fact. Also you assume the EKCO can opener continues to be so popular because somehow people are stupid, but I think your assumption stems more from a bias on your part, having the advantage of hindsight regarding your choices for can openers. Maybe people find a shoddy can opener just good enough to get by. You seem to find flaw in the market because, in hindsight, your can opener purchases were not too happy for you.

Regarding this apparent “problem” with the market, may I remind you that producers have responded to the can opener situation by introducing pull-up lids for cans? Maybe the market is a bit more resilient than you might think. Give a bit more credit to people and their decisions.

Cheers,
Francisco Torres
Monterrey, Mexico

(Off topic)

Lucette:

The tide may be changing for Toyota. You car, at the latest, is a 1994. Toyota made great cars then. The front suspension of our 2000 Camry literally fell apart after 2.5 years. We decided to get rid of a two year old car that we were hoping to get 15 years out of.

You did the right thing by keeping the old one.

Something Lew didn’t mention in this article is our old nemesis – government!

About 10 years ago my refrigerator starting freezing things. When the repairmen came he said this is usually caused by a faulty thermostat which would cost over $100 to replace. Since the appliance was already 15 years old I ask if he thought I should buy a new one (he also sold refrigerators). He said no since the compressor on the newer ones were not nearly as durable due to the government energy saving regulations. He repaired it and it still works perfectly.

Spending $2 to save $1 is governments idea of conserving resources.

I think some of you are missing the point. Quality, durability, longevity, etc. are simply some among many factors that individuals must consider and place value on, and thus, are not always the most important factors to people. To say that one must not be allowed to buy cheap, shoddy stuff, either because it is assumed to not be worth it, or because the purchasers are assumed to be stupid and ignorant, is to suppress the individual’s freedom to choose which values are important to them, and to deny them the responsibility for making those decisions, and to learn from their mistakes.

The market is a discovery process, for the consumer as well as for the producer. Of course, as Ron pointed out, we have to remember that the current system is not a free market, and thus, consumer demand is not the only factor in the products that are currently available to us. A legitimate question would be how much effect does market interference have on our available goods, although I don’t think it’s an easy question to answer.

In selling a product you never mention the shoddiness of your product, or praise the virtues of shoddiness in general.

Actually, they do it all the time, but they use words like “disposable” or “biodegradable” instead of saying “shoddy”.

Consumer Reports magazine (and website) is a superb example of the power of consumers to work together outside of government to compare and test all kinds of products. Can openers are reviewed and rated in Sept. 1994, page 588. Ekco models are ranked 9th, 10th and 12th out of 14 manual models.

Surprisingly, despite their success working outside of government, CR’s editorial position is 100% socialist: more regulation, more government testing, free government health care, etc.

Perhaps we libertarians should all join up, vote in our own slate of directors, and use the editorial pages as a pulpit for bringing libertarian ideas to Kerry country.

Yes, good article.

I think that there is more to the “shoddy-ness” than discussed. Typically, we would purchase a car. There were some problems, but as I suggested to my (critical) wife, if these cars were perfect, they probably would have to be much more expensive and we would not have been able to buy one.

Ditto to tract homes. We live in one – - not bad, but far from perfect. Would we have it if perfect? Probably wouldn’t afford it. Of course, there are million dollar homes which also are not perfect. In such cases, the cost probably gets a few more “bells & whistles” rather than an increase in quality because that’s what is wanted.

It boils down to most people wanting more, where more is in size, in weight, or in quantity – - not in quality. And it seems that we usually have other options, but make this choice. Just like Mr. Clem in a previous post suggests.

I had a can opener experience much like Mr. Chamberlain. My wife to be put “can opener” on the gift registry, and trashed mine after she married me.

“tz” has a great point, I think. The federal reserve, in partnership with our Asian friends who are gobbling up US debt has created an artificially low interest rate situation, while the real rate is much higher. The result is that we borrow & spend money on toys and real estate as fast as we can as long as this honeymoon lasts.

As soon as borrowed capital doesn’t come so easily, the time value of money (interest rate) will increase and consumers will move toward quality products, and quality investments too.

Bill

“But books, yard tools and kitchen utensils and appliances don’t become unfashionable or dated.”

I believe you are incorrect on this, unless you still use wooden barrel washing machines or eat from tin plates. And books not becoming unfashionable? Give me a break! How about science books? Or do you think a physics treatise on the Ether is up to date?

“Actually, the manufacturers may or may not be more clever, but they certainly have inside information that an informed buyer would not. Free markets require freely available information. Fraud has no contribution to make.”

Maybe, but planned obsolescence and downright fraud are two different things. Fraudulent products are punished by the market, the non-availability of insider information notwithstanding, because people DO communicate their experiences by word of mouth, consumer journals or the Internet. As for planned obsolescence, this is pure humbug: in order for something to be declared “obsolete”, a newer AND CONSUMER DESIRABLE product must be available for comparison, so unless producers can predict the market of the future (a truly formidable task), there is no way they can “plan” obsolescence.

“The more you pay, the less wealth you have, especially if just replacing something that was perfectly adequate before it failed.”

But that is exactly Lew’s point: you don’t pay MORE, you keep paying LESS. Cheaper products replace those older, more expensive and ultimately obsolete items. As an example, my mom had bought a cutting-edge Marantz DVD player for $500 about 4-1/2 years ago, one of the best in the market at that time. It is now obsolete, although it still plays DVDs perfectly. I bought a Daewoo player for 85 bucks about 2 years ago. The thing can play DVDs, CDs, CD-Vs, MP3, etc. IF and WHEN I replace it, it will probably be for something similar costing me another 85 bucks. If I have to replace it two more times, that still amounts to only 4 x 85 = $340. Compared to the $500 my mom plunked down, I still get updated technology each time for less money.

“My stuff breaking can in no way make me wealthier. Worse, there is a free market problem that I don’t see a solution to. Once the purchase is made, demand appears to have occurred. But if replacing a broken item, the demand is forced.”

Either purchase high-quality products, or you may ask the government to pass laws making all producers sell you stuff that lasts 100 years, but you will probably be even LESS wealthy if you decide to go that course, I fancy.

This appears to be yet another case of the Broken Window fallacy — odd to have it here stated by a supposed supporter of freedom!

We should also remember a particular severe problem with the idea of “throwing things away” at our leisure: Increasingly, there is no more “away” where people are free to throw things without causing uncompensated harm to others. Disposal of “disposable” products regularly leads to assault upon others’ persons and property, in the form of air and water pollution — which does not respect property lines.

The right to use land, water, and air as places to “throw things away” is a property right. I may store or discard broken junk on my own property, or property which I rent or pay to use — such as a commercial landfill or a storage unit. However, I do not have the right to throw things away into other people’s property, or to harm them or their property in so doing.

To take an example: I am free to “dispose” of broken electronic devices by storing them inertly in my basement, or by paying someone else to store them. I am not free to dispose of them by dumping them in my neighbor’s yard.

Moreover, I am not free to dispose of them by incineration, releasing toxins into the atmosphere which my neighbors must breathe … nor by burial, releasing mercury into the water table from which our wells draw, and into the ocean from which our fishermen fish.

I have no more right to poison others or damage their property in the act of “throwing things away” than I would have to poison them or damage property deliberately out of malice.

It is perfectly reasonable to consider disposability and cheap replacement of products to be a benefit. However, it is necessary for freedom that persons who choose to take this benefit must also internalize the associated costs of disposal, rather than forcing these costs upon others by violent acts such as pollution.

This appears to be yet another case of the Broken Window fallacy

It’s not a case of the broken window, because it’s not about doing damage to allegedly spur the economy. It’s about the obsolete window, and what do you do once it’s broken, or maybe it’s just gotten old and deteriorated. Do you spend more money to get exactly the same kind of windows or do you spend less money and put in modern, insulated storm windows? It’s your choice, and nobody can say you’re wrong if you choose the latter instead of the former (or vice-versa, it’s your money).

Vanmind, That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying that producers shouldn’t take consumer’s concerns and interests into consideration when making their products? If people don’t want “shoddy” products, all they have to do is not purchase them, and producers will quickly stop making them, and focus more on quality, durability, etc.

It would be different if you can show that producers are deliberately defrauding customers, like saying a product will last ten years when they know it’s likely to break down in 3-5 years, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Oooh Henry:

You are, indeed, correct regarding CR. And that’s a fact that has amazed me for at least 30 years. How can they be and continue to be so obtuse? Guess we’ll never know.

Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that people don’t know what they want.

I do agree with the causality analysis whereby most capital investments in manufacturing appear as stabs-in-the-dark that then beget marketing imperatives to “prove to the public that they need this new product.”

Cell phone markets were a slam-dunk certainty once cordless phones became popular (“Man, I wish I could just take this thing with me everywhere”). Cordless (radio) phone markets were themselves a slam dunk once soldiers from WWII, Korea and Vietnam gained experience with mobile field-communications equipment. Those early radio communications prototypes that the military developed before WWII were direct implementations of an invention (the inventor: not Marconi but spun toward crediting Marconi).

My point here: innovation stems from the art of satisfying curiosity. Art demands of its artist that any consideration of audience be dismissed as a potential source of inspiration for the creative process. The ultimate route by which businesses and markets handle mass-production & dissemination for published works of art/invention is subject to the usual bottlenecks of bureaucracy and misappropriation.

I believe that every producer should strive to offer consumers the best possible good/service that it can afford to deliver. I believe also that to do otherwise–to seek niche markets for those consumers who like to play the follow-the-decreasing-price-tag game–invites corporate slush funds, quid pro quo, executive excess/corruption, injury-claim litigation, pollution encroachment, suggestive (in a post-hypnotic way) ad strategies, low labour morale/loyalty/quality (“We make the crappiest cars on the planet”), decreased sources of entrepreneur financing (malinvested instead in knock-off producers), collective bargaining headaches from trapping entrepreneurs in dead-end work (“You’d better make it worth my while to choke down my own dreams of success”), and a general indication of the producer’s low self-esteem.

“To take an example: I am free to “dispose” of broken electronic devices by storing them inertly in my basement, or by paying someone else to store them. I am not free to dispose of them by dumping them in my neighbor’s yard[...] Moreover, I am not free to dispose of them by incineration, releasing toxins into the atmosphere which my neighbors must breathe … nor by burial, releasing mercury into the water table from which our wells draw, and into the ocean from which our fishermen fish.”

Well Fubar, the answer to this problem, if taken to its logical conclusion, would be to produce NOTHING, lest we damage the environment or pollute someone’s property. Does this sound more reasonable than producing goods to fulfill people’s needs, even if some pollution is generated?

Like I posted above, you can always lobby government to pass laws requiring producers to build or market goods that will last 100 years, thus assuring no throw-aways fill our landfills or lakes. But take into account those throw-aways that are designed that way for safety reasons: imagine dental drills that are of so high a quality, few dentists would be able to afford them. How many people would have to suffer tooth-aches just to accomodate for one person’s sensibilities about “the environment”? Imagine no throw-away syringes… How many people would be able to receive shots if each time the non-disposable (but seemingly environmentally-friendly) needles have to be sterilized before use on one patient?

The inner workings on many of those “throw-away” consumer electronic products have in fact many, MANY less electronic components than those products built just 20 years ago, which means they would pollute much less than those old TV sets or old HiFi Stereos. You must remember also that those old electronic products that relied on vacuum tubes or even transistor technology were not as safe as the newer models that use low-voltage microchips. Those electronic boards that used vacuum tubes were HUGE! Imagine trying to dispose of millions of those today, if technology had not kept the pace it showed these last decades.

The fact that some product are disposable is not in itself evidence of “problems” with the free market, but rather the result of a more efficient use of resources: by making products cheaper, smaller, more efficient, people actually make them more environmentally friendly, even if you cannot fathom this.

Vanmind, I understand what you are saying but I believe you are looking at the concept from a wrong point of view, for the market is not THE forum of the finer arts and cultural advancement; it is merely the cumulative result of all those goods exchanges done by all people. With this in mind, thinking civilization is crashing all around us just because the average joe can purchase a 19″ color TV for $80 is, at least in my opinion, stretching things a bit.

“All artists (including inventors) have a primary obligation to ignore any consideration of potential audience.”

What would be the point of artistic creation or innovation if artists or inventors ignore a priori a potential audience? Such thinking would most likely doom an artist to early oblivion; for this reason I can be quite sure your affirmation is incorrect.

Heaven forbid parasites-of-invention should have to actually create something new to offer the public. Such third-rate “entrepreneurs” would likely be at a loss about where to even begin the creative process.

I used to wonder why these knock-off producers seem to have such low opinions of themselves, until I realized that “modern” society makes the fundamental error of suppressing artistic pursuit for the sake of “making stuff to sell.”

Free markets: Hooray
Free markets obliging people to dismiss as irrelevant the evolution of one brain-hemisphere: Boo

As artistic creativity (of which invention is a subset) becomes displaced by some arbitrary benchmark-of-progress like gewgaw accumulation, we enter an era of rampant basket-weaving.

btw: let me rephrase what I said in an above post:

Any person who creates with an audience in mind has no right to call themselves an artist. Artisan, maybe. Craftsperson, maybe. Artist, no. Once one considers a potential audience, any project loses its status as original art due to the introduction of external influences into the creative process (although such an influenced project might still become a pleasing work of craft).

So to summarize my opinion:

1. Artists are mankind’s true genius (thanks to Kant for pointing out this aspect of humanity).
2. Knock-off producers undermine artists with fraudulent centralization-of-capital for ponzi schemes geared toward “producing as many homogenized things as possible.”
3. Ergo, knock-off producers should be ashamed of themselves, for they are practicing socialism.