Planned Obsolescence-- Is Caveat Emptor All We Got?

Lately, there's no end to Boehner and his House cronies inveighing against the regulatory system. A constant thread is that regulations kill jobs and that particular lie predates Boehner by many decades. The GOP has always been the party of caveat emptor-- let the buyer beware. The breezy Marketplace look at planned obsolescence barely scratches the surface. Key word there is "barely." Is it only former GOP Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert among Republicans who sees the dangers and the folly in this extremism against consumer and environmental protection?

The House is moving forward with three bills that would cripple the regulatory system.  The bills are not going to become law this Congress, but they show how far a party in thrall to its right-most wing is willing to veer from what has long been the mainstream. The critical question is whether and when more moderate voices-- centrist Republicans in Congress, sensible business leaders and the largely centrist American public-- will recognize the damage being done and raise their voices to call it to a halt. Clearly, that’s not going to happen in the House itself.
           
...[T]he bills before the House would prevent the system from working: they are a recipe for failure. The bills are sometimes described with the mild term “regulatory reform” but these measures have as much to do with reform as Communist re-education camps had to do with education.  

In the case of the REINS Act, in particular, the analogy is all too apt: “reform” is simply a euphemism for an effort to break the system and remake it according to ideological prescription that will leave it permanently hobbled.

When the Geoff Davis' deranged REINS Act came up for a vote on December 7, it passed 241-184, not only every single Republican-- including those who pose as "mainstream conservatives"-- voting AYE, but 4 of the most virulently right-wing Democrats joining in as well (corrupt and fanatic anti-consumer Blue Dogs John Barrow, Dan Boren, Mike McIntyre, and Collin Peterson).

When I was 12 I had dinner with Vance Packard, author of The Waste Makers and the friend of a friend's father. I read his book at the time and I'm re-reading it now in light of all that's happened in the intervening 4 decades. A lot has happened, some of it in direct response to Packard's powerful exposé of "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals." The Federal Trade Commission and some states have moved in against some forms of deceptive practices by manufacturers-- but I was actually shocked to see how thin the protections are.

A review of Packard's book says it was the first "to probe the increasing commercialization of American life—the development of consumption for consumption's sake. Packard outlines the ways manufacturers and advertisers persuade consumers to buy things they don't need and didn't know they wanted, including the two-of-a-kind of everything syndrome-- 'two refrigerators in every home'-- and appeals to purchase something because it is more expensive, or because it is painted in a new color. The book also brought attention to the concept of planned obsolescence, in which a 'death date' is built into products so that they wear out quickly and need to be replaced. By manipulating the public into mindless consumerism, Packard believed that business was making us 'more wasteful, imprudent, and carefree in our consuming habits,' which was using up our natural resources at an alarming rate." The examples go on and on and some still seem shocking while others are so ingrained into American society that they are barely noticeable today. Last night I was making notes as I read and I want to share a few paragraphs that inspired me to send letters to a few Members of Congress asking if these situations have ever been addressed legislatively.

The ideal of a "lifetime" product, which once was the shining goal of makers of a wide range of home products, was reduced for most to a memory. When we asked Mrs. Brady [editorial director] of Consumers Union for a list of the products still designed to last a lifetime, she responded: "I can think of only one-- the piano... There is no doubt whatsoever that until recently very good rugs have lasted from generation to generation. Today, ten years is the commercially promised life for a good wool rug."

...A part of the trouble with modern carpeting was that the manufacturers had downgraded quality and fought off quality standards. Another problem was the introduction of tufted carpets, which could be made much faster and cheaper than woven carpets. The makers of woven carpets reduced the quality of their rugs in order to compete more effectively with the tufted rugs. Another reason for the deterioration was that much of the carpeting was being bought by big housing developers who tended to install the cheapest floor covering they could in order to increase profit margins.

... An official of the Automobile Finance Association in testifying at a Senate subcommittee hearing told of a survey he had conducted with association members on the state of the automobile industry. He quoted one member as responding: "The quality of today's automobiles does not compare favorably with past years... The price of the product continues to go up and the quality continues to go down.

...Sale of automobile parts soared year after year... because "manufacturers are building them so they'll get to the junk pile faster [according to a V.P. of a Long Island ignition parts manufacturing firm... There was a] reluctance of many of the manufacturers to make a car that would hold the affection of its owner for more than a very few years."

...Automobile mufflers in 1958 had only one half the life expectancy of mufflers bought a decade earlier. Design Sense, published by Lippincott & Marguiles, the industrial-design firm, took note of the shorted life span of mufflers in calling on industry to take advantage of new technologies to give longer life to products. "To take just one example," it said, "a major steel company has had available for some time-- with no takers-- a lead-coated steel which, for just eight cents more per auto muffler, would give a product that would last the life of the car. Instead automakers are still installing mufflers that must be replaced on an average of once every two years at a cost to the customer of $18 to $27 per muffler."

You can do the math. The behavior is clearly sociopathic-- but protected by Republican judicial rulings that favor corporations (including, of course, the big one, Citizens United) and now Boehner and his caucus are making a big push to "cripple the regulatory system"-- in Sherwood Boehlert's words. I don't know if any of them read Packard or not, but he went on to explain that "there was specific indication that evidence of quality obsolescence was not unconnected with the drive to increase replacement sales and to point out a column in Home Furnishings Daily that "noted uneasily in the late fifties that many appliance manufacturers were rushing to get into the field of servicing their equipment. He asked: 'Why all the rush to get into the servicing angle? Is it because the appliance won't stay in A-1 working order too many days after it is installed in the home?'." Louis Cheskin of the Color Research Institute went on the blame the public for this kind of behavior-- as did industry spokesmen in every field. Cheskin:

"Why make the handles on cups so that they won't break off? Who wants to pay ten percent more for dishes so that the dishes will last a lifetime? Most housewives want or welcome an excuse to buy a new set of dishes every year or so. Who wants furniture to last forever? The large American middle classes do not. They want furniture to be in style, not outdated... Furniture, clothes, dishes can all be made to last longer at very little additional cost but neither the maker nor the consumer is interested in this."

Mr Cheskin could have changed his name and reinvented himself, ever so slightly, as any number of anti-consumer fanatics from Don Young (R-AK), Bill Young (R-FL), Jerry Lewis (R-CA) or Buck McKeon (R-CA) to Cliff Stearns (R-FL) or Ralph Hall (R-TX), each of whom was in college when Packard's book was a widely discussed best-seller. And if you're wondering how strong Republicans oppose protecting consumers and to what lengths they're willing to go to give corporations the leeway to cheat and abuse customers (i.e., their own cosntituents) let's look back at the last major Federal Trade Commission bill, Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. It passed the House on May 23, 2007 284-141. Only one slimy corporate whore of a Blue Dog crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP that day, Collin Peterson (MN) but 56 Republicans crossed in the other direction and voted with the Democrats. Who voted against consumer protection? 140 of them and I bet DWT readers will recognize these names:

Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Oily Joe Barton (R-TX)
John Boehner (R-OH)
Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Buck McKeon (R-CA)
Mike Pence (R-IN)
Denny Rehberg (R-MT)
Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Fred Upton (R-MI)

You get the picture... the whole freaking GOP Clown Car-- all their then up-and-comers who diligently serve the interests of the one percent.