SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-price-does-not-mean-no-cost dept.
U.S. antitrust law is uniquely devoted to a strain of economics often called “price theory.” Beginning in the 1970s, price theory came to dominate antitrust law and scholarship.
Price theory (no surprise) focuses on prices. Supposedly, price theory uses price as a synechdoche to represent all aspects of competition. But in fact, businesses compete not just on price but also on quality, innovation, branding and other product attributes.
Yet U.S. antitrust regulators and courts have traditionally focused heavily on price competition. When products are “free” (or, more accurately, “zero-price”), they simply slip under the antitrust radar.
If the SCOTUS is willing to declare that money is speech, it should be no great leap to recognize that speech can also be money. Wall Street has clearly recognized the truth in that, giving multi-billion dollar valuations to companies that are entirely predicated on reselling their users' attention. How long until American courts catch up with reality?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2016, @09:40PM
Most of it could be downcycled, and all of it could be burnt.
It won't be because it's in the environment, not in your recycling process loop. Litter and other environmental injections of plastic debris aren't caused nor solved by the choice between landfills and recycling.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:45AM
Which is kind of my point.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 10 2016, @09:31AM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:54AM
I apologize for expressing myself poorly. You said
>But there is this obsession with halting or proscribing practices such as "use and discard" which take advantage of our plentiful resources and enormous, cheap manufacturing capacity, even when it doesn't make sense environmentally. Wasting peoples' time to save a little plastic is a typical environmentalist choice even though they're probably making the environment worse with this poor allocation of resources.
I intended to indicate that the primary problem with "use and discard" of plastic is not the consumption of resources, but the production of ecologically devastating waste. And that if we consistently recycled (or as you pointed out, sequestered) plastic effectively it would not really be a problem.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the kinds of things we like to produce with plastic, that seems unlikely to happen. Which means to restrict the damage, we must restrict the consumption. Or at least shift it into less damaging forms.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 11 2016, @08:11AM
Which means to restrict the damage, we must restrict the consumption. Or at least shift it into less damaging forms.
We still have the matter of whether it is better to do that or not. Restricting our use of plastic can cause damage in other ways. And the harm from environmental plastic is routinely exaggerated.