4 ms·

I am always skeptical of headlines calling for making something more "efficient". Waste is a funny concept. Consider what eliminating it would do: * reduced

I am always skeptical of headlines calling for making something more "efficient". Waste is a funny concept. Consider what eliminating it would do: * reduced consumer spending * loss of jobs (farming/warehousing/transportation/retail) * less money "perishing" (literally) -> inflation Waste, for lack of a better word, is good.

jerf 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
- jordanthoms 14y ago
  This is one of those fallacies that just refuses to die, no matter how many times it's debunked.
EvanAnderson 14y ago
I'd agree w/ the "waste is good" thesis if not for the fact that, at least in the US, we're not really paying the true cost for the environmental impact associated with food production. Less waste would mean less food production and less environmental impact. Perhaps it's just me, but I've always felt like wasting anything that has scarcity-- food, water, etc-- is just a morally bad thing to do.
tyw 14y ago
I'd be more willing to agree with that line of reasoning if generating the wasted items wasn't consuming scarce resources in the first place (fresh water and gasoline/diesel in particular). Putting pressure on the demand for water and fuel just to keep more people's time occupied seems like a bad idea to me.
majormajor 14y ago
* more consumer money available for spending in areas with more overall economic growth potential?
rz2k 14y ago
That analysis is contrary to a mainstream understanding of economics in a way that is a little like violating the second law of thermodynamics. Because all transactions incur a transfer of wealth from one party to another there is no implicit creation of value unless the purchaser ultimately derives more utility from the product than the producer expended in effort and resources in order to produce it. Because the definition of waste is the purchaser not getting any utility from the product, the economy has a net loss in wealth equivalent to what the producer expended in making the unused product. If there were a magical way to convert consumers into people who only get what they want, the max price they'd pay for a satisfying meal wouldn't decrease, because they wouldn't be receiving any less utility. The farmers on the other hand would have a lower minimum price for providing a satisfying meal, because they'd have to spend fewer hours and less water producing it. The larger difference between the min selling price and max purchasing price is made up of producer surplus and consumer surplus. Efficient conversion of inputs into outputs really is one of the primary concerns of the economy, and this is not a velocity of money issue. However, any plan intended to minimize this waste is likely to create more problems than it solves, but that is because it is difficult and expensive to attempt to control people's behavior.
- photorized 14y ago
  You wrote: "Because the definition of waste is the purchaser not getting any utility from the product, the economy has a net loss in wealth equivalent to what the producer expended in making the unused product." Would you consider unused cell phone minutes (that don't roll over) waste? What about any other monthly-commit-type product or service, where network/CPU/storage capacity is provisioned (expended by the provider), purchased by the customer, but unused - is that waste by your definition?
  - rz2k 14y ago
    If you'd get something out of talking on the phone more, then you are forgoing utility that you've already paid for. However, if you place a call to a recording to a recording just to insure that you "use" all of your minutes, you get no more utility, but the phone company uses more electricity and a little more of its infrastructure is used up. Ultimately, if everyone did this, prices would increase to cover the greater expenditure of resources and labor required to supply the growth in the service being used. There is nothing wrong with that if customers are getting something out of the greater consumption, but it is a deadweight loss on the economy if they aren't. In fact, if they gain enough pleasure out of being spiteful, that is a justifiable reason, I merely suspect that they wouldn't actually enjoy it that much. As for monthly commit services, providers choose them over usage billing because it smooths out their capacity projection needs. If you're writing random numbers to /dev/null you probably don't get much out of it. On the other hand if you process bitcoins with unused capacity maybe you are better off, though providers may decide to drop you. Or, if you donate cpu cycles to folding@home you may (or may not) contribute more to the public good than the harm of the extra electricity consumption.

jerf 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

jordanthoms 14y ago
This is one of those fallacies that just refuses to die, no matter how many times it's debunked.

EvanAnderson 14y ago

I'd agree w/ the "waste is good" thesis if not for the fact that, at least in the US, we're not really paying the true cost for the environmental impact associated with food production. Less waste would mean less food production and less environmental impact. Perhaps it's just me, but I've always felt like wasting anything that has scarcity-- food, water, etc-- is just a morally bad thing to do.

tyw 14y ago

I'd be more willing to agree with that line of reasoning if generating the wasted items wasn't consuming scarce resources in the first place (fresh water and gasoline/diesel in particular). Putting pressure on the demand for water and fuel just to keep more people's time occupied seems like a bad idea to me.

majormajor 14y ago

* more consumer money available for spending in areas with more overall economic growth potential?

rz2k 14y ago

That analysis is contrary to a mainstream understanding of economics in a way that is a little like violating the second law of thermodynamics. Because all transactions incur a transfer of wealth from one party to another there is no implicit creation of value unless the purchaser ultimately derives more utility from the product than the producer expended in effort and resources in order to produce it. Because the definition of waste is the purchaser not getting any utility from the product, the economy has a net loss in wealth equivalent to what the producer expended in making the unused product. If there were a magical way to convert consumers into people who only get what they want, the max price they'd pay for a satisfying meal wouldn't decrease, because they wouldn't be receiving any less utility. The farmers on the other hand would have a lower minimum price for providing a satisfying meal, because they'd have to spend fewer hours and less water producing it. The larger difference between the min selling price and max purchasing price is made up of producer surplus and consumer surplus. Efficient conversion of inputs into outputs really is one of the primary concerns of the economy, and this is not a velocity of money issue. However, any plan intended to minimize this waste is likely to create more problems than it solves, but that is because it is difficult and expensive to attempt to control people's behavior.

photorized 14y ago
You wrote: "Because the definition of waste is the purchaser not getting any utility from the product, the economy has a net loss in wealth equivalent to what the producer expended in making the unused product." Would you consider unused cell phone minutes (that don't roll over) waste? What about any other monthly-commit-type product or service, where network/CPU/storage capacity is provisioned (expended by the provider), purchased by the customer, but unused - is that waste by your definition?
- rz2k 14y ago
  If you'd get something out of talking on the phone more, then you are forgoing utility that you've already paid for. However, if you place a call to a recording to a recording just to insure that you "use" all of your minutes, you get no more utility, but the phone company uses more electricity and a little more of its infrastructure is used up. Ultimately, if everyone did this, prices would increase to cover the greater expenditure of resources and labor required to supply the growth in the service being used. There is nothing wrong with that if customers are getting something out of the greater consumption, but it is a deadweight loss on the economy if they aren't. In fact, if they gain enough pleasure out of being spiteful, that is a justifiable reason, I merely suspect that they wouldn't actually enjoy it that much. As for monthly commit services, providers choose them over usage billing because it smooths out their capacity projection needs. If you're writing random numbers to /dev/null you probably don't get much out of it. On the other hand if you process bitcoins with unused capacity maybe you are better off, though providers may decide to drop you. Or, if you donate cpu cycles to folding@home you may (or may not) contribute more to the public good than the harm of the extra electricity consumption.