Consumerism in the post-USSR

There is one commercial myth. The essence of this myth is reduced to the 
thesis about the allegedly painful use of "old" objects and technologies. 
It's like people like me are suffering from Windows 9x or Gopher. And 
supposedly this is just a game with the aim of proving something to someone.
And in fact, all my actions are posturing, because no one can survive in the
modern world without "new shit" (pardon for the my french language).
At the heart of the system of things and planned obsolescence is the idea of
"goods on credit". As soon as the service life of the thing laid down by the
manufacturer ends, the payment of the debt for the purchased product usually
ends. In theory, during this time the consumer should recoup its cost and
even get some profit. But this is just a hypothesis. In practice, an important
feature of products created in such a system is the need for their constant
revision. Because, being in the eternal pursuit of credit, manufacturers
release "defective design" goods. After in the process, they trying to fix
imperfections and shortcomings. As a result, it leads to an increase in
marriage and out-of-order household items and an increase in the amount of
garbage. 
All this is justified by the need for constant profit. In other words -
economic feasibility. After all, the pledged percentage of income in the goods
is what people go to work for, and factories and plants smoke with chimneys.
And here one logical flaw arises. Why should production be economically
feasible and profitable, if you like, only for those who are engaged in it?
For what reason was the end consumer denied this pleasure? Indeed, using the
example of cars and complex household/industrial equipment, we know that a
thing can break down, deteriorate, or, in extreme cases, become obsolete in a
certain area as a class. But the solution cannot be irrevocably outdated.
After all, it is hypocrisy to justify the system of things only by economic
benefits for marketing. It is clear that everyone wants money. But, obviously,
something else is also, people who do not share the ideas of planned
obsolescence, just reduce their costs by extending the life of products. Which
are not supported, not updated, and so on. Because things declared obsolete
have a low cost of ownership (exploitability). Which, frankly, has always
helped the production sector to have a stable profit from "obsolete things".
Therefore, it is obvious that rational (reasonable) consumption is based on
economic expediency. In other words, the need prevails over advertising. This
is true both for computer technology and for everything else produced by the
modern economy. Unfortunately, product manufacturers and service providers
believe otherwise. They want to sell as much as possible while investing as
little as possible. This is accomplished through planned obsolescence and
copyright. When, through lobbying the interests of manufacturers and
resellers, a situation is reached where a person is driven into a narrow
framework established by interested legal parties by law. Simply put, the
profits of the corporate establishment are more important than the benefits of
each individual and society as a whole. Although Keynes believed profit should
be equivalent-grade.
Modern commercial propaganda of the system of things uses the famous magic
word "progress" to justify not so much planned obsolescence as a whole, but
rather the division of society along ideological lines. Belonging to the class
of consumers living on credit for the sake of the next product and everyone
else. Especially provincial societies are susceptible to this "lure",
confusing democracy with the availability of many goods and services in
stores. In fact, throughout the twentieth century, people perceived the new
in different ways, as a class of objects. And what is now supposed to be old,
once really was not so due to the long service life and as a result of the
guarantee. Although it is believed that previously items were more expensive,
this is a deep misconception. If we exclude know-how, the average price in
dollars for wholesale, taking into account inflation, fell, and the share of
profits from resale increased.
For example, the subcompact Lada eight, well-known in the post USSR, cost 
5000 US dollars in 1999. If we undertake to recalculate the amount taking into
account inflation for today, we will get the equivalent of 5000 USD
(January 31, 1999) in 7750 USD on September 2020. Today, the base Lada Granta
costs about $ 6950. That is, the retail price of the base model has dropped in
21 years. At the same time, the service life of the Lada 2108 and Granta is,
on average, 200 thousand km before the first overhaul. But here the guarantee
for Granta is taken at 100 thousand kilometers or 3 years of warranty, and for
2108 at one time this resource was about 150 thousand. There is an obvious
reduction in price even in such a conservative car as Lada. And this is
planned obsolescence. When, for example, the number of the same VAZ 2111 in
service is radically less than the model 2113, created on the basis of
previous versions.
If you spend enough time, you will notice a decrease in the price of products
with an increase in the percentage of profits from their resale. In other
words, producers 'profits remain at approximately the same percentage level,
in contrast to sellers (sellers' profit is higher). Since the difference in
the cost of wholesale and resell in price is the profit that sellers receive.
This is the case everywhere. Reducing the cost of goods minimally depends on
the consumer. Resellers and banks have a more profitable. 
This is nothing wrong. But! The quality of products and goods decreases from
year to year. At the same time, the share of the profits of banks and sellers
is growing, but not the benefit of the end consumer. Because the service life
is artificially cut. And as a result, the Russian minibus Gazelle does not
work out the value of the funds invested in it. What is caused by constant
breakdowns. But at the same time, 20-year-old Mercedes and Fords drive for a
lower cost. And this is a problem not only for the auto industry, but also for
other sectors of the market. So, summing up all of the above, we can state the
following.
First, “outdated things” in the modern sense did not exist 40-50 years ago.
Secondly, a household item or product can break down, deteriorate, become
obsolete. But not outdated in any way. For the reason that there is no such
technology that would not be useful somewhere in this or that kind of human
activity. Thirdly, the so-called collectings, for example, "vintage car"
VAZ 2106 is a copy of a Western bloggers media product brought to Post-USSR
from the outside artificially through social networks. 
In other words. What is used by one person in his daily life for the victims
of marketing and planned obsolescence is "retro". These are two opposite
ideas for consumption: the system of things (consumerism) and downgrade.
On the one hand, the race for fashion and trends, on the other hand, the
economically feasible exploitation of the product for personal selfish
purposes.