[ retracted ]
You're also arguing a false dichotomy. (“Either taxpayers have to get smart, which they aren't, or we have to use regulators.”)
Getting screwed is part of any learning process, and lessons about individual cases can be encoded at large; I'm just arguing that regulatory bodies are one of the worst ways to do that.
I'd rather have 1,000 independent pen testers examine a bank[0] (and be compensated for it) than some operating manual–laden bureaucracy applying the same standard test every shark working at a bank knows how to side-step.
An infinite regress of regulation is a waste of human intellect and creativity.
-----------
[0]: Imagine a bank in the style of an Open-Access Startup where the books and assets are laid bare, either to the public at large or their clients. This is no longer practically infeasible in the era of the crypto-ledgers but what engineer in their right mind would willingly enter the total regulation shitshow that is today's American banking industry? The best engineers have choice, so they go elsewhere.
Building something fixes knowledge and know-how into something others can benefit from, at scale.
Destruction does not scale.
People do not side with destroyers. They side with people who build alternatives.
(No one said it has to or will be perfect. It just has to be better than whatever preceded it.)
The rating agencies are independent bodies which do something similar. They've totally dropped the ball prior to 2008 and were a major component behind the financial crisis.
The good thing about government agencies is that they're not driven by greed (unlike those rating agencies, which totally were), so there's actually less incentives for majorly screwing the populace.
> good thing about government agencies is that they're not driven by greed
So what are they driven by? And how do you know?
How can you "get rich" without doing good?
> which seems to be an operating principle of most private enterprises
How else could private enterprises determine if they are producing anything of value to others?
Cheat? Steal? Monopolize industries and charge exorbitant prices? Manufacture cigarettes? Etc etc.
You cannot monopolize an industry that doesn't provide something people want in the first place.
In general, you're talking about extraction or leakage, which represent a tiny fraction of money that changes hands.
You may have an issue about "what's fair" but you give weak examples of how people get "rich".
Regarding monopolization - do you think it's benign then? Why are there laws that prevent it then? Are they wrong?
You ignored completely the part about producing and marketing harmful and addictive substances. Do you think the execs of those companies are doing good? Would you personally write a thank you note to them for getting billions of people addicted and millions killed by cancer due to their actions (which have lead to their wealth)? If not, then the tobacco company owners are another example of "people getting rich without doing good".
Lastly, let's maybe finish with the most obvious example - a hacker steals into somebody's bitcoin store and steal millions worth of bitcoin. Surely you can agree that he has now became wealthy without doing any good?
The problem is the false sense of safety implied by regulatory control.
Rather than inducing market incentives for transparency and increasing consumer intelligence over time, regulatory bodies want you to “just let us handle the tough stuff.”
Consumers know more about the TV they're going to buy than the bank they're going to deposit with, and that's due to the moral hazard created by taxpayer subsidized risk management by regulatory agencies and deposit insurance.
The FDIC's risk socialization function increases systemic risk:
Anti-free-market-ism is the anti-vaxxerism of the intelligentsia.
To this group, anti-free-market-ism is seen as a form of contrarianism, that open-minded/free-spirited people engage in.
It isn't - the fact is that the "free market" is in fact a market shackled to whoever has the capital to manipulate it. That's seen in every market in history sooner or later. The time and extent of capital dominance is determined by regulation - the more regulation, the later and less rigged in favour of the richest participant the market is.
These are just facts - free markets aren't free, they aren't efficient and they aren't good.
Unfortunately the known alternative is a fudge.
It's no such thing. It's quackery rejected by experts.
To put it another way, the market rewards economically beneficial behavior, like shorting bubbles and investing during depressions. That markets reduce market volatility is a widely accepted conclusion of economists.
> Anti-free-market-ism is the anti-vaxxerism of the intelligentsia.
Well, I mean, yes? That is blatant fundamentalism. "Everyone who doesn't agree with the magic of the free market is as stupid as anti-vaxxers"
It's accepted economic theory validated by centuries of emperical evidence. Rejecting it based on misunderstanding the science behind it, and believing in conspiracy theories about a capitalist oligarchy coopting the Economics field, is similar to anti-vaxxerism.
Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though.
> The theory is logically sound in the same way the theory of evolution is.
Please refer to a single established scientist that agrees with that cocksure statement.
> believing in conspiracy theories about a capitalist oligarchy coopting the Economics field
There is nothing conspiratorial to question the theories of the current hegemony who have a vested interests to uphold it. The upper classes have come up with theories throughout history to justify their privileges that have no basis in social justice.
Planned obsolescence is not a general property of a market-driven economy.
See cars for example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DIY/comments/zbxa6/resurrection_198...
'Capitalism produces planned obsolesence' is another talking point referenced by activists who haven't studied economics and therefore have a simplistic/cynical understanding of it.
>Please refer to a single established scientist that agrees with that cocksure statement.
Any economic textbook lays out the advantages of the free market, or market freedom, as I've described.
That it is generally Pareto Efficient is widely accepted in Economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Use_in_publi...
>There is nothing conspiratorial to question the theories of the current hegemony who have a vested interests to uphold it.
This very sentence puts forward a theoretical conspiracy.
Are you really gonna try to explain one of the most obvious consequence of capitalist profit incentives by some random reddit post along with another dismissive "you don't know economics"?
I wrote "single established scientist", not some vague "every book" and a wikipedia one-liner article.
> This very sentence puts forward a theoretical conspiracy.
It's not a conspiracy where people get together in some room. It's a straight forward structure of incentives.
The Reddit comment has a link to a chart showing the average life of a car every year, showing how it has increased, and it has plenty of details on how car parts have evolved to be more durable, safer and easier to repair.
>>I wrote "single established scientist", not some vague "every book" and a wikipedia one-liner article.
You didn't even address what I provided about Pareto Efficiency, which demonstrates the acceptance within the field of Economics of the free market's efficacy more than your quote would have.
>>It's not a conspiracy where people get together in some room.
Yes it is alleging a conspiracy, and you're claiming Economics in general has been coopted by it. This is no different than anti-vaxxerism.
All incentives in capitalism encourages quick cyclic consumption, and corporations spend vast amounts of resources to various forms of obsolescence [0]. This can't just be ignored even if you would like it, because it blatantly shows how wasteful the current system is.
> You didn't even address what I provided about Pareto Efficiency
"I ignored your questioned and posted something else, now please answer what I posted meanwhile I'll keep ignoring the question".
> Yes it is alleging a conspiracy, and you're claiming Economics in general has been coopted by it. This is no different than anti-vaxxerism.
A field of study with so close connections to power and wealth must be seen with skepticism. It's like not questioning the upper-classes theories of society of old. There's a lot of examples of theories justifying their privileges.
There's also an important distinction to be made. It's true that capitalism/free-market produces alot of stuff. But it's certainly not true that it produces freedom, happiness, and justice for all. The problem is that you will take the former to justify the latter injustices. That's obvious bias.
[0] Planned obsolescence:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/15/the-right...
https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/resources/A%20circular%20e...
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/23...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-...
https://www.consumersinternational.org/news-resources/blog/p...
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/origin...
"Yale University economics professor Judith Chevalier explained to the BBC that companies react to consumer tastes, and that planned obsolescence is not simply a deception by manufacturers, but in certain situations the fault lies with consumers, who do not value a more durable product, but one that possesses the latest technology." (admits to its existence, but just blames it on the consumer instead)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
"An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence"
A free market rewards products that win consumers over, and product reputation is a major factor that goes into consumer decisions.
Look at Apple. It developed an extremely good reputation for both quality and durability long before the first version of the iphone was released. Today Apple is worth $2 trillion making it the largest company in the world.
There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science. You're debating me in bad faith, with seemingly no care to ensure your statements have been rigorously fact-checked and stand up to critical analysis. In other words, you're not taking any responsibility for the accuracy of what you claim. There's no humility in your arguments, in that you don't demonstrate concern about the damage you may be doing if you're wrong, or even that you may wrong. Making broad claims of deep flaws in the socioeconomic structure, without an ironclad argument that you have verified for yourself genuinely stands up to scrutiny, is reckless, and shows total irresponsibility.
As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite, and you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself.
Apple is one of the most common examples of planned obsolescence, so much so that nations (France especially) have recently gone about to sue and create laws to oppose their practices. So I'm not sure why you're using that example and also adding that it's a large company like that is relevant in any way shape or form. The entire point of planned obsolescence is to make more money ffs. If anything, that is some strange mental gymnastics.
> There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science.
You haven't spent a single minute refuting anything in any thread I've replied to you in. It's all just hot air from you, every single time. If it doesn't fit your free market narrative, like planned obsolescence this time, you just ignore it or dismiss it with extremely shallow cherry-picking.
> As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite,
Not really. I am however disagreeing with the notion that the "free market" objectively leads to the best outcome possible, so history should stops with free market Capitalism. That no more progress is possible. That a much more equal economical system, and thus society isn't possible - "because free market economics have said so!". And I do think that the field of economics is biased towards the current status quo due to the incentive structures that are present in that field, among with the fact that the current system is what is the core of what is actually studied.
> you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself.
Yes. Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field.
This criticism is also a case of extreme hypocrisy. You provided no evidence at all for a general tendency of capitalism to produce planned obsolescence, while criticizing me for not meeting standards of evidence that you didn't even bother trying to meet. This incredible obstinance shows a complete lack of respect for people who disagee with you, which makes it all the more reckless when you're advancing economic theories roundly rejected by experts in the field.
>Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field.
No, it is not reasonable at all to discount an entire social science, with over a century of scholarship backing it, without having studied that social science for yourself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not this lazy half-baked analysis based on anecdotes, vague assertions, and unsubstantiated conjecture.
What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists.
Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked"
No evidence at all: "8 links, including an economics professor and an article form an economic journal in a self-evident subject"
Gotcha.
> What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists.
Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list.
My demonstration of the growing lifespan of cars was more than you provided.
You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim.
You also edited your comment afterwards to include those links. I didn't see those links when I responded the first time.
The quote from the Yale Economics professor is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it, where companies were deliberately reducing the lifespan of products, not as a side effect of reducing their costs to provide lower prices, but as a deliberate objective to get more reorders.
It was referring to consumers choosing cheaper products at the expense of shorter product lifespans. This would be a trade-off preferred by a consumer, not a deliberate handicapping of product lifespans, that solely reduces economic value, as a way to gain more reorders.
The study you referred is primarily focused on theoretical incentives to engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists, which is already a known source of economic-rent seeking, and an outlier market structure not characteristic of most of the market. Monopolies/oligopolies engage in a host of exploitive rent-seeking practices, and the study merely gave theoretical support for planned obsolescence being one of them. This is hardly the same as your original claim.
So no, you haven't come close to proving that planned obsolescence is a general property of market economies. Even the single study you referenced doesn't provide support that assertion.
>>Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list.
Like I said, claiming Economics is coopted by a capitalist oligarchy to push a fundamentalist ideology for their own benefit, and with nothing more than anecdotes, vague assertions and unsubstantiated conjecture to support your very serious accusation, is absolutely irresponsible quackery, and reminicient of all of the narratives I referenced.
I cherry-picked 8 articles? There are so many articles about it that it's not hard to produce 20 more if you want. Or perhaps info about the court proceedings in France?
> is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it
Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions. There are several types of planned obsolescence as you can read in the Wikipedia link. All are still a product of the incentive to get more profit.
> engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists
Yes, and these are also the product of free market incentives.
Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets.
>>Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions.
Your argument is made in bad faith. It's totally disingenuous pedantry. You and I both know that you weren't claiming that 'consumers in a market economy consciously choose lower cost disposable products', when you claimed the market economy produces planned obsolescence.
And I don't deserve the accusations you're levying at me. I am debating in good faith, and making sincere arguments that reflect my honest beliefs. I am not lying to myself just to make myself believe I'm right. I'm objectively and fairly assessing what you're saying before responding to your comments. You on the other hand are only trying to win the argument, truth and decency be damned. This pedantic appeal to the 'planned obsolescence' used in an entirely different context than we both know you originally used it in, and subsequent attempt to criticize me for pointing that out, being a case example.
That was like just the first 8 articles describing it, as I said, there are certainly many more if you were willing to entertain another perspective than your own dogma.
So do you deny that the entire concept of planned obsolescence exists at all, or that there is something other driving it than the free markets pursuit for more profits? If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence?
> You and I both know that you weren't claiming
Haha, alrighty then. You know what I actually meant.
Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives?
The last self-congratulating paragraph is not a good look: "I'm good, honest and righteous. You, however, are purposefully lying and have no time for truth and decency."
You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays. That's blatant cherry-picking. How is that honest and in good faith? I expect someone that's honest to research the topic and try to find other examples contradicting ones idea, and that is not very hard as I shown with a few links. But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing, and yet again try to hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence, even though it was in direct reference to the supposed "efficiency" of the free market.
Moving the goalposts. I said that planned obsolescence is not, as you originally alleged, a general property of a market-driven economy.
>If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence?
Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success. The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation for product quality played a massive role in the growth of its sales and it becoming the most valuable company in the world.
>>Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives?
Again with the bad faith disingenuity. The so-called narrow definition is the only one economically harmful or involving deceit and consumers being worse off. It's the one almost universally referred to when activists use the term.
If you're now going to try to claim you were talking about the looser definition all along, then I'll respond that the type of activity under this looser definition, like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones because they judge the up-front cost-savings to be worth the more frequent replacement costs, is not economically harmful. It's what people want for themselves, and their judgment on what is in their own interests is more credible than yours.
>>You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays.
It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity. If that were the case, every major product class would see a trend toward shorter lifespans. There certainly wouldn't be a major product class not only maintaining product lifespans, but increasing them.
Any way, the burden of proof was always on you. I just provided that link to show that these angsty lift-wing comments about the world are often not corroborated by what you actually see in the world when you take a closer look.
>>hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence
Again with the blatant lies. When people are complaining about how capitalism allegedly produces planned obsolescence, they are not talking about a general consumer preference for disposable products.
Read any of your own links and you'll see what kind of behavior they are referring to when they use the term.
They are talking about the phenomenon where, unbeknownst to consumers, companies are reducing product lifespans to get more reorders.
You can pretend otherwise to try to avoid admitting you were wrong, but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.
Of course we're dealing with natural language with a lot of the meaning of statements extrapolated from the wider context of where they appear, so there's no formal proof you are lying now. Only reasonable conjecture that you're free to dismiss as part of your culture war against the people you imagine to be your enemies.
>>But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing
A lot of your links were from left-wing sources and were not scientific sources or even primary evidence showing declining product lifespans.
Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.
I had to ask, because that's otherwise your MO.
> Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success.
There's no brand reputation risk if most large manufacturers have similar durability.
> The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation
How can you keep using Apple as an example when it has been one of the most obvious offender and is also one of the giants within the most obviously offending industry - smartphones.
> It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity.
No, it just shows that technology has moved forward with regards to a advanced industrial product.
> like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones
You've cherry-picked the only type that fits your narrative, preference for disposable products (which I actually agree with you on, but causes of this is an interesting topic in itself). But to pick that and not to explain the type where billions of dollars each year are spent on trying to create new non-essential needs that aren't really there making the existing products obsolete, a.k.a "Perceived obsolescence"? How is this "efficient"?
> but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.
This is my original comment: "Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though."
How is this inconsistent with focusing on the inefficiencies of all kinds of planned obsolescence of the free market?
> Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.
Once again, you linked to a single reddit post, eat humble pie.
Most people who just outright reject the free market on principle are doing that based on unjustified beliefs. So yes, there is a parallel to anti-vaxxers.
When it comes to the socialist movement, whatever upsides it might have, its history regarding handling of economics isn't stellar either.
Also, I didn't say anything resembling "this is the current system, hence it's proven". All I said is that the free market has been studied and analyzed for ages, and we know a lot about it, including that it generates decent outcomes in many cases.
Re: economics and crashes - I fail to see how the existence of crashes - which is predicted by many economic theories, be they mainstream or not - invalidates anything.
You guys need to stop pretending that economics is 1. something really really hard that only the most brilliant economists can understand, 2. something fundamentally objective like physics. It was in large part of history even referred to as political economy for crying out loud.
It is true that the study of economics is primarily concerned with the current system and not particularly imaginative with regards to any sort of alternative. Furthermore the incentives are in no way encouraging to challenge the current way of things, if anything the direct opposite. This state of affairs just can't be ignored when evaluating the objective nature of a certain field of study.
> including that it generates decent outcomes in many cases.
For the wealthy. Most of the world is still used as cheap labour for the privilege of the West.
> Re: economics and crashes - I fail to see how the existence of crashes - which is predicted by many economic theories, be they mainstream or not - invalidates anything.
If a majority of the involved "scientists" are surprised that a crash shows up, it strongly suggests that it's largely based on speculation and external motives rather than objective science.
Economics is about as hard as any other modern applied science. I.e. pretty damn hard, and practitioners are deserving of the same respect accorded to, for instance, social scientists and psychologists, who deal in similarly hard to capture domains.
>It was in large part of history even referred to as political economy for crying out loud.
And it stopped being referred to as "political economy" because of the fundamental upheaval the field of study went through in the early 20th century, which completely reshaped the practice of economics into something completely different from what it was in Adam Smith and Marx's times.
>For the wealthy. Most of the world is still used as cheap labour for the privilege of the West.
I happen to be from one of the countries whose people you would deprive of agency and deride as "cheap labor" and I would argue most of our issues stem from a market where the powerful have way too much opportunity to make sure that regulations that will benefit them and curtail competition are passed, not from the free market. In fact, making our market freer would only have positive effects.
A great contemporary example of how the free market can uplift poorer countries is Rwanda.
>If a majority of the involved "scientists" are surprised that a crash shows up, it strongly suggests that it's largely based on speculation and external motives rather than objective science.
Ecologists are right now scrambling to find explanations for a number of emerging phenomena. Does the fact that we do not have a complete and universally valid model of ecology mean that ecology is "largely based on speculation and external motives rather than objective science"?
That still doesn't mean that it's indecipherable by brilliant people in other field of studies nor that the core parts are particularly hard.
> because of the fundamental upheaval the field of study went through in the early 20th century
Rather it became hegemonic and unimaginative and only caters to the status quo.
> whose people you would deprive of agency and deride as "cheap labor"
Please, that is the cheapest trick in the book and just dishonest. Posh accent "Oh, so you think the poor can't take care of themselves? How arrogant!".
The fact remains that much of the global norths current abundance is only enabled by the cheap labour and resources of the global south.
> Ecologists are right now scrambling to find explanations for a number of emerging phenomena.
This is just false equivalence and pointless to respond to. There's no vast pools of ecologist who's entire salary depends on some derivative to pan out or similar.
Indecipherable? No. But I wouldn't listen to Einstein on economics for the same reason I wouldn't listen to him on geography, even though I'm sure he'd be able to do very well in it if he applied himself. Just look at how many Nobel Prize winners completely fuck up when they try going outside of their specialty.
>Rather it became hegemonic and unimaginative and only caters to the status quo.
Funnily, most economists I know are quite dissatisfied with the status quo. And you know, every economics research department on the face of Earth has a cohort of "heterodox" economists, who deal exactly in challenging the status quo. The issue is that most of the time alternative theories happen to produce worse predictions than the mainstream. Paraphrasing something some famous economist once said - people aren't utility maximizers, but they sure do act like utility maximizers when prices shift!
>"Oh, so you think the poor can't take care of themselves? How arrogant!"
I'm just saying, it does get a bit ridiculous when American socialists start telling me and other people from my country what we're supposed to think and feel.
>There's no vast pools of ecologist who's entire salary depends on some derivative to pan out or similar.
Most academic economists' salary depends on exactly the same thing as ecologists, namely science funding. You might have a point when you talk about economists in think tanks and hedge funds and whatnot, but those guys aren't usually the ones producing most academic material.
Either way there's no basis to dismiss people's opinion solely on their primary field of study. One obvious example would be Noam Chomsky. He's deeply knowledgeable outside of his primary field of linguistics.
> very economics research department on the face of Earth has a cohort of "heterodox" economists,
The most common use of heterodox seem to span from status-quo to far-right libertarianism. That's not very imaginative.
> I'm just saying, it does get a bit ridiculous when American socialists start telling me and other people from my country what we're supposed to think and feel.
I'm Swedish, but I assume that wont change anything there. Being from a country doesn't necessarily say anything, you may be from a privileged class of that particular country and thus have that view of that country.
> You might have a point when you talk about economists in think tanks and hedge funds and whatnot, but those guys aren't usually the ones producing most academic material.
There is no other field of study as obviously connected to money and power than the field of economics. This makes it totally reasonable to be skeptical of what comes out of that field.
You might want to look into Marxian economics, Modern Monetary Theory and ecological economics. There's some interesting stuff there that might interest you. :)
Socialism is complete quackery from the Economics perspective, and one the belief in which has cost humanity dearly.
Marx, for just one example, repeated basic economic fallacies like the Luddites' belief that mechanization would reduce the demand for workers and reduce wages, which is literally the exact opposite of the effect of mechanization/automation, and which was demonstrated to be wrong even within Marx's own lifetime.