Yes, especially in competitive markets

ParkCungHee says:

Theres now a difference between the best that can be produced, and whatis produced, because now our "best" products are not limited so much bywhat we can make, but by what we want to make.

Deliberately inferior products have been around since industrialism. It's simply easier (and moreprofitable to the business) to build a product that may break down in acouple of years because, hey, industrialization means costs are lowenough that it makes more sense to keep building non-durable affordablegoods, both for the consumer and the producer.

People don't mind throwing a handful of money at something that will last longenough that the cost offsets it. My phone is probably of rather poorquality, it's made of cheap plastic and if I wanted to I'm fairlycertain I could break it by dropping it once. It will probably breakwithin a few years. I'm sure theres phones out there that will last abit longer, but my phone was 15 dollars. It doesn't make sense for meto go out and buy a more expensive phone, because...it's fifteendollars. And even in the highest quality of phones, there is some levelof decision to stop increasing quality because it stops being a smartdecision to have it, both for the consumer, and the producer. If thiswasn't true, we'd see loads of ultradurable applliances made out oftungsten that no one would want to own.

In a competitive market, businesses that make short-lived products thrive, because they fill a need. In a competive market. If General Motors just said "Just build as manycars as humanly possible" they'd end up losing their shirts becausethey wouldn't be able to sell them all, and would never make theirmoney back. Likewise, if General Motors decided to design the highest possiblequality car they could, with bulletproof windows, and some sort ofultra-high tech engine, just so the car doesn't ever break, no onewould want to buy the thing.

Failure to do this is a chronic bug in command economy. Very often theyplace quality over quantity, and the result is the dog chains and silverware Teekee mentions (below) which...werenever produced in enough numbers to actually provide for things, whilecheap products were produced to such an excess as to waste resources.It's certainly a more common flaw in the command economy.

This is my point: What the Zeitgeist Movement (see roots in discussion browser) is doing is, rather then having some greatinsights, they are pointing out the blindingly obvious "People do notmake the humanly best products" and "People do not make as much of itas humanly possible", and just rephrasing it in a sinister soundingmanner.

Tekee adds: my parents still use old soviet metal dog chains and cooking ware from 1970's. Since it is built to last forever :). Canadian cooking ware we throw out after a few years.

REDY adds: This is true. It's first capitalist flaw which I noticed, commie things were of poor quality but were functional for many years.