Two Washing Machine Theory

From OMXUS
Revision as of 14:59, 31 January 2026 by Maintenance script (talk | contribs) (Import OMXUS content)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Two Washing Machine Theory is an economic critique explaining how competitive capitalism mandates waste through planned obsolescence, using washing machines as the canonical example.

The Problem

Two companies make washing machines. To survive in a competitive market, each must ensure their product fails just after the warranty expires.

Why? Because if Company A makes a machine that lasts 20 years while Company B makes one that lasts 3 years, Company B sells 6 machines while Company A sells 1. Company A goes bankrupt despite making the superior product.

Competition incentivizes waste.

The Numbers

A typical washing machine contains:

  • 30 pounds of steel — requiring approximately 800 kWh to produce (just the steel)
  • 800 kWh — enough electricity to power a home for a year

This machine is thrown away 2-3 years after purchase.

Every washing machine replacement represents:

  • Raw material extraction
  • Energy-intensive manufacturing
  • Shipping and distribution
  • Landfill or incomplete recycling
  • Customer expense

None of this is necessary. Washing machines could last decades with modular, repairable design.

The Systemic Logic

Incentive Outcome
Compete on price Cut material quality, reduce durability
Maximize sales Design for replacement, not longevity
Protect market share Match competitors' obsolescence timing
Satisfy shareholders Prioritize quarterly returns over sustainability

No individual company can escape this logic unilaterally. A company that builds to last will be outcompeted by companies that build to fail.

The Annabelle Principle

Related logic: the further you drive to get cheap fuel, the cheaper it must be to justify the trip.

This creates a race to the bottom where:

  • Companies compete on price by externalizing costs
  • Consumers choose cheap options that cost more over time
  • The cheapest apparent option is often the most expensive real option

Why Not Regulation?

Regulations requiring durability face:

  • Lobbying from manufacturers benefiting from the current system
  • International competition from jurisdictions without such rules
  • Difficulty defining and enforcing durability standards
  • Regulatory capture by industry insiders

Partial solutions exist (right-to-repair laws, extended warranties) but don't address the underlying competitive dynamic.

The Alternative

The Nineteen Trillion Solution proposes restructuring the economic system so that:

Competition becomes cooperation:

  • One washing machine manufacturer (or cooperative consortium) makes one excellent machine
  • Designed for 20+ year lifespan with modular repair
  • No competitive pressure to build in obsolescence
  • Workers employed in maintenance and repair rather than replacement production

True cost accounting:

  • Environmental costs included in pricing
  • Durability rewarded rather than punished
  • Total cost of ownership (not purchase price) guides decisions

Connection to Scarcity Illusion

The Two Washing Machine Theory demonstrates manufactured scarcity:

  • We have the engineering knowledge to build durable goods
  • We have the materials and energy
  • We waste both to maintain an economic game

The scarcity of "affordable" goods is artificial—created by a system that requires waste to function.

Broader Applications

The washing machine is the example; the pattern applies to:

Product Planned Obsolescence Pattern
Smartphones Batteries that can't be replaced, software updates that slow old devices
Printers Ink cartridges with chips preventing refill, firmware blocking third-party ink
Clothing Fast fashion designed to fall apart, trend cycles creating artificial obsolescence
Automobiles Electronics designed without repair manuals, parts unavailable after warranty
Light bulbs The Phoebus Cartel historically mandated 1,000-hour lifespans when 2,500+ was achievable

See Also

References

  • Slade, Giles. (2006). Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Harvard University Press.
  • Packard, Vance. (1960). The Waste Makers. David McKay.
  • European Parliament. (2017). "A longer lifetime for products: benefits for consumers and companies."

Template:Reflist