Login/Sign Up

Which is better for the consumer?

Jun 07, 2012
4 votes
2 debaters

+ Add Argument


Elliot Porter
Jul 16, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

On the point of having these things updated constantly I would assert that it's in fact not a benifit. In economic study the sums say that is better fro the consumer, but they fail to account for the manner consumers behave (a flaw in the study).
The improvement in kitchen apliances, tvs, and cars is not significant enough to change one's quality of life. Even in computing, where in roughly 18 months a computer can be expected to either double in efficency, or half in price, the improvement does not affect our quality of life. Replacing these things constantly is a hastle and expense for what is only an improvement in economical theory, not in reality.
Regarding the economy, as a sidenote, there is also little benifit. Constantly selling new rubish is not helpful, sa whilst it employs people, its unsustainable. Selling IKEA furnature that will be matchwood in months instead of using those solid oak tables our grandparents got for their weddings in 1950 requires constantly taking more and more resource to make products the purpose of which is to break and require the next sale. Its unsustainable and serve's no one's intrests.
We're just all hooked on capitalism so go along with it.

+ Add Argument

Planned Obsolence

Jun 08, 2012
0 convinced
A long time mate of mine claims that planned obsolecence is better for the consumer and the economy as it requires consumer to purchase major items, kitchen appliances, TVs, PCs, cars, etc etc more often getting them updated versions of what they're replacing and stimulates the economy by producing more goods.


Use these tags to find similiar debates

Bailout business capitalism communism crisis Economics economy EU frankie free market jobs money Mortgages Obama oil Politics Poverty recession salary socialism States Stimulus uk United US vancam Wealth workers