quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar This thread needs some DigiNut insight...

oh please no..that shit gives me a headache!

lol....

Capitalism is great and all, but as we know, the system behaves in a globally sub-optimal manner when individuals and corporations are allowed to EXTERNALIZE costs. Tim's might be making maximum profit by selling you a paper cup with a plastic lid, but the profit they make there is at the cost of whoever has to process the garbage, if the cups do indeed become unrecyclable. It is the government's job to regulate the economy by preventing market failure due to externalization. By enacting this type of legislation, they make the whole system behave in a more globally optimal manner, even if it is less locally optimal for a single entity. Presumably they've determined that the TOTAL cost to a society as a whole is decreased when paper cups with plastic lids are banned.

The reason this whole war against packaging needs to be waged is that it is a HUGE area in which corporations are allowed to externalize their costs. The environmental catastrophes that happen in China/Thailand/etc are PRECISELY the consequences of industrialization with no government regulation. Corporations always take the cheapest way out (they MUST, in fact, or they're fucking over their shareholders, which is illegal); whether this means dumping shit into the river or giving you packages that can't be recycled, it's the same problem. The government's role is precisely to tax/fine/ban this type of behaviour (or offer incentives for behaving more "green") to force the corporations to behave in a manner that is more globally optimal (ie to push the Nash Equilibrium of the system towards greater global optimality; to solve the prisoner's dilemma).

Yes, the costs are greater in the short term, but society as a whole will incur less cost in the long term. The fact that so many people didn't realize this until now is precisely WHY we have so many environmental problems.

Now, that said, a government can't blindly go banning things which would end up having little to no long term benefit just because they're SLIGHTLY suboptimal. But in an ideal world, the government would do a full cost-benefit analysis with all the parties involved and enact such legislation only when it is truly beneficial. Presumably this is the case here, but I won't argue with those who disagree .

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot The government's role is precisely to tax/fine/ban this type of behaviour

sure, but at the municipal level?

quote:

Originally posted by Pett sure, but at the municipal level?

No, it's always better if such laws are enacted universally; if not, regulations just deter market activity and force it to move elsewhere; for example, factories can always just close and move to a different country where they can dump their sewage in the river if it's cheaper to do so.

But for a business that can't really relocate and will be forced to comply, this is still better than nothing. You have to start somewhere.

Also, maybe other governments wouldn't benefit from this regulation because they don't have sufficient recycling facilities for this to be of any benefit. It'd be completely unnecessary.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

I don't drink coffee so I don't care.

Just remember that most of you voted for this idiot.

We warned you.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Capitalism is great and all, but as we know, the system behaves in a globally sub-optimal manner when individuals and corporations are allowed to EXTERNALIZE costs. Tim's might be making maximum profit by selling you a paper cup with a plastic lid, but the profit they make there is at the cost of whoever has to process the garbage, if the cups do indeed become unrecyclable. It is the government's job to regulate the economy by preventing market failure due to externalization. By enacting this type of legislation, they make the whole system behave in a more globally optimal manner, even if it is less locally optimal for a single entity. Presumably they've determined that the TOTAL cost to a society as a whole is decreased when paper cups with plastic lids are banned. The reason this whole war against packaging needs to be waged is that it is a HUGE area in which corporations are allowed to externalize their costs. The environmental catastrophes that happen in China/Thailand/etc are PRECISELY the consequences of industrialization with no government regulation. Corporations always take the cheapest way out (they MUST, in fact, or they're fucking over their shareholders, which is illegal); whether this means dumping shit into the river or giving you packages that can't be recycled, it's the same problem. The government's role is precisely to tax/fine/ban this type of behaviour (or offer incentives for behaving more "green") to force the corporations to behave in a manner that is more globally optimal (ie to push the Nash Equilibrium of the system towards greater global optimality; to solve the prisoner's dilemma). Yes, the costs are greater in the short term, but society as a whole will incur less cost in the long term. The fact that so many people didn't realize this until now is precisely WHY we have so many environmental problems. Now, that said, a government can't blindly go banning things which would end up having little to no long term benefit just because they're SLIGHTLY suboptimal. But in an ideal world, the government would do a full cost-benefit analysis with all the parties involved and enact such legislation only when it is truly beneficial. Presumably this is the case here, but I won't argue with those who disagree .

thank you for copy-pasting your economy 101 textbook.

Economic theories without real life application and no common sense is useless.

That's why I am against this one, there's no alternative at this moment for these paper cups/plastic lids.

If they were but the industry still refused to use them, then yes, a ban is the way to go, but there isn't and that's why this regulation will harm and piss off customers and buisness alike.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek thank you for copy-pasting your economy 101 textbook. Economic theories without real life application and no common sense is useless. That's why I am against this one, there's no alternative at this moment for these paper cups/plastic lids. If they were but the industry still refused to use them, then yes, a ban is the way to go, but there isn't and that's why this regulation will harm and piss off customers and buisness alike.

It takes a push for someone to think about it and come up with a solution. Unfortunately I was not sure how much warning was given, so maybe you are correct at saying that this may be a bit quick. But it is something that has to be done.

quote:

Originally posted by malek That's why I am against this one, there's no alternative at this moment for these paper cups/plastic lids. If they were but the industry still refused to use them, then yes, a ban is the way to go, but there isn't and that's why this regulation will harm and piss off customers and buisness alike.

Well, then the government should tax the business for the waste it produces. The industry shouldn't be allowed to sell a product that creates more work for the public, unless those costs are paid for, either by a tax on the cost of the product, or by forcing the consumer to perform the task of dealing with the waste properly. Yeah, the change will piss off the business and/or the consumers, but up until now, they've been getting a free lunch at the public's expense.

I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the best solution in practice, nor do I claim that the government is perfectly omniscient, fair, and rational...

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

You are implying that buisnesses are having a free lunch.

But those buisnesses are already paying taxes to the city of toronto and part of it goes to its waste management... the same for the citizens of Toronto which are the consumers of these products who also pay taxes to the city for the waste management.

So "more work to the public", in which you imply costs, is dubious when really its the public who wants and buy those products and at the same time pays for their waste management.

At the end of the day, I am not aware if there's an alternative similar product to the papercup/plastic lid invented somewhere in a lab, but if that product exists and is less harmful to the environment, then yes a ban is needed. If not, then clearly Toronto is setting an example of more annoying bylaws.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek You are implying that buisnesses are having a free lunch. But those buisnesses are already paying taxes to the city of toronto and part of it goes to its waste management... the same for the citizens of Toronto which are the consumers of these products who also pay taxes to the city for the waste management. So "more work to the public", in which you imply costs, is dubious when really its the public who wants and buy those products and at the same time pays for their waste management. At the end of the day, I am not aware if there's an alternative similar product to the papercup/plastic lid invented somewhere in a lab, but if that product exists and is less harmful to the environment, then yes a ban is needed. If not, then clearly Toronto is setting an example of more annoying bylaws.

Yes, but Tim's is paying the same taxes as other businesses who don't sell products which are an unusual burden to the waste management system. In an ideal world, waste management would be paid for by a tax which was proportional to how much waste an individual or business generated. The current system allows some parties to be more wasteful than average at the cost of everyone. This would be fixed by taxing the business (essentially increasing the price of the product by the higher-than-usual portion of the cost of disposing of it) or by taxing the consumer (force the public to perform the labour of disposing of the product properly whenever one is purchased.)

I don't drink coffee and I don't create the associated 365-or-more additional units of unrecyclable waste per year that a coffee drinker does; I don't want MY waste management taxes to be used to pay for the disposal of THEIR waste.

I don't necessarily favour a ban; I actually think that businesses and the public should generally be more than welcome to produce and consume whatever the fuck they want as long as the TRUE cost of the good in question is reflected in its price. Yes, this ends up meaning carbon taxes and so forth, but the free market fails when corporations can externalize costs by fucking over the environment and the like. Indeed you can just tax EVERYONE more, but this is unfair and inefficient because it doesn't motivate people to change their behaviour to a more globally optimal one.

Obviously, the city doesn't want to alienate businesses through its policies, but that's why there will be open debate about the topic before any decisions are made. I'm not necessarily sure I believe the business spokesperson's claim that no alternative exists (I'd like to think the city would have looked into this before it banned the existing products), but I'm not here to argue with you about the competence of the municipal government.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.