3 ms·

>They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though No it doesn't. At all. Doing the

by xoa 11y ago

>They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though No it doesn't. At all. Doing the right thing should, at the least, be worth positive social recognition ("public relations") at any level, from the largest corporations right down to individuals who work to keep their local neighborhood clean. Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it. That's part of the point of enforcing the price inclusion of externalities. There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's efficient and profitable. I very much dislike the self-flagellating attitude that somehow comes to the conclusion that in order to be worthy of praise doing good must be ultimately rare, unpleasant and costly. Sometimes that is the case, and extra praise and recognition is part of the feedback loop to try to make it more common, but in general society should work to make barriers to positive change as low as possible. Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and human) involved in setting it up in the first place. As always, that capital could be invested elsewhere, in areas that might be equally or more profitable and involve less risk and variability as well. Merely looking outcomes with risk-weighting and considering opportunity costs is always a mistake. You wrote: >It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is Sometimes you may know better then the entirety of the market (business opportunity!), but sometimes you should consider that perhaps the markets recognize something that you don't. Maybe the reason this hasn't been more common is that it only looks "obvious" on the surface and taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that it has not been worth it. So when companies do forge ahead it is still worthy of recognition, particularly to the extent that it may encourage more to follow and ultimately make it more effective for everyone.

rdiddly 11y ago
Where we agree: "Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it." = "It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is." "There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's efficient and profitable" = the absence of anything negative said about it. I said it was obvious [good], efficient [good] and profitable [good, but mostly for Apple]. And that they're congratulating themselves to reap PR value (absolutely true). "...taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that it has not been worth it." = "It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is." And the reason they're catching up now is because of scarcity, and because costs of wholesale looting metals from the commons are beginning to climb to their true value, i.e. irreplaceability. Apple's costs for recycling include the gift card they give you for turning in your old device -- which is some quantity of their own goods & services at cost -- and shipping & processing costs, all of which are surely considerable but will soon be dwarfed by mining costs if they aren't already. "Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and human) involved in setting it up in the first place." = "...they'll be glad they already have the infrastructure in place." Starting to think you didn't read more than 10-12 words. And also why are you trying to make the argument that it's difficult and costly for them, when this is the much-hated self-flagellation argument? Where we disagree: 1) Free Market, not being a proper noun or deity, should not be capitalized, no pun intended. 2) There is no answer to "What is 'good'?" and there is no answer to "Is recycling 'good'?" "Good" and "bad" are overrated and overused concepts best suited to the cognitively impaired, religious folk, others who desire a simplistic mental model of the world, and those who want to play out emotional issues by getting all worked-up over good-bad absolutes instead of talking neutrally. Lots of people say "It is what it is" but few actually mean it. 3) There is no self-flagellation involved in noticing that when someone does something rare, unpleasant and costly, it's remarkable for those very reasons; whereas when they do something efficient, profitable and (from the standpoint of someone who already recognizes the irreplaceability of Earth) obvious, it's somewhat less remarkable. German and Dutch companies (for just one example that I've personally witnessed), have been quietly recycling for decades. 4) I'm not in love with Apple.

by xoa 11y ago

rdiddly 11y ago

Where we agree: "Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it." = "It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is." "There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's efficient and profitable" = the absence of anything negative said about it. I said it was obvious [good], efficient [good] and profitable [good, but mostly for Apple]. And that they're congratulating themselves to reap PR value (absolutely true). "...taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that it has not been worth it." = "It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is." And the reason they're catching up now is because of scarcity, and because costs of wholesale looting metals from the commons are beginning to climb to their true value, i.e. irreplaceability. Apple's costs for recycling include the gift card they give you for turning in your old device -- which is some quantity of their own goods & services at cost -- and shipping & processing costs, all of which are surely considerable but will soon be dwarfed by mining costs if they aren't already. "Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and human) involved in setting it up in the first place." = "...they'll be glad they already have the infrastructure in place." Starting to think you didn't read more than 10-12 words. And also why are you trying to make the argument that it's difficult and costly for them, when this is the much-hated self-flagellation argument? Where we disagree: 1) Free Market, not being a proper noun or deity, should not be capitalized, no pun intended. 2) There is no answer to "What is 'good'?" and there is no answer to "Is recycling 'good'?" "Good" and "bad" are overrated and overused concepts best suited to the cognitively impaired, religious folk, others who desire a simplistic mental model of the world, and those who want to play out emotional issues by getting all worked-up over good-bad absolutes instead of talking neutrally. Lots of people say "It is what it is" but few actually mean it. 3) There is no self-flagellation involved in noticing that when someone does something rare, unpleasant and costly, it's remarkable for those very reasons; whereas when they do something efficient, profitable and (from the standpoint of someone who already recognizes the irreplaceability of Earth) obvious, it's somewhat less remarkable. German and Dutch companies (for just one example that I've personally witnessed), have been quietly recycling for decades. 4) I'm not in love with Apple.