So this week in principle, I might have to disagree with some of the things that Banham is suggesting.  While I agree with him saying that it is “absurd to demand that objects designed for a short useful life should exhibit signifying eternal validity,” I am not sure if I agree with his overall notion that everything should be continued to be made for a “throw away economy.”  In this economy that we live in, we are always searching for the next best/cheapest form of an instant gratification for our consumerist hunger.  This has resulted in products that are tailored to only last as long as we are interested in them, but decay as soon as are interest is sparked by the next provocative product.  I understand how this has come to be developed, but I can’t help but disagree with this notion entirely.  There is a time and a place for goods that are cheaply made and then discarded.  However, I think that there should be a resurgence in quality products that are meant to stand the test of time.  We have all been frustrated by cheap products not living up to our expectations and then tossing them and grabbing the next cheap replacement.  I believe that a quality functional product is naturally imbued with good design sensibilities because it is forced to be useful in its decision making.  Having quality over quantity would reduce the waste that is created from a constant throw away mentality.  It would also raise the amount of skilled labor jobs that allow for people to actually support themselves comfortably.  While I do not think that there is a single eternal validity in a design, I do believe that design to force some notions of a sustainable lifecycle.