Argument against (c): Higher-quality goods cost more than lower quality goods. If you can buy a 20ksat pan now, rather than the 100ksat one, you can "save" the 80ksat difference and it will increase your purchasing power in the future, presumably by enough that you can buy another cheap pan.
(d) is VERY clever!!
(e) this also discourages investing in productive ventures. Similar to how higher bond returns discourage stock ownership.
(c)
True.
Having said that, if you remember "lifetime warranties" used to be a thing and would probably make a return. My grandmother received a Le Creuset pot after the war in 1945, and by 1980 the enamel had worn off from daily use. She was able to send it to the factory and they re-enameled and sent it back for free. Doubt such a thing exist anymore....
(e)
I think it would encourage companies to return to dividend payments and the net effect would be to invest solely for cash-flow.
The idea of investing in a stock and earning 0% dividends is a very modern idea that leads to weird distortions.
One of the effects of this is zombie companies that hate their clientele yet still survive. If Disney was forced to attract investors based on dividends, they wouldn't be making "woke" kids cartoons that nobody wants to watch...
reply
Excellent points. It's so trippy, but fun, to think through the consequences in a hypothetical future that I probably won't even live to see!
reply