3 ms·

This sounds like a climate change problem that should receive a quick solution for the sake of the planet. Amazon is well placed to provide distribution of the

by iinnPP 3y ago

This sounds like a climate change problem that should receive a quick solution for the sake of the planet. Amazon is well placed to provide distribution of these parts at reasonable rates. Maybe they can be forced into such in order to continue receiving government contracts. Assuming they wouldn't play nice.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Simply increasing fossil fuel taxes would solve this issue much more cleanly and comprehensively than targeted legislation that can easily be manipulated. Capture more externalities of energy usage into a products' price, and people will be less able to waste money on throwaway products, and hence businesses making long lasting, repairable products will win in the market. Of course, the problem is, people want cheaper, throwaway products so they can consume more.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  I live in Canada where your suggestion is implemented at least in some capacity. The result has not been great. I believe part of the problem is that many people simply cannot afford to pay more. If we could target both problems at once I can see this working very well. The solution I posted does consider low income people and would have an immediate benefit to everyone except the companies that have created the problem. We could also tax all new goods, except parts. To bring the cost incentive back to reality. Perhaps multiplied on a climate impact rating that would also be tied to repairability. So the cheapest product would definitely be the longest lasting product, which would also be cheapest to repair.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >I believe part of the problem is that many people simply cannot afford to pay more. If we could target both problems at once I can see this working very well. Yes, you can. Give cash to everyone, and take it back via increased marginal income taxes rates (ideally an exponential tax rate function), aka wealth redistribution. >The solution I posted does consider low income people and would have an immediate benefit to everyone except the companies that have created the problem. The problem is in the logistics and crafting of the legislation, and then the court fights, and so on and so forth. We have seen this time and time again, and probably will, because legislation with tons of loopholes that makes people feel like they are sacrificing, but not really, is the only politically possible solution. How long do parts have to be provided for? Which parts? What about parts that are dangerous? What is dangerous? Just goes on and on and on, and society ends up wasting even more resources.

by iinnPP 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Simply increasing fossil fuel taxes would solve this issue much more cleanly and comprehensively than targeted legislation that can easily be manipulated. Capture more externalities of energy usage into a products' price, and people will be less able to waste money on throwaway products, and hence businesses making long lasting, repairable products will win in the market. Of course, the problem is, people want cheaper, throwaway products so they can consume more.

iinnPP 3y ago
I live in Canada where your suggestion is implemented at least in some capacity. The result has not been great. I believe part of the problem is that many people simply cannot afford to pay more. If we could target both problems at once I can see this working very well. The solution I posted does consider low income people and would have an immediate benefit to everyone except the companies that have created the problem. We could also tax all new goods, except parts. To bring the cost incentive back to reality. Perhaps multiplied on a climate impact rating that would also be tied to repairability. So the cheapest product would definitely be the longest lasting product, which would also be cheapest to repair.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >I believe part of the problem is that many people simply cannot afford to pay more. If we could target both problems at once I can see this working very well. Yes, you can. Give cash to everyone, and take it back via increased marginal income taxes rates (ideally an exponential tax rate function), aka wealth redistribution. >The solution I posted does consider low income people and would have an immediate benefit to everyone except the companies that have created the problem. The problem is in the logistics and crafting of the legislation, and then the court fights, and so on and so forth. We have seen this time and time again, and probably will, because legislation with tons of loopholes that makes people feel like they are sacrificing, but not really, is the only politically possible solution. How long do parts have to be provided for? Which parts? What about parts that are dangerous? What is dangerous? Just goes on and on and on, and society ends up wasting even more resources.