Government vs Corporations

[Woodruff]

That CAN be the case, certainly. In my view, the appropriate venue for government-funded research is in things like the space program and the military. I recognize that these days we're even looking at the space program from a privately-run perspective, but I'm referring to the days of our real space program. A lot of innovation/R&D was done legitimately by the government and it wasn't due to corporate control at all.

The space program is a good example, setting aside the fact that private efforts are still new and who knows if they will pan out or not.

Oh, they WILL pan out...there's really no question of that. They will pan out because the profitability is absolutely there.

No private company could have massed the resources necessary to go to the moon. Was it a worthy goal? A different question, but overall, most of society has decided it was worthwhile. Are private companies now moving in? Sure! And that is great. However, would they have been able to do so without government support? Doubtful.

Why wouldn't they have been able to do so? I can think of no reason. The government provided them some incentive (Project X and the like), but there's no reason that the private sector couldn't have done it without government assistance.

And, as I noted, the space program is one reason why we have microcomputers. So.. no space program, no CC!

That's presumptive. Certainly, it's true we wouldn't have had them so quickly. But it almost assuredly would have happened.

[thegreekdog]

Also, if the US funds a particular field of research, then it isn't necessary for the private sector to do so, assuming they get the share of the spoils. So you can't proclaim that the private sector couldn't provide because the government has crowded out, and substituted, the need for R&D in particular areas or on particular projects.

[thegreekdog inserts the bionic eyes provided by the government and their benevolent research]

I wonder why the government funds research and development? Could it be because corporations control government? I mean, perish the thought... Player is actually arguing for more corporate control of government!

That CAN be the case, certainly. In my view, the appropriate venue for government-funded research is in things like the space program and the military. I recognize that these days we're even looking at the space program from a privately-run perspective, but I'm referring to the days of our real space program. A lot of innovation/R&D was done legitimately by the government and it wasn't due to corporate control at all.

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Burning rivers and child labor laws, you're certainly correct. But employee safety standards and other rights were absolutely at the forefront of unionization, at least as much as pay standards.

I don't disagree with this either.

[Woodruff]

It's not, its been gutted and hamstrung. We need more funding for specific research and regulatory bodies.

We need our regulatory bodies to do their damn jobs, that's what we need. Far too often, corruption within the regulatory bodies are more the problem than anything else. Certainly moreso than the funding that you try to claim. It's hamstrung itself.

That probably is true in the banking industry. It is generally not true in the environmental and social regulation areas. (or while I am sure there is corruption, it is not the primary factor in those cases.. not by far. Like I said, no social worker can keep up with 700 cases effectively)

However, if you read back through those 2 articles or even just the Discover one, it shows how the corruption to which you refer is directly tied to lack of funding. Specifically, all the reduce government types who want to tout industry contributions and payments.

More funding isn't going to cause the civil servants and regulators to not take bribes or not to look the other way.

[Woodruff]

Also, if the US funds a particular field of research, then it isn't necessary for the private sector to do so, assuming they get the share of the spoils. So you can't proclaim that the private sector couldn't provide because the government has crowded out, and substituted, the need for R&D in particular areas or on particular projects.

[thegreekdog inserts the bionic eyes provided by the government and their benevolent research]

I wonder why the government funds research and development? Could it be because corporations control government? I mean, perish the thought... Player is actually arguing for more corporate control of government!

That CAN be the case, certainly. In my view, the appropriate venue for government-funded research is in things like the space program and the military. I recognize that these days we're even looking at the space program from a privately-run perspective, but I'm referring to the days of our real space program. A lot of innovation/R&D was done legitimately by the government and it wasn't due to corporate control at all.

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

[PLAYER57832]

No private company could have massed the resources necessary to go to the moon. Was it a worthy goal? A different question, but overall, most of society has decided it was worthwhile. Are private companies now moving in? Sure! And that is great. However, would they have been able to do so without government support? Doubtful.

Why wouldn't they have been able to do so? I can think of no reason. The government provided them some incentive (Project X and the like), but there's no reason that the private sector couldn't have done it without government assistance.

I can think of several reasons. First, if you remember, this was hardly a "slam dunk" surety, particularly after the many deaths and missteps.

Begin with Sputnik. That really did change the face of American public education. I absolutely benefitted, I suspect you benefitted. Science and math were emphasized in the nation. That massive emphasis lead to an entirely different national perspective. You can tie that and the idealism brought by the "candy cane" picture of life presented in the 50's together for the rebelling of the 60's and 70's..but also for the many accomplishments. you cannot separate it out. That freedom of thinking led to some craziness, but it also lead to much of the real science we have today.

Even if you dispute that (and yes, that is debatable), the fact is that no company of the time had the incentive, the desire or the means to accomplish a space walk. Had we not done it, the Soviet would have. That was more than just an "ego" fight. If we had let the soviets lead, we would have missed out on the technology. WE might have shared a lot of what we gained, but did the USSR? Would the Soviet have? And, with the soviet having the upper hand, events that followed, clear up onto the fall would have been more difficult, potentially would not have happened.

Sometimes "slower" means "not". In science.. that is often the case.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

Yes, except my point is that many private breakthroughs would never have happened were it not for the foundation of public research. The problem is that public research is just done, given out, "absorbed". The government does not give itself patents. Companies take and use the government funded results and build upon them without much of any credit going to the government. So, many people have plain and simply no idea how much we have truly gained from government research.

I had thought greekdog and BBS woud at least try to verify, but apparently I was incorrect.

[Woodruff]

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

Yes, except my point is that many private breakthroughs would never have happened were it not for the foundation of public research. The problem is that public research is just done, given out, "absorbed". The government does not give itself patents. Companies take and use the government funded results and build upon them without much of any credit going to the government. So, many people have plain and simply no idea how much we have truly gained from government research.
I had thought greekdog and BBS woud at least try to verify, but apparently I was incorrect.

You PRESUME those breakthroughs would never have happened without government research. I'm not sure that's a valid presumption at all.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not, its been gutted and hamstrung. We need more funding for specific research and regulatory bodies.

We need our regulatory bodies to do their damn jobs, that's what we need. Far too often, corruption within the regulatory bodies are more the problem than anything else. Certainly moreso than the funding that you try to claim. It's hamstrung itself.

That probably is true in the banking industry. It is generally not true in the environmental and social regulation areas. (or while I am sure there is corruption, it is not the primary factor in those cases.. not by far. Like I said, no social worker can keep up with 700 cases effectively)

However, if you read back through those 2 articles or even just the Discover one, it shows how the corruption to which you refer is directly tied to lack of funding. Specifically, all the reduce government types who want to tout industry contributions and payments.

More funding isn't going to cause the civil servants and regulators to not take bribes or not to look the other way.

Direct bribes are relatively rare. However, it does inhibit those things, in many ways. First, more eyes, more people doing the jobs, means those cheaters are more likely to be caught. Second, sometimes the pay these people get is so very, very low it pretty much gaurantees they will need to go out and get another job later.. and rules allow them to do so.

Also, like I said earlier, at this point some of these agencies are so overrun that people in them drop lies flies from burnout..anyone with a conscience anyway. So, what's left are the dregs. OR, even if people start out wanting to "do good", they wind up getting corrupted. They get corrupted to not care and they get corrupted by constant association with the people they are regulating, so that it gets harder and harder for them to stay independent. That last is particularly critical, because it is something that can cause bias in even good people. It is why there was historically a tight wall between the inspectors and those they inspect, but those walls were partialy or fully torn down. (more fully, I believe, in the case of banking oversight, but I am less informed on that area than the others to wich I have referred.)

[Woodruff]

It's not, its been gutted and hamstrung. We need more funding for specific research and regulatory bodies.

We need our regulatory bodies to do their damn jobs, that's what we need. Far too often, corruption within the regulatory bodies are more the problem than anything else. Certainly moreso than the funding that you try to claim. It's hamstrung itself.

That probably is true in the banking industry. It is generally not true in the environmental and social regulation areas. (or while I am sure there is corruption, it is not the primary factor in those cases.. not by far. Like I said, no social worker can keep up with 700 cases effectively)

However, if you read back through those 2 articles or even just the Discover one, it shows how the corruption to which you refer is directly tied to lack of funding. Specifically, all the reduce government types who want to tout industry contributions and payments.

More funding isn't going to cause the civil servants and regulators to not take bribes or not to look the other way.

Direct bribes are relatively rare. However, it does inhibit those things, in many ways. First, more eyes, more people doing the jobs, means those cheaters are more likely to be caught. Second, sometimes the pay these people get is so very, very low it pretty much gaurantees they will need to go out and get another job later.. and rules allow them to do so.

That's why you change the damn rules. This isn't a funding issue, it's a regulatory issue.

[PLAYER57832]

Direct bribes are relatively rare. However, it does inhibit those things, in many ways. First, more eyes, more people doing the jobs, means those cheaters are more likely to be caught. Second, sometimes the pay these people get is so very, very low it pretty much gaurantees they will need to go out and get another job later.. and rules allow them to do so.

That's why you change the damn rules. This isn't a funding issue, it's a regulatory issue.

How is changing the rules going to help when there is no funding for people to enforce them?

[Woodruff]

Direct bribes are relatively rare. However, it does inhibit those things, in many ways. First, more eyes, more people doing the jobs, means those cheaters are more likely to be caught. Second, sometimes the pay these people get is so very, very low it pretty much gaurantees they will need to go out and get another job later.. and rules allow them to do so.

That's why you change the damn rules. This isn't a funding issue, it's a regulatory issue.

How is changing the rules going to help when there is no funding for people to enforce them?

This doesn't make sense, PLAYER. Currently, someone can take employment with the company they were previously regulating. Change the rules to prohibit that. It's not exactly going to take a lot of funding to enforce that...and I'm quite certain the funding for that sort of a situation does exist.

[thegreekdog]

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

Yes, except my point is that many private breakthroughs would never have happened were it not for the foundation of public research. The problem is that public research is just done, given out, "absorbed". The government does not give itself patents. Companies take and use the government funded results and build upon them without much of any credit going to the government. So, many people have plain and simply no idea how much we have truly gained from government research.

I had thought greekdog and BBS woud at least try to verify, but apparently I was incorrect.

Yeah, see Woodruff? She is making claims in addition to what you've claimed (and what I agree with).

There are two types of government research:

(1) Government research done with the original purpose of benefitting the military or the government itself (i.e. super soldier scientific research... just kidding).
(2) Government research done with the original purpose of assisting private companies.

Now #1 may lead to private breakthroughs, sure. I have no problem with #1 really (except I'd like to see what we're wasting our time on if anything). I'm perfectly happy paying to try to see if we can colonize the moon or Mars or something.

I'm not in favor of #2. And Player shouldn't be either. That is why I referred to my short play.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

Yes, except my point is that many private breakthroughs would never have happened were it not for the foundation of public research. The problem is that public research is just done, given out, "absorbed". The government does not give itself patents. Companies take and use the government funded results and build upon them without much of any credit going to the government. So, many people have plain and simply no idea how much we have truly gained from government research.
I had thought greekdog and BBS woud at least try to verify, but apparently I was incorrect.

You PRESUME those breakthroughs would never have happened without government research. I'm not sure that's a valid presumption at all.

At some point, its impossible to say for sure.

However, take a count of the companies around then and the resources they had available, plus the directions of that research. Also, look at the fact that when this began, we were just coming off a war and had recently needed to employ vast numbers of returning soldiers. Education, the original GI bills had a LOT to do with why we got where we are. This whole bit of space program was a big piece of that.

[PLAYER57832]

Direct bribes are relatively rare. However, it does inhibit those things, in many ways. First, more eyes, more people doing the jobs, means those cheaters are more likely to be caught. Second, sometimes the pay these people get is so very, very low it pretty much gaurantees they will need to go out and get another job later.. and rules allow them to do so.

That's why you change the damn rules. This isn't a funding issue, it's a regulatory issue.

How is changing the rules going to help when there is no funding for people to enforce them?

This doesn't make sense, PLAYER. Currently, someone can take employment with the company they were previously regulating. Change the rules to prohibit that. It's not exactly going to take a lot of funding to enforce that...and I'm quite certain the funding for that sort of a situation does exist.

I agree that the rule needs to be changed, but one reason it was changed is that folks don't want to pay government employees more. Not being paid more means you have trouble getting people to do the work. Why should somebody study and go to school to earn 1/100th what they could in private industry?

Second, without more regulators, the rest doesn't matter... BUT, the problem you noted is real in the case of bankers. It is not true in my primary examples.. the environment and social regulators (not just social services).

[PLAYER57832]

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

Yes, except my point is that many private breakthroughs would never have happened were it not for the foundation of public research. The problem is that public research is just done, given out, "absorbed". The government does not give itself patents. Companies take and use the government funded results and build upon them without much of any credit going to the government. So, many people have plain and simply no idea how much we have truly gained from government research.

I had thought greekdog and BBS woud at least try to verify, but apparently I was incorrect.

Yeah, see Woodruff? She is making claims in addition to what you've claimed (and what I agree with).

There are two types of government research:

(1) Government research done with the original purpose of benefitting the military or the government itself (i.e. super soldier scientific research... just kidding).
(2) Government research done with the original purpose of assisting private companies.

NOPE.. you miss quite a few bits.

Research to improve the health of the population (some of this is tied in with military research, particularly the cure for malaria).

Research to discover problems.. i.e. pollution, etc.

"Pure research", because it might be important.. this can include astronomic research, ocean research, etc.

Research that helps the government protect various rights combines #1 and #2.. particularly a lot of marine research, but also things like Antarctic research. We did it, in part to be sure we had a claim up there/out there... both for potential military and commercial reasons.

That is by no means a full list, but it is a start.

Now #1 may lead to private breakthroughs, sure. I have no problem with #1 really (except I'd like to see what we're wasting our time on if anything). I'm perfectly happy paying to try to see if we can colonize the moon or Mars or something.

I'm not in favor of #2. And Player shouldn't be either. That is why I referred to my short play.

I am not in favor of #2. You are ignoring the full reach and purposes of government research.

[Woodruff]

I agree that the rule needs to be changed, but one reason it was changed is that folks don't want to pay government employees more. Not being paid more means you have trouble getting people to do the work. Why should somebody study and go to school to earn 1/100th what they could in private industry?

I don't know of ANYONE in civil service who is making 1/100th of what they could make in private industry. In fact, I can't imagine that any of them are at the level of 1/10th.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, actually they don't necessarily benefit society. Not without controls, they don't.

WHAT?!?!?!

[thegreekdog pokes out eyes with pen]

Unrestrained capitalism is what got us everything from children at looms to burning rivers. It took riots, people willing to literally lay their lives on the line to form unions in order to combat this.

If you look at actions of capitalists, even US capitalists in other countries, it gets far worse.
And.. the current trend is to move back in that direction. It doesn't matter that we probably won't reach quite those depths again, because the point is that unrestrained capitalism doesn't benefit society.

Captilasm gave us a LOT of very negative stuff, and some good stuff.

Yeah, I mean, Capitalism totally sucks, man. Just compare life in the US compared to living in China (before China swayed more toward capitalism).

[BigBallinStalin]

Stop that, TGD! Don't let her know that in order for the government to put something into the economy, it has to take something from the economy!

Not entirely, no.

Governmen research is not all productive in the sense you want to measure. However, that is why it is done by the government and not private companies. then private companies come up and market it.

Per your earlier question about NASA, etc... without the government we would have things that people can buy, but not many things that people need. We certainly would not know what we do about pollution and cancer, to name a couple.

Capilalism doesn't so much promote research as it takes advantage of research that is out there and turns it into a profit. For your premise to be true, the inventors would have to be benefitting directly. In MOST cases, they do not. There are a few exceptions, but there are far more inventors who have watched other people get rich off their inventions than who have actually gotten wealthy themselves.

Even so, I said from the start I am not against capitalism. I don't however want companies replacing our government. Nor do I want the government regulators, investigators to be even more hamstrung.
EXAMPLE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding

An often-quoted case study is the first sequencing of the human genome, which was simulataneously carried out in two competing projects, the United States government-managed Human Genome Project (HGP) and the private venture capital funded Celera Genomics. Celera Genomics used a newer, albeit riskier technique, which some HGP researchers[who?] claimed would not work, although that project eventually adopted some of the same methods. However, it has been argued by some genomics researchers that a simple efficiency comparison for such programs is not apt. Much of the funding provided for the HGP served the development of new technologies, rather than the sequencing of the human genome itself. In addition, Celera started much later than the HGP and could take advantage of the experience gained by the HGP, which, as a publicly-funded project, made much of its work available as a basis upon which Celera could build. Though Celera's sequencing strategy allowed the sequencing of the majority of the human genome with much higher efficacy, the strategy used by the HGP allowed the sequencing of a higher percentage of the genome.

A Discover article " Science's Worst Enemy: Corporate Funding"
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sc ... te-funding

Most Americans rarely think of science as something crucial to the way government operates. Yet, as Seth Shulman explains in his book Undermining Science, “the U.S. government runs on information—vast amounts of it.” Scientists at the Department of Agriculture track airborne bacteria resulting from farm wastes, experts at the Centers for Disease Control examine samples to help guard against large-scale disease outbreaks, and regulators at the EPA set standards for pesticide use and exposure. By necessity, most of these federal agencies work closely with industry, but more and more their internal functions are also being privatized. Scientific advisory panels are frequently filled with experts who have close financial and other ties to the same industries that manufacture the products they are reviewing. Agencies also outsource their regulatory functions to private-sector contractors and forge new public-private research ventures.

Consider the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The center has only two full-time employees and one part-time; until recently the rest of the center’s workforce was supplied by Sciences International (SI), a private consulting firm that has been funded by more than 40 chemical industry clients. For nearly a decade, the center had been outsourcing much of its work to SI, which assessed health risks and drafted reviews for 21 chemicals that the center was reviewing for their possible impact on human reproductive health. This April, NIH terminated its contract with SI after learning that the company or its employees had business ties to the chemical industry.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the FDA countering drug companies:

What’s troubling about these trends is that most federal agencies are poorly equipped to protect themselves from undue corporate influence, says David Michaels, an epidemiologist at George Washington University and former assistant secretary for environment, safety, and health at the Department of Energy. Regulatory agencies must rely on large quantities of scientific evidence submitted to them by private industry. This evidence is needed to determine the hazards and characteristics of industrial chemicals, products, and wastes. But according to Michaels, most of these federal agencies lack even the most rudimentary tools that a medical journal editor would use to assess the quality and scientific integrity of industry-funded research.

Virtually everyone interviewed for this ar­ticle agrees about one thing: The U.S. government must strengthen its investment in science. The members of Norman Augustine’s 2005 National Academies panel continue to call for an immediate doubling of federal investment in basic science, arguing that basic science is a quintessential public good that only the federal government can properly fund. The rewards of basic research are risky and diffuse, making it difficult for individual companies to invest in.

I'll address your points after you overcome this hurdle:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=149531&view=unread#p3269355

[BigBallinStalin]

We had this debate, but you conveniently forgot, so why go through it again?

I'll sum up the problems with your example:

1) You ignore the additional costs in producing longer lasting products, which defeat their own usefulness as the technology becomes obsolete, and replaceable parts become too expensive to continue producing.

2) You mistaken this unseen cost for some corporate conspiracy, which to you explains why all corporations have colluded in creating only supposedly short-lasting products.

You are seriously trying to argue there is no such thing as planned obsolescence?

3) You also ignore that people value cheaper commodities which last an expected amount of time (however short that may), more so than they value more expensive, yet supposedly longer-lasting products. It doesn't matter that nearly everyone puts their money into products which you don't like, because you will continue to conveniently blame the corporations for this (all corporations too).

People will buy cheaper things, but generally people want value. Its only when value is not available or is available only at extreme expense that people will stick with poorly made items over good quality.

Show my work? I just reflected the standpoints that you imply with your replies over the past 2 years on the fora.

No, you just recited some mantra you have come to believe is true.

I said "too much" state intervention. In general, that is true. If the government intervenes more in the market, you get countries like the Soviet Union and pre-market economy China, with their vast amounts of poor people and yada yada.

And too little gives us what we have today... Enron, Massy energy, BP Oil... etc,etc, etc. (the list is too long to put here).

We are a LONG way from being a controlled economy. But.. I do find it humerous that you woud include China in your list, given that they are about to surpass us (if they haven't already) economically.

Thanks for failing to show where I'm wrong. All you've done was type down "omg, seriously? you're wrong" and then followed that with a few irrelevant posts.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree that the rule needs to be changed, but one reason it was changed is that folks don't want to pay government employees more. Not being paid more means you have trouble getting people to do the work. Why should somebody study and go to school to earn 1/100th what they could in private industry?

I don't know of ANYONE in civil service who is making 1/100th of what they could make in private industry. In fact, I can't imagine that any of them are at the level of 1/10th.

Yes, I did exagerate. I have been trying to find the ratio of the salaries that those charged with inspecting documents, reigning in the bankers to the salaries of those bankers, the jobs the regulators could hope to get after their terms are up. I have not found it. Of late, google is getting even worse at bringing up real information.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=149531&view=unread#p3269355

What, you demonstrating that you have no interest in understanding anything, just want to throw out whatever irrelevant criticism you can? I got that already. I just choose to anwer on occasion anyway.

[BigBallinStalin]

To bring up an example I have brought up before, look at dishwashers and refridgerators. At first, it was great.. and you saw improvements toward being frost-free, freezer additions, etc. Then suddenly everyone had one. Refridgerators, as far as appliance companies were concerned were lasting too long. They brought up new refridgerators with new "features".. colors, shelving styles, etc. Sometimes there were real innovations,but the basic technology was already established. Many of those old refridgerators, built to last are still around. The new ones? They have a lifespan of 5 years. Moreover, many don't even last long.. and you often have to pay as much or more for a service agreement (definitely if you need service and don't have an agreement). Did all this really give us better refridgerators? No. I would be just as happy with the ones my grandmother and mother had. I don't, however have that option. I did buy used ones down in Mississippi, but here they just are not available. And, repairing the old ones cost as much as getting a new one. Is that reasonable ..that the parts to repair a machine should cost as much as the machine itself? Not really.

We had this debate, but you conveniently forgot, so why go through it again?
I'll sum up the problems with your example:
1) You ignore the additional costs in producing longer lasting products, which defeat their own usefulness as the technology becomes obsolete, and replaceable parts become too expensive to continue producing.
2) You mistaken this unseen cost for some corporate conspiracy, which to you explains why all corporations have colluded in creating only supposedly short-lasting products.

Yet refrigerators, as an example, DO last far fewer years than they used to. This is readily observable. How do you explain that, other than it being intentional? And, from a profit-making perspective, it does make sense...you can't continue to make money on refrigerators if everyone has a refrigerator and they last for a long time. Market saturation.

So, it's intentional? All corporations in the refrigeration industry have colluded together to create equally depreciating refrigerators? No, it simply costs more to ensure that something breaks less often than others. That costs additional money to make, and since refrigerators are practically the same, the price competition matters for each income bracket of the entire target market.

For example, if company A sells fridges at $500, and the going price is $500 in the market for those of household income X. Company A can perhaps capture a premium price by offering more quality through building a longer lasting product, yet how much would this cost? Would they price themselves out of the market, while providing something of higher, intangible quality? Businesses behave along their incentives, and the products on the market fall apart for explainable reasons. Seriously, try getting into these commodity markets and make longer lasting products with a price that can't be justified compared to the competitors'--maybe it'll work, and maybe it won't, but so far, I've yet to see any company claiming their products last 30 years (for good reason).

Also, it's presumably cheaper for these companies to offer guarantees and warranties because those are cheaper conditions to satisfy instead of spending the additional resources in making sure all fridges last X amount of years.

Once again, it makes sense for them to behave accordingly. There's nothing planned, there's no collusion; and besides,the quality and durability of these products vary, so the planned obsolescence argument is kind of full of rubbish, since it blankets all products as being a certain manner without really showing that is the case.

3) You also ignore that people value cheaper commodities which last an expected amount of time (however short that may), more so than they value more expensive, yet supposedly longer-lasting products.

Those who can only afford the cheaper commodities certainly do...I don't believe the majority do, however.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. It depends on how the information is transmitted, and whether people can demand a certain good of perceivably higher quality. My point in regards to player is that people choose products because of how they perceive that value. That value ranges from long-lasting quality substituted with either a 5-year guarantee, a warranty, or maybe they value the lower price, or maybe they value some silly crap a free microwave. The point is that people's decisions play a huge role in the marketplace, so for either of you two to assume that the businesses all collude to create planned obsolescence ignores the buying behavior of the people involved. Granted, marketing is involved and shapes that behavior; however, it is not a one-way 100% brainwashing method, and the marketing is conducted from companies which compete with one another and try to beat each other's products.

For y'all to be correct, please explain why all the businesses collude to produce products of similar quality (which all break on purpose), yet all the businesses still compete with one another, and offer products of varying quality and varying prices. That doesn't make sense. I mean, they're colluding! Why waste all that money if they're colluding?! (Seriously, that planned obsolescence argument only holds up when someone ignores how consumers and businesses behave).

Capitalism works well when things are new, when there is easy innovation. It doesn't work once the status quo is achieved.

I'd like to ask what are you babbling about, but I fear that it would be pointless.

What she's talking about here is market saturation, I believe.

Hey, I sincerely appreciate the translation.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=149531&view=unread#p3269355

What, you demonstrating that you have no interest in understanding anything, just want to throw out whatever irrelevant criticism you can? I got that already. I just choose to anwer on occasion anyway.

I already make some great points that counter yours, yet you fail to address them. Therefore, there's no incentive for me to take you seriously or expect a rational response from the tips of your fingers.

What can I expect from you?

You aren't open to revising your previously held beliefs, nor are you open to having them challenged. Instead, you typically ignore the crucial counter-points to your claim, dig in your heels, and scream harder--usually about something that isn't relevant.

You constantly fail in proving to me that you are worthy enough to engage in open and honest discussion, and I'll stop calling you a crazy lady from the backwater boonies of Pennsylvania if you stop acting like a crazy lady from the backwater boonies of Pennsylvania.

EDIT: Shall we revisit the days of color-coded PLAYER messages?

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't disagree with that and those breakthroughs can lead to private breakthroughs.

Without question, they did...in major ways. Which is sort of the point that PLAYER is making, I think.

Yes, except my point is that many private breakthroughs would never have happened were it not for the foundation of public research. The problem is that public research is just done, given out, "absorbed". The government does not give itself patents. Companies take and use the government funded results and build upon them without much of any credit going to the government. So, many people have plain and simply no idea how much we have truly gained from government research.
I had thought greekdog and BBS woud at least try to verify, but apparently I was incorrect.

You PRESUME those breakthroughs would never have happened without government research. I'm not sure that's a valid presumption at all.

At some point, its impossible to say for sure.

However, take a count of the companies around then and the resources they had available, plus the directions of that research. Also, look at the fact that when this began, we were just coming off a war and had recently needed to employ vast numbers of returning soldiers. Education, the original GI bills had a LOT to do with why we got where we are. This whole bit of space program was a big piece of that.

Still, you're making that presumption, and you have still failed to show that such a presumption is valid.

I mean, could you DERP any harder, or could you DERP any harder?

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=149531&view=unread#p3269355

What, you demonstrating that you have no interest in understanding anything, just want to throw out whatever irrelevant criticism you can? I got that already. I just choose to anwer on occasion anyway.

I already make some great points that counter yours, yet you fail to address them.

You mean I did not agree with you. Not the same thing as "failing to address".