We're talking about a lot of different things. This has gone down the rails of capitalism vs. socialism, but I really don't care about that. All I care about is maximizing the benefits of economy to humanity. I think this can best be done with a hybrid system. You yourself mentioned that a lot of countries have an economy with some aspects of both.
In the flashlights example you are right that my main objection is to the mass manufacture just so people can have a choice between colors, and you are right that my primary motivation for opposition is resource and environmental conservation.
Stock is different point I was making. There is no way around the fact that overproduction is wasteful, even if you assume that the lack of demand will drive prices down to the point that the items will be purchased or consumed eventually. You still run into the problem of recycling those resources when you need them for something else. I don't think recycling will yield the same amount or quality of resources needed to manufacture the items in the first place. Even if you could assume a 100% extraction it would still take extra energy - energy that wouldn't be needed if the resources weren't consumed in wasteful manufacturing in the first place. Some form of economic planning can theoretically reduce this wastage.
I can see your point about surplus. My approach was to be extremely conservative and understock. However, I disagree that any economic system needs surplus. I think it would be better to overstock some items by a reasonable margin and to understock other items by a reasonable margin. Let's call these items essentials and nonessentials, respectively. There are many ways to forecast the reasonable margin. Not all of them are dependent upon previous consumption data. For instance, artificial limits can refine the margin for nonessentials.
In the flashlights example you are right that my main objection is to the mass manufacture just so people can have a choice between colors, and you are right that my primary motivation for opposition is resource and environmental conservation.
Stock is different point I was making. There is no way around the fact that overproduction is wasteful, even if you assume that the lack of demand will drive prices down to the point that the items will be purchased or consumed eventually. You still run into the problem of recycling those resources when you need them for something else. I don't think recycling will yield the same amount or quality of resources needed to manufacture the items in the first place. Even if you could assume a 100% extraction it would still take extra energy - energy that wouldn't be needed if the resources weren't consumed in wasteful manufacturing in the first place. Some form of economic planning can theoretically reduce this wastage.
I can see your point about surplus. My approach was to be extremely conservative and understock. However, I disagree that any economic system needs surplus. I think it would be better to overstock some items by a reasonable margin and to understock other items by a reasonable margin. Let's call these items essentials and nonessentials, respectively. There are many ways to forecast the reasonable margin. Not all of them are dependent upon previous consumption data. For instance, artificial limits can refine the margin for nonessentials.
