h a l f b a k e r y
A dish best served not.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
This would be the ecconomic principle that is the opposite of Supply and Demand. For instance, nuclear waste is something that is in high supply and also in high repulse. People don't want that buried in their backyard, albeit they highly demand energy though. Pollution would be something that is
in high repulse, and yet people demand the products that produce the pollution....I think that if people and businesses generally started thinking in terms of "Supply and Repulse" in addition to "Supply and Demand", then they wouldn't be so quick to consume and produce waste byproducts. If something is more repulsive than attractive in the long term, such as biometric ID chips in my opinion, then what!?
[link]
|
| |
It's still supply and demand though. There are entire industries based on waste produce. They make their money by accepting crap that no-one else will. |
|
| |
The thing that is being supplied is not the waste, but the "opportunity to dispose of the waste". The demand is "to get rid of this stuff". |
|
| |
As far as biometric chips are concerned (or ID cards in the UK for example), the supply and demand should be measured in votes. |
|
| |
// They make their money by accepting crap that no-one else will. // |
|
| |
Or, in the case of Micro$h1t, selling it. |
|
| |
Gilded dog turd, anyone ? |
|
| |
Is this really a call to monetise the costs of waste disposal? (What I mean by non-monetary cost is that, when something is dumped somewhere and no money changes hands, someone still ends up worse off). |
|
| |
If so, I think it's baked in places where, for example, electronics suppliers take responsibility for disposing of their customers' discards. |
|
| |
do the equations of S&D work for a negative value of D ? |
|
| |
It's all about what you define the transaction as. |
|
| |
Flying Toaster said //do the equations of S&D work for a negative value of D ?// |
|
| |
I've baked 15 arsinide gagamuffins in my lab, and seven billion people in the world who want would rather stab me with a knife than buy one of them from me. I'd say arsenide gagmuffins are in high repulse, don't you!? |
|
| |
I like the second portion of [Jinbish]'s first annotation. It really cuts to the bone. True economic theory is so invasive in this regard, it sometimes irks me.... can't hide from it. It's like thermodynamics, only with people and desires instead of molecules and forces, holy sh**! |
|
| |
Wait a minute though. It's messed up. People usually pay more when things are supplied in lower quantity. But when you supply with with the opportunity to remove something negative, they want it less in lower quantities. The demand curve would match the supply curve and equilibrium would rest at the greatest production, most expensive price, and most desperate demand to remove the trash. |
|
| |
Oh, yea, and that's exactly where we are. Cool. |
|
| |
Whatever [daseva] and [jinbish] .... if you're getting rid of wastes, you're either the government safely doing it with taxpayer money or you're a terrorist wrecklessly dropping that repulsive stuff on the infidels in the form of dirty bombs. Either way, it is either being demanded by crazy guys with intent on delivering the bads to the repulsed or by the government which is intent on making the bads disapear for another 50 years for the next, hopefully smarter, generation to deal with. |
|
| |
"a terrorist wrecklessly dropping that repulsive stuff on the infidels in the form of dirty bombs". Errrrrrrm, yeah. Right. 'Cos, of course, all terrorists are Islamic. |
|
| |
Hmmm, supply and demand are not directly linked to commodities. I can demand (or supply) a service, whether it's having my hair cut (repulsed), in the latest natty style - or I can demand to be lypo-sucked (repulsing once more), or even opt to utilise the public convenience at Waterloo (which I may add, now costs 30p - to perform some pretty standard repulsion type activities) - all of these things can be viewed on one hand as the supply and demand of services, or by focusing in on the commodities being transacted, your repulsion theory of negative demand. |
|
| |
But I don't think that's what you're talking about. |
|
| |
What you seem to be talking about are those (traditionally) intangible social or environmental costs that nobody tends to 'own'. |
|
| |
Those things that are free (even convenient) to do at source, but which can accumulate en-mass and begin to pose real issues. |
|
| |
Once accumulated beyond the point where the average human being is unable to raise enough capital to do something about it, the costs of removalship start to rise rapidly in proportion to the size of the problem. At some point, large corporations or governments are the only entities that are powerful to do anything about said problems. |
|
| |
It's interesting that it is at this boundary that the effects of millions of micro-economic transactions transform themselves into something macro-economic - those issues become more a part of the environment, rather than participants within it. |
|
| |
I didn't realize "infidels" was a word only Islamic folks could use! In-Fidel Castro could use that word too, right!? Hell, everybody's somebody's infedel! |
|
| |
Infidel, infidel, they've all got it in-fer-Dell |
|
| |
"I didn't realize "infidels" was a word only Islamic folks could use!" |
|
| |