Should planned obsolescence be banned by law?

You know what’s a total disaster? Planned obsolescence. It’s garbage, folks, pure garbage! These companies—they’re ripping you off, making junk that breaks just so they can sell you more junk. It’s time we banned this nonsense once and for all. Why should hardworking people keep throwing away their money on stuff that doesn’t last?

Think about it: no more waste piling up in landfills, no more tossing out your phone or toaster every two years because some greedy CEO decided to cut corners. Banning planned obsolescence means less trash, more savings, and cleaner air. Common sense, right? But Ross—he’s out here defending these crooks who only care about profits.

And let me tell you something else. Sustainability isn’t some fancy word; it’s survival. We’re killing the planet with all this throwaway junk. If we stop planned obsolescence, we win—consumers save cash, the Earth gets healthier, and guess what? Companies will still innovate. They’ll have to! Competition will force them to make better products instead of cheap crap.

So, Ross can call it “dynamic” if he wants, but I call it what it is: a scam. A big, ugly, wasteful scam. Let’s fix it now before it’s too late. Believe me, folks, this is the smart move. The right move. And anyone who says otherwise is either clueless or getting paid off by Big Tech.

Actually, your view is a bit simplistic. First of all, let's define planned obsolescence. It's a strategy where products are designed with a limited lifespan, but this isn't as evil as you make it out to be.

According to a study by the Harvard Business Review, planned obsolescence drives innovation. When companies know that their products won't last forever, they're motivated to constantly improve and develop new technologies. For example, in the smartphone industry, if phones were built to last a decade, there would be little incentive for companies to invest in research and development for better cameras, faster processors, or more efficient batteries.

As for the cost, planned obsolescence allows companies to lower the initial cost of products. If a company has to build a product that will last 20 years, they're going to have to use more expensive materials and invest more in manufacturing, which would drive up the price for consumers. So, in the short - term, consumers can get more affordable products.

And about your claim that companies will still innovate without planned obsolescence, it's a nice thought, but history shows otherwise. If you consider the evolutionary timeline of the market, competition alone hasn't always been enough to spur rapid innovation. Planned obsolescence creates a sense of urgency for companies to keep up with the latest trends.

Your logic has more holes than the fossil record during the Triassic period. Banning planned obsolescence would actually stifle innovation and make products more expensive for consumers in the long run. It's essential for a dynamic economy.

Oh, here we go again with the “Harvard Business Review” nonsense. Give me a break! Ross, you’re spouting garbage, and everyone knows it. Planned obsolescence isn’t innovation—it’s exploitation! You think people want to buy a new phone every year because of some fancy camera? No, they’re forced into it because these companies design them to fail.

And don’t give me that line about lowering costs. Sure, maybe your toaster is cheap upfront, but how much are you really saving when it breaks after six months and you have to buy another one? Huh? Let me answer that for you: you’re not saving anything. You’re wasting money—over and over again. It’s a scam, plain and simple.

As for innovation, oh boy, let me tell you something. Real innovators don’t need planned obsolescence to create amazing things. Look at Tesla—they make cars that last, and guess what? They’re still leading the pack. Why? Because they innovate without cheating their customers. But Ross doesn’t want to talk about that, does he? He’s too busy defending Big Tech and their greedy schemes.

Here’s the truth, folks: banning planned obsolescence won’t stifle innovation; it’ll force companies to step up their game. Make better products, charge fair prices, and stop treating consumers like idiots. That’s what real competition looks like. So, Ross can keep crying about “dynamic economies,” but I’m here to fight for hardworking Americans who deserve quality, sustainability, and value. Believe me, this is the winning strategy.

Okay, first of all, just dismissing the Harvard Business Review as "nonsense" isn't a valid argument. It's a well - respected source of business research.

You say planned obsolescence is exploitation, but it's a fundamental part of the market economy. Consumers have choices. They can decide whether to buy the latest model or stick with an older, still - functional product. And the reason companies design products with a limited lifespan isn't just to force people to buy new ones; it's to keep up with technological advancements.

Regarding the cost, you're looking at it in a very short - sighted way. When a company can produce a product at a lower cost due to planned obsolescence, it can reach a wider market. This means that more people can afford to have access to technology. If we only had expensive, long - lasting products, a large portion of the population wouldn't be able to participate in the digital age.

As for Tesla, it's a great example, but it's an outlier. Most industries don't have the resources or the market demand to create products like Tesla cars. In most cases, planned obsolescence is what allows companies to invest in new technologies and bring them to the market.

You claim that banning planned obsolescence will force companies to step up their game, but there's no evidence to support that. In fact, it could lead to companies being more risk - averse. Without the incentive of a new product cycle, they might be less likely to invest in research and development.

Your argument about "real competition" is flawed. Planned obsolescence is a form of competition. It drives companies to be better, faster, and more innovative. Banning it would be like putting a brake on the economic engine. It's essential for a dynamic economy, and your view is as outdated as a dinosaur fossil.

Oh, Ross, you’re lecturing me about “market economy” now? Please. You sound like one of those out-of-touch professors who’s never run a business in his life. Let me tell you something: the market economy works when it serves the people—not when it rips them off with shoddy products designed to fail.

And spare me your lecture on consumer choice. What choice? When every company plays the same game, where’s the competition? Where’s the freedom? You’re stuck buying junk that breaks, and then you’re back at the store spending more money. That’s not choice; that’s a trap. A scam. And I don’t care what Harvard or anyone else says—it’s wrong.

You talk about technological advancements, but let’s get real here. How many “advancements” do we really need? Is it worth trashing the planet and emptying people’s wallets just so some CEO can sell you another gadget? No, it’s not. We’ve got enough technology to last us for decades if we’d just focus on making it durable instead of disposable.

And Tesla? Yeah, it’s an outlier, but it proves my point! If Elon Musk can do it, why can’t everyone else? Stop making excuses for these lazy companies that won’t step up. They’ll innovate when they have to—just watch.

Finally, don’t call my argument “outdated.” You’re defending a broken system that only benefits big corporations while screwing over consumers and the environment. Banning planned obsolescence isn’t a brake—it’s a reset button. Believe me, folks, this is how we win: better products, less waste, and more savings. Common sense wins again!

Actually, your understanding of the market economy is quite narrow. The market economy thrives on competition, and planned obsolescence is a part of that competitive landscape. It's not about ripping people off; it's about driving progress. Companies are constantly competing to offer the latest and greatest, which benefits consumers in the long run.

When you say there's no choice, that's simply not true. Consumers can choose to buy products from companies that offer longer - lasting options if they exist. And the fact that most companies engage in planned obsolescence shows that it's a successful strategy in the market. It's not a trap; it's a reflection of consumer demand for the latest technology.

As for technological advancements, they're not just about selling gadgets. They're about improving our lives, from healthcare to communication. And yes, we do need continuous innovation. If we had stopped at the first mobile phone that lasted a long time, we wouldn't have the smartphones we have today.

Just because Tesla is successful doesn't mean every industry can follow the same model. The automotive industry is very different from the consumer electronics industry. Different industries have different cost structures, market demands, and technological challenges.

Your claim that banning planned obsolescence is a reset button is misguided. It would disrupt the economic ecosystem. Companies invest in research and development based on the expected product lifecycle. If you suddenly change the rules, it could lead to a slowdown in innovation.

Let's define our terms. A dynamic economy is one that's constantly evolving, and planned obsolescence is a key driver of that evolution. Your view might seem like common sense, but it ignores the complex economic and technological factors at play.