Made to Break part one

One of the my personally favorite parts of the book is when Giles Slade asks “Will America’s pyramids be pyramids of Waste?” Throughout Europe and Asia are structures and products which although built centuries ago still exist today. For Instance, Greek museums showcase bowls, water jugs, mosaics even structures and even artifacts from the first few Olympics. In terms of buildings, the old city of Jerusalem dates back thousands of years. These things, built with ancient tools and processes were not built with the mindset they would survive to this age, and still they lasted. If making products which were durable and could last was a common and a central part of the making things process, what changed? Made to Break, address this question, which can be seen as a the chicken or the egg qualm; which came first, the idea of obsolesce or people’s needs for better and newer products. The invention of the Kleenex and Kotex, in some ways originated from a need. There were left over supplies from World War one, and women were looking for a more sanitary product than using a rag. However, the introduction of these inventions encouraged people to throwaway useful products such as left over clothing. These clothing parts have so many uses and can be turned into quilts, rags, diapers; however the mass amounts of products available makes reusing an outdate fashion. After further reading it became less of a question as if needs or the theory of obsolescence came first, this has nothing to do with need; the battle between GM and Ford solidifies this. Ford strived to build a durable car which could last and a person would only need to buy one. The company, at least Henry Ford, seemed more concerned with producing a genuinely good product than making a profit. GM, in their effort to compete went about it in the exact opposite manner. They created a car which would coin the idea of “psychological obsolescence”. Their goal was not to create the best product but one which could and would be replaced ever year or so. This idea is particularly terrifying when you think that about the phrase “what is good for GM is good for the country.” What is good for GM is a product which should be replaced, and creating a poorer quality product and eventually a mindset that newer is better forces people to spend. This is what is best for America, making products which replaces a feeling of pride in making a good product with the pleasures and prestige which comes with commercial and finical gain. The Ford company could only stay in business by adapting a policy of obsolescence. GM managed to connive America they did not want the best, but the newest of whatever was being made. Now society gets the latest and newest product every year, the Apple store and all of their news phones is the perfect example of this; new phones come out all the time, however they always has flaws or problems. Yet people continue to buy them, not because they need them or they work well but because they are new and therefore better.