The Lightbulb Conspiracy: planned obsolescence

Joe Frank wrote:

Then if we are smart enough not to let governments steal our leisure time and increased productivity as increased taxes
one could could conceivably work just 3 to 6 months a year.

H Ludi Tyler wrote:You seem to be the one complaining about having to work so hard, not me. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand that you don't have to work so hard.

I don't use tillers.

Joe Frank wrote:The Lightbulb Conspiracy: planned obsolescence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o

They are missing the main and most important point IMHO.

If one insists on things that last and you buy less you should also then have the option to work less to earn money to buy useless things
or it's all for naught.

Then if we are smart enough not to let governments steal our leisure time and increased productivity as increased taxes
one could could conceivably work just 3 to 6 months a year.

Think about it. I think we need a new film looking at this perspective.

Al Loria wrote:Interesting topic. Is the conspiracy created specifically to benefit a few, or is it an outgrowth of the capitalist system itself?
In NC you can make moonshine it is on the books you just have to pay taxes on sales although my friend her late husband was the Legendary Moonshiner Popcorn Sutton. Now Hank Williams Jr now has a distillery with the Late Popcorns recipe and legally makes it second Distillery coming soon! SO some places Monshine is legal if you can believe that
Competition has always been the engine that drives better prices for the consumer. It seems like since we are not manufacturing as much within our own country, then there is no incentive for innovation to create cheaper and better products. When the major source of manufacture becomes one country ( in this case china), and the stateside companies become just sales companies, then the consumer gets dumbed down into buying whatever gets marketed to them. And all this gets done under the auspices of a government that can be lobbied.

It's kind of like moonshine. You can't legally make it on your own, so you have to pay the taxes on booze to the government and the consumer pays that in the end pricing of the product. The lightbulbs can't be manufactured here anymore because they are illegal. The price goes up for a CFL, and consequently, so does the taxes paid in the purchase price. Big business wins, and so does the government.

Somewhere along the line, capitalism morphed from a private free enterprise system to a government sponsored one. They can lobby for subsidies, laws, and whatever else they need to make the bottom line larger. They win, we lose.

Now, we have seed that can be legally protected, so the food chain becomes part of the federally protected system. This is no longer a free enterprise system, but something far more sinister.

duane McCoy wrote:
It is what Capitalism is about
there is no "free lunch" and there is no "free market capitalism"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/free-market-economics-critique_b_1155820.html

paul wheaton wrote:From a frugality perspective, my lightbulb junk boils down to this:

1) I currently spend about $12 per year on electricity for lighting with incandescent. If I buy one CFL for $3 (instead of 50 cents for an incandescent) and try to put it where it could be the most efficient, then that would have to be to use it on the one light that I have on the most often. In that spot, it should last about two years and save me about $3 per year. So I spent $2.50 more and got $6 back. For all other lights in the house, I think CFLs would not save money because the bulb would burn out faster.

2) The CFL is subsidized. If there were no subsidy, then the light would cost about $11. So I would be paying $11 to get $6. Therefore, the CFL does not actually earn it's keep.

3) With the subsidy, the light is even more expensive because of all the red tape for all the subsidies.

4) When the light is running, it contributes to sickness. Sickness costs.

5) When the light is dead, it contributes to pollution which contributes to sickness. Sickness costs.

paul wheaton wrote:a summary

paul wheaton wrote:

Then somebody got the idea that if they could shorten the lifespan of
their lightbulbs, they could all sell ten times more light bulbs.
They all liked the idea of making more money, so they did that.