There is an old saying that the competitive market model seeks to create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices. This statement is essentially the incentive concept which justifies market competition, based on the assumption that the result is the production of higher quality goods. If I was going to build myself a table from scratch, I would naturally build it out of the best most durable materials possible, right? with the intend for the last as long as possible. Why would I want to make something poor knowing I would have to eventually do it again and expend more materials and more energy? Well, as rational as that may seem in a physical world when it comes to the market world, it is not only explicitly irrational, it is not even an option. It is technically impossible to produce the best of anything if a company is to maintain a competitive edge and hence, remain affordable to the consumer. Literally everything created and set for sale in the global economy is emmidiately inferior at the moment it is produced for it is a mathematical impossibility to make the most scientifically advanced, efficient and strategically sustainable products. This is due to the fact that the market system requires that cost efficiency or the need to reduce the expenses exists at every stage of production: from the cost of labour to the cost of materials and packaging and so on. This competitive strategy, of course, is to make sure the public buys their goods rather than from the competing producer which is doing the exact same thing to also make their goods both competitive and affordable. This immutably wasteful consequence of the system could be termed 'intrinsic obsolescence'. However, this is only one part of a larger problem. A fundamental governing principal of market economics one that you will not find in any textbook, by the way, is the following: " Nothing produced can be allowed to maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to continue cyclical consumption." In other words it is critical that stuff break down, fail and expire within a certain amount of time. This is termed 'planned obsolescence'. Planned obsolescence is the backbone of the underlying market strategy of every goods producing corporation end existence. While very few, of course, would admit to such a strategy outright. What they do is mask it within the intrinsic obsolensce phenomenon just discussed, while often ignoring or even suppressing new advance and technology which might create more sustainable, durable good. So, if it wasn't wasteful enough that the system inherently cannot allow the most durable and efficient goods to be produced. Planned Obsolescence deliberately recognizes that the longer any goods is in operation, the worst it is for sustaining cyclical consumption, and hence the market system itself. In order words, product sustainability is actually inverse to economic growth and hence there is a direct reinforced incentive to make sure life spans are short of any given goods produced. And in fact, the system cannot operate any other way. One glance at the sea of landfills now spreading across the world show the obsolescence reality. There are now billions of cheaply made cell phones, computers and other technology, each full of precious difficult to mine materials such as gold, coltan, copper now rotting in vast piles usually due to the mere malfunction or obsolescence of small parts which, in a conservative society, could likely be fixed or updated and the life of the good extended. Unfortunately, as efficient as they may seem in our physical reality living on a finite planet and finite resources, it is explicitly inefficient with respect to the market. To put it in a phrase, efficiency, sustainability, and preservation are the enemies of our economic system. Likewise, just as physical goods need to be constantly produced and reproduced regardless of their environmental impact, the service industry operates within equal rational. The fact is, there is no monetary benefit to resolving any problems, which are currently being serviced. At the end of the day, the last thing the medical establishment really wants is the caring of diseases such as cancer which would eliminate countless jobs and trillions in revenue. And since we are on the subject, crime and terrorism in this system are good! Well, at least economically, for it is employing police generating high value commodities for security, not to mention, the value of prisons that are privately owned - for profit. And how about war? The war industry in America is a huge driver of GDP, one of the most profitable industries, producing weapons of death and destruction. The favorite game of this industry is to blow things up and then go and rebuild them for profit. We saw this with the windfall billion dollar contracts made from the Iraq war. The bottom line is that socially negative attributes of society have become positively rewarded ventures for industry and any interest in problem resolution or environmental sustainability and conservation is intrinsically counter to economic sustainability. And this is why, every time you see the GDP rises in any country you are witnessing an increase in necessity whether real or contrieved and by definition, a necessity is rooted in inefficiency. Hence, increased necessity means increased inefficiency.