What you are describing is not the "Green Agenda", but the consequences of inflation. When you print money and purchasing power keeps going down, the actual value of the things you are buying can't be maintained. You have to lose quality.
This is why you should consider the value of things in gold or 'hours worked'. It's a more reasonable reference to value.
A Kirby vacuum in 1975 would have been about 300 1975-USD, but 2000 2023-USD. The vacuum has been changed only mildly over the past several decades, but for the most part it's remained relatively the same. A modern one comes in around 2500 2023-USD. Most of the value of each dollar has been lost. So, that's why the price of a product which has remained relatively stationary in quality has gone up, rather than down due to technological improvements and efficiency in production.
But what if I say, "No, keep the price exactly the same. Let the product change, but the price must be 300 1975-USD in 1975, and then 300 2023-USD in 2023." What must happen to the product. Well, the effect of the inflation means that the 2023-USD is only worth 17.480% of what the 1975-USD could buy. You would have to make the product out of cheaper material, you'd have to make it less reliable, and you'd have to remove features, because there is no way to keep the quality with such a loss of purchasing power from the investments you are making in building and selling it.
Put it in another way: 17.48% of 300 is 52.44 . How fucking cheaply made do you think a vacuum in 1975 would be if it were made with 52.44 1975-USD? It would have had to have been a piece of junk... which is what you have now: junk.
What you are describing is not the "Green Agenda", but the consequences of inflation. When you print money and purchasing power keeps going down, the actual value of the things you are buying can't be maintained. You have to lose quality.
This is why you should consider the value of things in gold or 'hours worked'. It's a more reasonable reference to value.
A Kirby vacuum in 1975 would have been about 300 1975-USD, but 2000 2023-USD. The vacuum has been changed only mildly over the past several decades, but for the most part it's remained relatively the same. A modern one comes in around 2500 2023-USD. Most of the value of each dollar has been lost. So, that's why the price of a product which has remained relatively stationary in quality has gone up, rather than down due to technological improvements and efficiency in production.
But what if I say, "No, keep the price exactly the same. Let the product change, but the price must be 300 1975-USD in 1975, and then 300 2023-USD in 2023." What must happen to the product. Well, the effect of the inflation means that the 2023-USD is only worth 17.480% of what the 1975-USD could buy. You would have to make the product out of cheaper material, you'd have to make it less reliable, and you'd have to remove features, because there is no way to keep the quality with such a loss of purchasing power from the investments you are making in building and selling it.
Put it in another way: 17.48% of 300 is 52.44 . How fucking cheaply made do you think a vacuum in 1975 would be if it were made with 52.44 1975-USD? It would have had to have been a piece of junk... which is what you have now: junk.