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.