6 ms·

There is a big BUG in marketing economics that we do not have a price for external Junk/Waste. This one organizations junk may be "free" to them, but cost anoth

by acd 5y ago

There is a big BUG in marketing economics that we do not have a price for external Junk/Waste. This one organizations junk may be "free" to them, but cost another organization big amounts of work and hassle. Space junk is such an example. After you launch your satellite and it does it work and then becomes obsolete, there is very low to no incentive to remove the waste in a good manner. Nature usually works differently in that there is some kind of waste harvest process that recycles the waste into a renewable process.

colechristensen 5y ago
These things are managed and approved, end of life is a consideration for approval for us related space launches.
doctoboggan 5y ago
This bug is called “the tragedy of the commons” and people have been working on a hot fix for a while but I’m not sure it can be fully patched while running capitalism.
- bashinator 5y ago
  It’s funny, sad, and telling that your post is not so popular on this particular forum. It certainly adds to the conversation, in my opinion.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    It's actually mentioned all the time, so whoever downvoted was probably bored with conversations about one thing always turning into political rehashes of the same old things over and over.
    - I-M-S 5y ago
      Capitalismum delenda est.
- robocat 5y ago
  Is China capitalist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
  - doctoboggan 5y ago
    Yes, despite what China may want you to think they are capitalist. Democracy =/= capitalism, you can have an authoritarian state with a capitalist economy. Also, even if China was a command economy that doesn't mean they too couldn't cause pollution. Its just that "the tragedy of the commons" is a specifically market economy problem.
    - AJ007 5y ago
      The Soviets left plenty of environmental damage, strong consensus they were not capitalist.
      - Dma54rhs 5y ago
        Soviets were proud of economic damage and the strength of human being putting rivers to flow in other direction for the benefit of a soviet man. All sort of talk about protecting the nature was by people brainwashed by the western ideals and propaganda.
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    I consider China to be a communist country that understands capitalism and uses it to its advantage. A while capitalism encourages the tragedy of the commons and communism has the potential of solving it, it doesn't mean it will. Communism is a better system in theory, but from experience, it doesn't work as well in practice.
    - ric2b 5y ago
      > and communism has the potential of solving it How?
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Capitalism patches such problems, by incentivizing solutions. Got problems with space junk? someone is working on making a buck by solving your problem cheaper than you can, including by making a path to finding value in what would otherwise be just tossed.
- nickik 5y ago
  By far the most common solution for tragedy of the commons is property rights and that also what works the best in most cases. Solving tragedy of the commons in Britain is literally a major step in development of capitalism. Modern economists have since done a huge amount of work on this topic and multiple noble prices have been given to work on the subject. The idea that it is inherently a capitalist problem is nonsense, its a universal problem that exists in all human societies from hunter-gather to soviet socialism and all forms of capitalism. It can not be 'fully patched' in any system of human interaction. Humans have found millions of solution for the problem in a million different ways, there is no universal solution. I would recommend Elinor Ostrom work to illustrate this and how such situation can be solved. She had worked on this problem for 40+ and got a noble price for it. Other things to read are, Ronald Coase, Armen Alchian, Douglass North.
ultimape 5y ago
Much of the coal we have is because ancient trees weren't biodegradable. It would just build up because nothing could eat it for quite a long time. Nature also has a waste stream problem.
- unglaublich 5y ago
  Not at all, that "waste" was safe and stable where it was. We try to get it all out and ignite it because it's easier and cheaper than using the sun's energy directly. That ignition and corresponding sudden release in the atmosphere is what's causing issues.
- 8note 5y ago
  I think that is to say nature had a waste problem. Nowadays things all get eaten and recycled back in
  - salawat 5y ago
    More accurately, one Department of nature (Arbors) out-developed another (Decomposers) through the development of lignin. This was eventually remedied.
frederikvs 5y ago
I think authorities are becoming stricter in requirements for end-of-life planning for anything you launch. * For some other satellites, there are plans to move them to a graveyard orbit when they are no longer useful. Of course, this requires the satellite to take action, so it cannot be done if the satellite would become unresponsive. * In some cases, orbits are selected that will degrade quite quickly even when the satellite is non-responsive. IIRC, Starlink satellites would deorbit in a matter of months. * Active research is also being done w.r.t. deorbiting satellites at end of life (e.g. with a sail [0]). To launch anything you have to get various approvals. Those approval processes are becoming stricter in their requirements for end-of-life planning. This should help lessen the effects of the bug you describe. Of course, there are situations that are not accounted for in those plans. If some malfunction causes a satellite to e.g. explode in orbit, it will leave behind a lot of space debris, and any deorbiting plans requiring action on the part of the satellite are useless. So what I described above helps, but doesn't fix the issue completely. [0] http://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Setting_sail_for_sustainable_space http://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Setting_sail...
batushka3 5y ago
EU has packaging tax for all goods for waste management.
- kavalg 5y ago
  and then they burn them in Bulgaria ;)
edouard-harris 5y ago
> There is a big BUG in marketing economics that we do not have a price for external Junk/Waste. This is called a negative externality, and it's been understood by economists for about a century. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative One of the reasons negative externalities persist is that they're hard to put a price on. How would you calculate the economic cost of the marginal piece of space junk? In practice governments will have to do their best to impose reasonable frictions, by taxing launches or otherwise regulating them. But I think it's more correct to call this a genuinely hard problem in economics, as opposed to a bug.
- walleeee 5y ago
  I think what most warrants critique is the fact that despite a century of alleged awareness, no extant economic policy even begins to address the problem in its full scope We've been saying "in practice governments must impose reasonable frictions" since the 1970s at least, with the reentry of ecological concerns into public consciousness in the west, and still we've barely begun We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists for a hundred years or more despite our "understanding" this genuinely hard problem? Are we mad? Suicidal?
  - titzer 5y ago
    > We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists Properly understood, economics has always been harnessed as a tool to maximize profit for the rich, a bit like shady "doctors" for elite athletes administering performance-enhancing drugs, optimizing their short-term gains at the expense of long-term consequences, completely unlike real doctors who look out for the general well-being of patients. There are few economists who care about long-term consequences that actually influence policymakers.
    - jdgoesmarching 5y ago
      This. Most of the field is centered around maximizing or defending the interests of billionaires. It’s one of my favorite disciplines, but after reviewing the curriculum of a major econ program nearby I decided not to pursue it for basically this reason.

by acd 5y ago

colechristensen 5y ago

These things are managed and approved, end of life is a consideration for approval for us related space launches.

doctoboggan 5y ago

This bug is called “the tragedy of the commons” and people have been working on a hot fix for a while but I’m not sure it can be fully patched while running capitalism.

bashinator 5y ago
It’s funny, sad, and telling that your post is not so popular on this particular forum. It certainly adds to the conversation, in my opinion.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  It's actually mentioned all the time, so whoever downvoted was probably bored with conversations about one thing always turning into political rehashes of the same old things over and over.
  - I-M-S 5y ago
    Capitalismum delenda est.
robocat 5y ago
Is China capitalist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
- doctoboggan 5y ago
  Yes, despite what China may want you to think they are capitalist. Democracy =/= capitalism, you can have an authoritarian state with a capitalist economy. Also, even if China was a command economy that doesn't mean they too couldn't cause pollution. Its just that "the tragedy of the commons" is a specifically market economy problem.
  - AJ007 5y ago
    The Soviets left plenty of environmental damage, strong consensus they were not capitalist.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Soviets were proud of economic damage and the strength of human being putting rivers to flow in other direction for the benefit of a soviet man. All sort of talk about protecting the nature was by people brainwashed by the western ideals and propaganda.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  I consider China to be a communist country that understands capitalism and uses it to its advantage. A while capitalism encourages the tragedy of the commons and communism has the potential of solving it, it doesn't mean it will. Communism is a better system in theory, but from experience, it doesn't work as well in practice.
  - ric2b 5y ago
    > and communism has the potential of solving it How?
ctdonath 5y ago
Capitalism patches such problems, by incentivizing solutions. Got problems with space junk? someone is working on making a buck by solving your problem cheaper than you can, including by making a path to finding value in what would otherwise be just tossed.
nickik 5y ago
By far the most common solution for tragedy of the commons is property rights and that also what works the best in most cases. Solving tragedy of the commons in Britain is literally a major step in development of capitalism. Modern economists have since done a huge amount of work on this topic and multiple noble prices have been given to work on the subject. The idea that it is inherently a capitalist problem is nonsense, its a universal problem that exists in all human societies from hunter-gather to soviet socialism and all forms of capitalism. It can not be 'fully patched' in any system of human interaction. Humans have found millions of solution for the problem in a million different ways, there is no universal solution. I would recommend Elinor Ostrom work to illustrate this and how such situation can be solved. She had worked on this problem for 40+ and got a noble price for it. Other things to read are, Ronald Coase, Armen Alchian, Douglass North.

ultimape 5y ago

Much of the coal we have is because ancient trees weren't biodegradable. It would just build up because nothing could eat it for quite a long time. Nature also has a waste stream problem.

unglaublich 5y ago
Not at all, that "waste" was safe and stable where it was. We try to get it all out and ignite it because it's easier and cheaper than using the sun's energy directly. That ignition and corresponding sudden release in the atmosphere is what's causing issues.
8note 5y ago
I think that is to say nature had a waste problem. Nowadays things all get eaten and recycled back in
- salawat 5y ago
  More accurately, one Department of nature (Arbors) out-developed another (Decomposers) through the development of lignin. This was eventually remedied.

frederikvs 5y ago

I think authorities are becoming stricter in requirements for end-of-life planning for anything you launch. * For some other satellites, there are plans to move them to a graveyard orbit when they are no longer useful. Of course, this requires the satellite to take action, so it cannot be done if the satellite would become unresponsive. * In some cases, orbits are selected that will degrade quite quickly even when the satellite is non-responsive. IIRC, Starlink satellites would deorbit in a matter of months. * Active research is also being done w.r.t. deorbiting satellites at end of life (e.g. with a sail [0]). To launch anything you have to get various approvals. Those approval processes are becoming stricter in their requirements for end-of-life planning. This should help lessen the effects of the bug you describe. Of course, there are situations that are not accounted for in those plans. If some malfunction causes a satellite to e.g. explode in orbit, it will leave behind a lot of space debris, and any deorbiting plans requiring action on the part of the satellite are useless. So what I described above helps, but doesn't fix the issue completely. [0] http://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Setting_sail_for_sustainable_space http://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Setting_sail...

batushka3 5y ago

EU has packaging tax for all goods for waste management.

kavalg 5y ago
and then they burn them in Bulgaria ;)

edouard-harris 5y ago

> There is a big BUG in marketing economics that we do not have a price for external Junk/Waste. This is called a negative externality, and it's been understood by economists for about a century. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative One of the reasons negative externalities persist is that they're hard to put a price on. How would you calculate the economic cost of the marginal piece of space junk? In practice governments will have to do their best to impose reasonable frictions, by taxing launches or otherwise regulating them. But I think it's more correct to call this a genuinely hard problem in economics, as opposed to a bug.

walleeee 5y ago
I think what most warrants critique is the fact that despite a century of alleged awareness, no extant economic policy even begins to address the problem in its full scope We've been saying "in practice governments must impose reasonable frictions" since the 1970s at least, with the reentry of ecological concerns into public consciousness in the west, and still we've barely begun We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists for a hundred years or more despite our "understanding" this genuinely hard problem? Are we mad? Suicidal?
- titzer 5y ago
  > We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists Properly understood, economics has always been harnessed as a tool to maximize profit for the rich, a bit like shady "doctors" for elite athletes administering performance-enhancing drugs, optimizing their short-term gains at the expense of long-term consequences, completely unlike real doctors who look out for the general well-being of patients. There are few economists who care about long-term consequences that actually influence policymakers.
  - jdgoesmarching 5y ago
    This. Most of the field is centered around maximizing or defending the interests of billionaires. It’s one of my favorite disciplines, but after reviewing the curriculum of a major econ program nearby I decided not to pursue it for basically this reason.