[LINK] "less packaging" vs "less damage"

[Deus Ex Machina]

Antony Barry [tony at tony-barry.emu.id.au] wrote:
> 
> On 29/08/2006, at 12:20 PM, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> 
> >its a really really dumb idea. business will pass on these costs
> >and people will then do whatever they like with the stuff since they
> >have already "paid" for it.
> 
> Yes but it will ensure that market forces lead businesses to reduce  
> waste so that they can get a competitive advantage. At the moment  
> partly the consumer and partly the community wears all the costs and  
> businesses do not have an economic incentive to reduce waste.

as I have already posted, the cost of packaging relative to the value of
the goods and the risk of damage is already taken into account when
choosing packaging. there is no real competitive advantage to be gained that
isnt already covered by most businesses.

creating an economic incentive to reducing waste will not work, its just
the usual value shifting intervensionism we see by government. what you
would have to do is subsidise the cost of damaged goods. which in turn
creates an incentive to maximise handouts from the government by
creating damaged goods.

the real solution is that those that value "less packaging" more then
"damaged goods" should pay for that value to be realised. the solution of
course is for these people to take the stuff to recycling themselves.

thats of course not the answer that is going to please you, because what
you really want is to assert your "less packaging" value on those that
have the "less damage" value, which the market indicates are the vast majority.

yes its annoying to have packaging, I have a heap that is too big for my
recycling bin waiting for me to borrow a ute and take it to blacktwon recycling.

but it is far more annoying to have to deal with damaged
goods improperly packed, phone calls, returns, frustration of not being able
to use something you have paid for. no thank you.

in essence the "packaging should be someone elses problem" crowd are
just people that not only want to make others abandon the "less damage"
value in favor of the "less packaging" value but also want someone else
to subsidise their "less packaging" value so they dont have to exert
themselves exercising their own perticular set of values.

the market is working fine as usual.

Vic