Slashdot Mirror
Inside the Fake PC Recycling Market
snydeq writes "OSNews' Howard Fosdick reports on the fake recycling market — one in which companies exploit cheap shipping, inexpensive labor, and a lack of safety and environmental law to export computers and other e-waste to China and Africa where it is 'recycled' with a complete lack of environmental and safety rules. 'This trade has become a thriving business. Companies called "fake recyclers" approach well-meaning organizations — charities, churches, and community organizations — and offer to hold a Recycling Day. The charity provides publicity, legitimacy, and a parking lot for the event. On the designated day, well-meaning residents drop off their old electronics for recycling. The fake recycler picks it up in their trucks, hauls it away for shipping, and makes money by exporting it to Chinese or African "recycling" centers. Nobody's the wiser,' Fosdick writes. Of course, the international community has, in fact, devised a set of rules to control e-waste disposal under the Basel Conventions, but the US — 'the international 'bad boy' of computer recycling — is one of four countries that have not ratified and do not adhere to these international agreements."
Market will sort it out.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Of course here in my home province, they recently added a ECE tax which is supposed to before recycling home electronics and such. Which means that the money goes right into the coffers. Of course I can never find anywhere to drop off my electronics, except at the same places which already did it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Pointer to an old 60 Minutes story on just this. The U.S. recycler in question was shocked that his dumpster-full of CRTs ended up in China.
that socialist treaty! If the free market has decide to let black and brown children wallow in our toxic waste for pennies a day, who are we to argue? All hail the invisible hand!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I held a computer and electronics recycling day in my town. We were able to collect over 50 used computers and many other things. Several of them were refurbished and given to people who could use them, but the majority had to be recycled. We didn't ship them to China or Africa either. I'm sure that there will always be people out there trying to game the system to make a quick buck, but there are a lot of people who are just trying to help out (by reducing "ewaste" in my case).
Sent from my iPhone 5
I am for this product and/or service.
A lot of you won't want to hear this, but most likely the foreign labor that's scavenging these parts is doing so because this is their best option. If you fight against allowing these people access to these discarded resources you might be hurting them economically. Not every country is as wealthy as ours and certainly most of the developing world would be very willing to take increased risks in order to obtain increased prosperity.
Unfortunately, many first world western "do gooders" will destroy the opportunity for 3rd world people to make a living and lift themselves out of poverty.
Sure, these people might have no protection against toxins...but the alternative choice might be starvation or prostitution or even more horrible jobs like stone crushing. (yes, that is a job)
Every nation with modern wealth had to undergo a dirty period of industrialization where some generations lifted themselves out of poverty at health costs...but this is better than being in poverty with other ongoing health costs of POVERTY.
Let people scavenge for resources if that's their best option. They'll make wealth and choose a better life for their kids. Note that when 3rd worlders start making more than 10K USD per person in Per-Capita income they start DEMANDING cleaner environments and standards.
But they have to start somewhere.
I was talking with one of my friends who works in the oil business. He was going off how the cleaner energy technologies will never really take off while oil is 3-5 times less expensive. And sadly, I have to agree: efforts are, of course, being made but considering the amount of money that could be put towards green energy (or nuclear fission or fusion), it's very half-hearted. Cheaper is better in our society. And that applies to NIMBY projects too. It took about 20 years for people to really come around to attempting to recycle anything on a regular basis. It surprises me not in the least that people are tossing environmental concerns for cash.
I hope, someday, that we will learn that protecting our natural resources are part of the cost of doing business. Right now we're like a bunch of teenagers wondering how trigonometry is ever going to be useful in our lives. So we're being taught, but we're not really taking it in.
I'm being serious. With the exception of the (large amounts) easy to recycle copper and aluminum, just dump all the useless crap into an active volcano. At 1300-2400F (700 to 1300C) in temp, it will go back to where it came from - The Earth.
So how does one make a profit in this model. I understand that the likea of HP and Dell and Apple might use these fake recycling services as all they need to get material out of the country and have it end up in someone else's landfill. There is no expectation of profit, just minimization of the cost needed to generate good will. But to make a profit?
I pay for a truck. I pay someone or personally recruit legitimate firms to provide cover. I or one of my agents are at the collection site. Packing costs money. Shipping costs money. Unpacking and disposal costs money. These are a lot of expenses, and I don't see any receivables, unless the parties receiving the product are actually paying for the computers, in which case we can also assume that some level of recycling is going on.
The question is if enough of the computer is recycled to justify the effort and resources consumed, presumably mostly fuel. I would say the best way to deal with this question is not to pass regulation that adress symptoms, but rather to pass regulations so that resources are not undervalued.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Given the fine article here, I see that China is one of the bad boys in actually doing bad stuff, yet the http://www.ban.org/country_status/report_card.html web site has China listed as "Excellent". So something seems more than slightly fishy. Reading again, the site merely rates how the countries in question perform lip service to a set of 4 treaties and totally disregards how the countries actually act regards limiting pollution.
Sorry people, but this is a prime example of actions speaking louder than words.
You can get anything you want at Natalie's Restaurant. (The punchline, half a decade later, is that the 21" CRT I salvaged from a dumpster still works, yet I've gone through one LCD monitor due to a failed inverter and a lack of easily-available spare parts since then.)
The only thing I've noticed in the five years since I wrote that parody is that it's getting increasingly hard to find surplus equipment these days. Product lifecycles are shorter, so consumption isn't reduced. It's sure as hell not getting reused. And it's only getting "recycled" in the sense that it's being dumped into the homes of people so poor that they melt solder off printed circuit boards over an open pit fire.
Recycling hardware for which you have no further use is a good idea, but if you're going to recycle your old electronics, do some research and find an organization that's doing it right. ACCRC turns the scrappy scrap into scrap, turns the interesting scrap into art, and the non-scrap into computers that go directly to people in its own neighborhood.
Did the author of this article, just blame the US, for the fact that China and Africa allow their citizens to poison the environment and dump hazardous chemicals into the water ? He should stop buying computer equipment, or call the African government with his complaint.
Who recycles fake PCs? I've seen them at Ikea and other furniture stores, I suppose most of them ARE cardboard...
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
(opinion) Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The least of which is Recycle.
People get fooled into thinking they can buy more and reuse less because they practice "feel good" recycling. Recycling at an energy/material loss (such as with paper), is more harmful than simply dumping or incinerating it, partly because of the actual net loss, but also partly because of the smug mindset people enter into. Compare hybrid owners who drive more because they own a hybrid.
Without "feel good" recycling, people might be more inclined to think about purchases (which comparable food comes in the less reusable less wasteful container), and manufacturers might be more inclined to adjust the market accordingly.
~sigh~
Reduction in consumption creates no trash and no need to expend energy to refresh/recycle
Reuse eliminates the energy required to collect, sort, reform, and resell
Recycling is only a step better than trash, since the cost of creating the raw materials is not borne, but is offset somewhat by the need for all the reprocessing. It still uses a lot of energy. The biggest advantage is that the materials don't have to be mined.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
http://ban.org/photogallery/index.html
Look at the human tragedy. Thank God today you don't live like that.
And it's no one's fault over here, no unsigned treaty, that could create that kind of depravity. Please just for once put down your politics and look a problem square in the eye: China's just got a bad culture and a worse form of government. It's shameful to allow people to live so rotten, period.
NO, before you get all guilt-ridden and try to heap the blame on "us": shameful, rotten, PERIOD, end of story! Good day, sir.
Windows will continue to bloat up and so will Apple's OSes. Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?
I've been thinking about a non-profit for recycling these machines. Many many poor people could use them.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I have been seeing stories like these for several years. Although this situation is clearly undesirable, I have still to see anyone proposing a realistic alternative. The bottom line is doing proper recycling costs money, people do not want to pay.
To take something apart and separate the elements used in its construction may cost more than putting it together. Who wants to pay twice the price for anything?
The market pressure is all against any environmentally and safe recycling. The biggest part of most electronic equipment is plastic with very low value as scrap. Fiberglass, for instance, is nearly worthless, what could anyone possibly do with the fiberglass from an old circuit board? This fiberglass is mixed with small but significant amounts of lead, how would you remove the lead before sending the fiberglass to a landfill?
The market isn't working? OK, but would the government work either? Try telling people that their $50 phone will have a $100 tax added for properly recycling it.
People so ignorant and so determined to foist their "me, me, me, I, myself, mine, all mine, fuck you!" world-view onto everyone else should be exhibits in some sort of "museum of insanity" where researchers into mental disorders could at least get some use out of you.
I mean, you really suppose that people would "trade via garage sales" all that junk which they actually pay money for to be hauled away into massive, monumental, all-consuming land fills that keep growing year after year around any major city in the developed world? Really?
The natural state of affairs in the consumer distopia is to, get this, consume without any regard to the consequences. People buy plastic crap, they use it until it breaks (a period usually measured in months) and then they promptly throw it out, followed by a new purchase of cheap disposable crap. And this model is a pivotal element of all the so-called "industrialized economies". Recycling occurs in the fucked-up model of "free market" only if some material in the waste is somehow worth extracting, at a minimum effort possible, which is precisely why it is shipped to China and Africa where children can have the privilege of wallowing in toxic shit to extract traces of raw materials. That is an unregulated "free market" at work. It works as long as the children are disposable and dying of toxic exposure tomorrow beats dying of hunger today. "Freedom" of choice in the "free market", as long as it isn't spoiled by all these "evil communist gubmint" types trying to do meddle doing evil things like trying to stop impoverished kids from inhaling toxic fumes and mountains of toxic crap from growing. The glorious "freedom" to pollute as long as it is somewhere else then you, cause "you got yours and the rest should go get theirs", you mendacious fuck, no?
As his comments about gender and intelligence as President of Harvard demonstrate, the guy has a talent for sticking his foot in his mouth.
Are you adequate?
I would imagine that most of the people who brought the parts for recycling didn't even wipe the drives they were using. Being a charity it sounds pretty benevolent. I would imagine old hard drives collected in this manner would be pretty valuable...
Nonprofit Technology Resources in Philly does something similar, without the art. A very worthy organization, and one that I am constantly surprised local geeks haven't heard about.
So Africa is going to start shipping its waste to Detroit? Sounds fair!
they start DEMANDING cleaner environments and standards
Here's the tricky part: both the environmental and workplace conditions in the photographs of the Chinese sitesare all already against the law in China because Chinese people have demanded that this kind of thing not be allowed. What is not pictured is the recycling center owners in their Benzes and the local party bosses in their Audis (bought with bribes from the owners). Enforcing the demands for better conditions will require not different market choices or even new elections but a complete political revolution. The situation is too far out of control for normal market forces to correct when the government utterly fails to enforce laws or contracts.
I don't think PC recycling can be done.
It takes more work to disassemble a PC than it did to assemble it from those parts in the first place. When you're done, there isn't much of a market for old 128MB RAM chips, 30GB hard drives, 500 MHz motherboards, etc.
Is there a viable technology that shreds computers with giant steel rollers and sorts the flakes according to material, and sells aluminum flakes, etc. and sells them? Is there a safe heat process? There must be something, since there are companies that claim to provide certified recycling to meet government regulations. But I can't find one. All I can find is stories of third-world dumping.
It may be safer and better for the environment to dump old PCs in U.S. landfills than to send them to parts unknown for "recycling." We should be able to make landfills that can take appliances with heavy metals and electronic plastics without passing it on to the water supply.
Looked to me like a lot of recycling was going on in the photos. Burning "e-waste" isn't recycling, but the other three pictures showed people in the act of recycling electronic waste. So what makes recycling, "fake" recycling? At a glance, it is recycling in a developing world country where environment laws of developed world countries don't exist or aren't followed, if they do exist.
Not to out geek anyone but wasn't this the plot of the "premier" Futurerama on Comedy central last week?
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Everyone should know about paper recycling - it costs more to use recycled paper than new. The quality is questionable as well. The result is that most paper is dumped into an incinerator or a landfill by recycling centers because it is pointless to attempt to recycle post-consumer paper.
Plastic bottles can be recycled... except if one tiny little bottle cap or ring gets into the mix the entire batch is worthless. Since this happens most of the time again plastic bottles are not generally recycled.
Aluminium is one great success in that it is actually cheaper to smelt down aluminium cans than it is to process the raw ore. So a lot of aluminium is actually recycled and it makes economic sense.
Really, if we wanted to build the cost of recycling computers and other high-tech devices into the product cost you would quickly see a drop in new product consumption. $500 for the computer with a $500 add-on for recycling it. $600 for an iPad with $500 for recycling it. $25,000 for a car with $10,000 for recycling it. It would be one way to deal with the recycling problem and it would immediately end most of the need to actually recycle things because the sales would be so reduced as to not require much recycling at all. It would be a way of actually implementing "reduce".
Without that, there is going to be little incentive to either meaningfully reduce consumer buying or force consumers to recycle obsolete or non-functional items. I'd say a minimum charge of $500 for any high-tech device would be reasonable, assuming the devices are being disassembled and processed using Western wage level workers. Now the $10 for the plastic water bottle (each) might also have an effect on both sales of such single-use bottles and the number entering landfills.
I.. ok, ok, stop right there. There is no way this comment is not a straight man setup for a racist funny man joke. Just.. just no way. you tried this.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
The summary says the US is "one of four countries that have not ratified" but the link just lists four notable countries. Scroll down a bit and you will see that they list 15 countries haven't ratified any of the "International Toxics Agreements" (only 15 have ratified all). But is it worse than that since they only list 163 countries when there are 195(*) countries in the world. Assuming the countries they don't list haven't ratified on then that means there are a total of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
Technically the US is "one of four countries that haven't ratified", but technically it is also one of five countries that haven't ratified, and one of three, one of 12, one of 18 and one of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
(*) The UN has 192 member countries but excludes Vatican City, Kosovo and Taiwan.
I got a lot of old computer parts from the 1990's. Motherfracking Recycling companies near me are a darnned joke and refuse to take tech made before 2002. Then calls me picky and unreasonable when I ask them to take my 90's tech.
Then some want $50 to haul off a $15 CRT tube monitor that do.
Any ideas or suggestions? I don't want to throw them in a dumpster and have mercury leaks and all that, I don't want to harm the environment. I don't want to pay $50 a monitor to get rid of them either.
Are those types of businesses scams and frauds as well? How can I find one to take them for free. The Freecycle group in my area is a joke BTW, get a lot of no shows and then nothing happens and nobody cares.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
We are, I sell used ram to someone who does just that.
1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked them at random). Do you object to a group of people, experts in the Presidio, from managing the place? Or is your objection that this group of people has a common name, "The Presidio Trust". Would you be happier if we called them group 184? Perhaps you think that we should simply sell off this land -- does this mean that you think there should be no parks at all?
Really, I don know why you got moderated as "insiteful". It sounds more like "thoughtless".
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
As recently as 3-5 years ago you could go to a hamfest get a reasonably up-to-date laptop computer and save $500-700 from a new computer.
Now with new laptop with good specs going for $400-500, the margins are gone, so the hamfest guys are selling laptop computers for $300$400. There's no sense in buying used in that case since it has no warranty and will probably be less energy efficient than a new one.
The issue really is that we're getting so efficient at building new computers that it makes the old stuff worthless pretty quickly.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
.. in mining, pound for pound.
"Compare hybrid owners who drive more because they own a hybrid"
Or the hybrid owners who trade a perfectly good car, go $20,000 into debt because the hybrid gets better gas mileage (probably save them *at most* $500/year).
I wish people would realize the most environmentally friendly car is one that you already own. There's no pollution involved in making the new car, you're not disposing of the old car, and you won't have car payments. What's not to like?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
So why is it such a bad problem for countries that make this stuff to get it back when we (Western countries, not just the US) no longer need/want it? I'm singling out China but not Africa here...
Let's be fair... I don't want anyone, especially children, being exposed to chemicals involved in e-waste. But I'm of the mindset that if you want to take our jobs away and make a product cheaper than we (Western countries) can make it, then why shouldn't you (China) get it back when we don't want it or it's no longer useful? This treaty basically states that countries that manufacture items get the benefit and profit of manufacture, while incurring little-to-none of the costs of disposal. US landfills have had to deal with e-waste since the early days of radio and TV--most of which were manufactured here...
To add, I have little sympathy for countries that can't or won't control what they import. Each country is responsible for what comes across its borders. It's not like someone's hiding 2 CRT monitors in the trunk of a car & driving them into China--we're talking about huge shipping containers full of these items. If Chinese officials are too corrupt, unwilling, or inept to stop the flow of e-waste, then they get what they deserve...
[End of rant...]
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
I enjoyed reading your post. Insofar as you are discrediting the garage sale theory, I'm inclined to agree with you.
But then you come kind of unhinged.
Well, that's not quite true. Replace the word "Consequences" to "Costs", and you are flatly wrong. People respond to _costs_. And the fact of the matter is, for many Americans, the cost of throwing something away is quite low, and there's no reason for them not to do so.
For instance, I live in Fargo, ND. The city landfill is on the northwest edge of town. I've been there several times.
I can tell you what land here costs, and i can tell you the fill/pile-over rate of the landfill, and the population. And from this we, can extract the land acquisition and rent-value of continuing to do nothing more intelligent than simply _stacking garbage on city property_.
The fact of the matter is, that here, it doesn't make economic sense to do much of anything else with our garbage. My in-town residential garbage pickup costs me $9 a month.
Can you explain, generally, why people should feel bad about not doing things that you admit aren't worth doing?
The electricity your PC used when making your angry screed caused pollution. According to the EPA, the CO2 that you exhaled while composing your response is a pollutant.
Presumably, you feel that your post is so important that the pollution it creates -- pollution i have no choice but to contend with and accept, uncompensated -- was worth the tremendous insight you are offering.
On the other hand, the people dumping garbage in rathole countries for money are at least compensating those countries.
Your real beef is with the governments in these places -- who think so little of their own people that they satisfy garbage-storage obligations by dumping them on their own people, who, in those countries, have NO choice in the matter.
While we should be quick to lay the appropriate amount of evil at greedy bastards who would love nothing more than to pollute you and I to the moon to shave a cent of their own expenses, an honest assessment of the facts will reveal that by far, the worst polluters in the world, in terms of environmental impact, but also in terms of how many humans are harmed without recourse, are governments.
Because this is the USA, if you don't want to see your toxic garbage dumped in China, you can opt not to patronize the companies here whom do business that way.
But if you were in China, you'd have no choice at all.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
If you want a good glimps into the whole recycling of electronics in 3rd world countries check out the movie Manufactured Landscapes. Some pretty incredible shit...
of the Antares System.
There's more cash in other people's wallets than there is in mine, dollar-for-dollar.
However, spending my own cash is easier (it's in my wallet, rather than other people's wallets), it's more familiar (I've been doing it this way for years, whereas I've never spent other people's cash), and there are less negative externalities associated with it (spending other people's cash is illegal and immoral if I don't have their permission, and it's technically my cash anyways if I do have their permission).
More cash dollar-for-dollar doesn't necessarily mean that spending other people's cash is a better idea than spending my own. It could be, but there is more to consider than dollar-for-dollar.
To relate this to the point it sounds like you're implying, more value pound-for-pound does not necessarily mean that recycling electronics is more viable than mining. It could be, but there is more to consider than pound-for-pound.
Of course, it's possible that you aren't implying that at all.
Market is what creates this. I was from upstate NY, smaller recyclers went out of business due to large one that takes in all donations/recycles, strips parts to sell on ebay, then dumps the rest out of country. They made money off sales, pay next to nothing to dump. This killed off legit recyclers.
Yes, yes I object to the word "Czar", it's a bastardisation of the root word, Ceasar.
Realistically we should have more accurate names, right now in Australia there is certain politician who's title is "Minister of Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy" when he really needs to be called the "Fürer of the Internet".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So, a girl who can earn a months wage in a factory in just three nights on her back is far worse then the Bhopal disaster?
This is not insightful at all. It is a terrible justification for keeping people in terrible conditions and it's wrong, people want to believe it because it makes them feel better.
You're rant against "do gooders" ignores all the people who work to establish sustainable farming and industry with safety that meets most western standards. That means workers aren't standing around in toxins, have helmets and gloves as well as several other simple safety measures like training (e.g. spot the hazard). It helps you to belittle people actually trying to make lives better as that means you aren't being as selfish as you really are. It may come as a surprise to you but most people involved in "doing good" in poorer nations actually want to help develop sustainable communities, these are people like non-religious private aid agencies and the UN amongst others. I used to work for a company that formed a non-profit charity organisation after the tsunami in Asia, for the most part all this organisation does is zero interest loans and business advice (supporting the people who take the loans).
You really have no clue about the third or developing world. The problem isn't when the average wage out of 100 people is 10K, I can show you that in Thailand and 80 of the 100 people will be subsistence farmers. The problem the developing world has is that the distribution wealth is so terribly lopsided, a few people make billions whilst most of the population makes little.
Do you honestly think that factories in China, Vietnam and Thailand operate without the consent of the local politicians or business leaders? No, of course not they're involved and getting their cut.
I'm sorry to interrupt your free market drivel, but ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it took 20 years just for the Indian people to get to declare Union Carbide exec's guilty, they were fined US$2000 and let go, not a single exec ended up in jail, not a single western exec was even charged.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yes, yes I object to the word "Czar", it's a bastardisation of the root word, Ceasar. Realistically we should have more accurate names, right now in Australia there is certain politician who's title is "Minister of Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy" when he really needs to be called the "Fürer of the Internet".
Wouldn't that just be a bastardisation of the root word, Führer? :-P
I just want to thank the folks at Slashdot for posting e-waste stories like this. I've got 45 bookmarks on e-waste http://delicious.com/joerowe/e-waste I'm looking for other teachers to develop lesson plans for e-waste education. For example: National Geographic published a good story, but it contained some major myths. I've contacted NG and they refused to admit it's only a myth that computer screens from Monitex in Texas are turned into in low cost TV sets in Thailand. See the 5th picture in this set. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/essick-photography BTW: This story was well documented by the TV show 60 minutes, which you can watch online. See my bookmarks.
You protest the parent post on basis that the ideas he criticizes are actually good. You are right the ideas are actually good. You are conveniently missing the detail how they usually are abused, twisted and fail to perform according to their spirit.
1. "Regulations" are the mechanism for a lobby group (often clueless or harmful to the society) to impose their will on the society. Laws are usually put under public scrutinity. Regulations are usually applied arbitrarily with no review process and without allowing them for discussion outside the small body that creates them.
2. If a group has no clue how to tackle a problem, they designate a smaller group with similarly no clue how to tackle the problem, but has to come up with a solution nevertheless. So the group eventually comes up with a solution of "let's do more of the same we were doing so far to prevent that", after a year of deliberation. Committees are notoriously inefficient. A case a single determined competent leader would solve in a week can be totally fucked up by a commitee over a period of a year. The idea was noble but the execution fails more often than not. Also, often the solution to a problem is obvious (and needs to be applied fast), but no, let's form a committee and discuss that, and the committee will come up with an answer: you should have used the known solution instead of forming the committee, now it's too late.
3. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Some people have ultimate authority over a certain domain, their voice is final, and despite officially there existing due process to override it, there are always small technicalities that make this process not applicable, making any opposition futile. They know how to game the system to assure their domination and rule their domain with iron hand. The name "Czars" is to reflect the style of government by Russian Czars, where the Czar's word is an ultimate order, Czar answers to no one, any opposition or competition is squashed, any delegated power can be taken away just as easily as it was given, and nothing short of the Great Revolution is going to replace a Czar.
"Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority?" No, I'm in favor of nobody having ultimate authority, full responsibility and a chain of command where no node can be made irreplaceable.
4. The idea of an agency is reasonable. A small group that manages a large set of resources/assets and passes them between producers/providers and consumers/users. This is good when executed properly. The problem is it's extremely exploitable because it's easy to establish an arbitrary body anywhere on a flow of given resource, give it arbitrary power over that flow and call it "agency". It can act as a toll gate on the flow, providing no service only delaying transfer and collecting arbitrarily assigned fees. It can act as monopolizing filter, providing goods from chosen providers and cutting others out. It can be a barnacle with no function at all, feeding off federal fund and serving providing workplaces to relatives of people at power. While it can function as a safety valve on unstable free market, it can just as well be used as a destabilizing power. And quite often it is just incompetent and slow, freezing assets and making them go wasted while they are needed elsewhere but won't be dispatched simply because the agency takes its precious time to decide.
When you see government creating an agency and a committee to create regulations, you may be sure it will be a clusterfuck of failure and wastefulness. Not because the concepts are wrong, just because government about never gets them right.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Maybe Obama should set up a policy to adhere to these laws to ensure the safety and exchange of the goods with with these countries.
I understand a computer that is broken due to a cd-rom that does not work is totally differnt then sending a 486 that has no ram no hard drive and a cracked motherboard.
You protest the parent post on basis that the ideas he criticizes are actually good. You are right the ideas are actually good. You are conveniently missing the detail how they usually are abused, twisted and fail to perform according to their spirit.
...
When you see government creating an agency and a committee to create regulations, you may be sure it will be a clusterfuck of failure and wastefulness. Not because the concepts are wrong, just because government about never gets them right.
So what is the answer? If they are good ideas, how *do* you implement them, if not through the government?
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Many black-market 'recyling' out-fits ship their stuff to China. China is one of the worst offenders for re-selling and re-using recycled equipment. Towns in rural China are plagued with toxic chemicals seeping into their ground water. What's worse is the local governments, which are far from national oversight or are benefactors of nation indifference, abuse their power to take a cut of the profits and forbid foreign correspondents from filming the whole mess.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/10/video-chinas-toxic-wastelands-of-consumer-electronics-revealed/
It is best to ratify a treaty only once you are prepared to enforce that treaty's obligations, rather than ratify and flagrantly ignore a treaty, otherwise the concept of having a treaty is worth nothing.
--"You are your own God"--
1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
"Regulations" are A mechanism that society uses to TRY to enforce a common consensus. The problem is that in practice, they're not particularly effective. When the public is screaming about an issue that there is "consensus" to solve, politicians propose "regulations" to deal with it and placate that public. After the public outcry is over and the attention gone, all that's left is the politicians and the "regulated" to decide how to divide up the cash.
I'd argue that social pressures are much more effective at enforcing "common consensus." Take blatant public profanity for instance. Sure, in many places there are laws that prevent people from cursing excessively in public, but they are rarely enforced. Still, in most public social situations, people don't. It's the fear of being marginalized that is much more of a demotivator than any regulations.
BP will take a much bigger hit from the public by loss of business than it ever will from the government enforcing "penalties" on it for the spill, which by the way was caused by the same flawed regulatory system everyone wants to "regulate" every problem with. It'd be nice if it worked, but since it's codified, you can find the loopholes. Social marginalization isn't clearly demarcated. So, people have to be much more cautious and thoughtful. "Regulation" takes any consideration beyond the explicit rules out of the picture.
2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
Laws are passed by congress. They're created by lobbyists.
As for breaking things into smaller pieces and attacking them at the detail level, that's exactly what the federal system is about. 50 different states can define problems, identify/try/refine solutions and hopefully identify the best one, all in parallel. When the federal government throws the whole budget for a problem into a single solution, which had to be watered down in almost every way to placate the blue and red states enough to pass, we lose tons of time and money and end up with no real solution. Dividing into smaller groups sounds like a great idea.
Not to mention, dividing it up makes it a lot harder for the big lobbyists to game the system. Ask any criminal, the more people involved in a heist, the more likely it is that someone's going to screw the deal for everyone. There's only 535 members of congress while there's 10's of thousands of state legislators.
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
There are czars in this government. It's an official title, not one just used by media.
As for whether or not it matters, I don't personally care. If Americans weren't too stupid to know what the word actually means, it wouldn't be used because of the backlash.
4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked
To elaborate on what an AC already posted, Best Buy has an electronics recycling program in the US which will take all manner of products, regardless of where they were purchased. Use the drop-down menu on the right to see the rules for your particular state.
Generally they insist that hard drives be removed from computers -- apparently they don't want the responsibility of dealing with sensitive data. They also charge $10 to take CRTs, but they give you a $10 gift card in return. Say what you will about Best Buy's other practices; this is a very useful program.
Their standards statement indicates they don't do anything dastardly with the stuff once they collect it. I'd be interested to know if anyone has direct experience with how they deal with it all.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
More like "inciteful".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I guess you need more independent recycling consultants (homeless people) where you live. I would have thought New York would have had an adequate supply.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I agree with your sarcasm -- it's amazing how much people "believe" in a free market so much that they assume it is the best system even in economic sectors where it was never proven or even theorized to work. A rational perspective is so often trumped by irrational bindings to the concept of good and evil. It's like saying "look and see how well Newtonian gravity explains the way cars roll downhill and planets orbit the sun! Newtonian gravity is good and just, and all heretical theories like those of that anarchist, Einstein, are evil!"
On the flip side, I stumbled across this page while trying to get a good overview of the toxic waste export issues:
http://ban.org/Library/ierarticle.html
I was appalled by how much propaganda there is in this report. Every headline and sentence is loaded with manipulative wording. It's really comical! While I'm inclined to agree with the message on the whole, which justifies the Basel ban, every instinct tells me not to trust these wordsmiths. There's no actual evidence presented (that I could find) to support the Basel ban. I'm not saying that the Basel ban was a bad idea or that the US should not now support it, but my search to find a rational argument backed up by evidence is unsuccessful so far.
It seemed like an interesting extension of the conversation. Specifically:
I'm not sure I agree with the later parts of the post, but that part seemed insightful. Costs are the consequence that influences people's behavior, whether they're monetary or in other forms. If the cost of dumping trash ($10/month) is less than taking my stuff to be recycled (drive 30 minutes, pay $, and only at particular times of the month), people are likely to toss it in the trash. It kindof makes me glad that part of my trash fee goes to have recyclable things picked out.
It'd be nice if it worked, but since it's codified, you can find the loopholes. Social marginalization isn't clearly demarcated. So, people have to be much more cautious and thoughtful. "Regulation" takes any consideration beyond the explicit rules out of the picture.
To clarify, you're arguing in favor of security through obscurity? You really think corporations will be more careful of being shunned by consumers than fined or penalized by governments? I would have to argue that no amount of public shame will cause WalMart to pay livable wages to its staff, or correct its discrimination practices. That sort of change takes regulations (laws) and enforcement (lawsuits, both civil and criminal).
The BP fiasco was enabled through a regulatory system that is certainly broken, but the system was gutted by the last several regimes to control the US (last several iterations of the same regime? Your call). Likewise, the rolling blackouts in California several years ago, the recent collapse of the stock market, etc. were all a direct or indirect result of regulations being relaxed to "foster growth" or other nonsense. While regulations certainly hamper growth, they also hamper collapse. The point of regulation is to reduce volatility, so that we can avoid the economic whiplash that breaks the necks and backs of the citizenry.
It is rather simple: "worth" can be calculated in many different ways, while the "free market" is capable of only one type of calculation, i.e. monetary. That is its key failing. That is why all the "free marketers" must (for their model to work) ignore all human motivations other then greed. They must ignore for example the possibility of people pursuing knowledge for knowledge's sake, artists creating art out of a desire to share their emotions, etc and so on. None of these fit the "model" and, worse, they fuck it up severely and so must be denied.
The same is true of pollution. The cost of pollution does not fit the "free market" model because the "cost" is inflicted, usually, on someone else other then the polluter. And so the greed-centered, aka. "enlightened self-interest", model breaks completely. Subsequently outside intervention is required, to artificially create costs for the polluters proportional to the toxicity of their pollution, which of course starts the free-market piggies squealing to high heaven in an instant.
Not really. Electricity here is generated nearly 100% with hydro-power and the remainder with solar and wind (and one nuclear plant that is near decommissioning and the waste of which is highly localized and already stored safely at great expense). While there are many other places where massive pollution occurs here, electricity isn't it (unlike USA which uses mostly fossil fuels).
No they are not. The whole point of sending garbage to impoverished areas is that they are willing to accept their own future destruction in exchange for fleeting relief from immediate hunger, not to mention that many of the workers in these dumps are not even aware of the consequences to their health, until is too late.
Again, the countries of choice are the ones without functional governments (Africa) or governments dominated completely by the "free marketers" (China - which vies for the crown of irony for calling itself "communist").
I really wish that idiots like you could experience their Utopian life without governments, for the whole two weeks it would take for some rich asshole to organize himself a mercenary army and to chain your greedy ass to some cart in his new mine to work you to death. Your visceral hate of governments would quickly evaporate then, most likely even before your malnourished corpse would be recycled in the warlord's kennels. Oh, but you expected yourself to be the warlord? Too bad.
On the contrar
The problem the GLOBALIZED world has is that the distribution wealth is so terribly lopsided, a few people make billions whilst most of the population makes little.
FTFY.
To clarify, you're arguing in favor of security through obscurity? You really think corporations will be more careful of being shunned by consumers than fined or penalized by governments? I would have to argue that no amount of public shame will cause WalMart to pay livable wages to its staff, or correct its discrimination practices. That sort of change takes regulations (laws) and enforcement (lawsuits, both civil and criminal).
No. I'm arguing that codifying rules opens things up to be gamed because people know expressly what they can and can't do. It's great if you've got the smartest the universe has to offer making the rules and they get it right in the beginning. Otherwise, you end up with spaghetti law that has to constantly be patched to cover up oversights and changes in the world, which leads to system in which no one really knows what the rules are.
My real argument is that the government shouldn't even be involved in creating these artificial entities we call corporations. How many problems would be solved if the government just stayed out of it and there was no such thing as a corporation? Since that's where most of the pro-government rants seem to be targeted, it's amusing to me that there would be no corporations without the government being involved to begin with.
People have basic rights. If Walmart or whoever is violating those, someone needs to do some time. Otherwise, I don't really care. I don't even know what "livable wages" are. Seems to me, most of the people I see working at WM are your typical fat, lazy Americans. They're certainly making much more than enough to eat. And never mind what the other 95+% of the world seems to be able to live on.
Our definition of necessity is a bit warped here in the materialistic American culture. "Livable" is quite doable on those wages. The problem is we're a wanting culture and that requires money to satisfy. We'd probably be better off as a nation if that's all anyone made. Our priorities might actually get straight.
The BP fiasco was enabled through a regulatory system that is certainly broken, but the system was gutted by the last several regimes to control the US (last several iterations of the same regime? Your call). Likewise, the rolling blackouts in California several years ago, the recent collapse of the stock market, etc. were all a direct or indirect result of regulations being relaxed to "foster growth" or other nonsense. While regulations certainly hamper growth, they also hamper collapse. The point of regulation is to reduce volatility, so that we can avoid the economic whiplash that breaks the necks and backs of the citizenry.
You clearly point out the consequence of regulation. It is great for maintaining the status quo. You can't regulate progress, because you don't know where you're going. Without progress, problems don't get solved.
And, collapse is a good thing. If we'd stop jumping in and rescuing everyone, that would reduce volatility. By artificially removing risk for corporations and individuals, we're encouraging risky behavior.
Regulations are only good for solving problems we've already had. And, they always create new ones. The whole financial collapse was setup by the regulations that came out of the S&L failures in the early 90's. They always create more problems than they solve.
As far has how I would do it, since no one is really asking, I'd have a simple rule that you use proper due diligence and best practices or you get punished. For instance, with deep water drilling, I'd say we don't regulate that. If you make a stupid decision that ends up with a situation like we have in the gulf now, you lose your company, your money and your freedom for life.
Do you think the guy on that rig that said keep going after he was brought chunks of the blowout valve would have made the same decision if those were the rules? And, it wouldn't have cost us a dime in "regulation."
No. I'm arguing that codifying rules opens things up to be gamed because people know expressly what they can and can't do. It's great if you've got the smartest the universe has to offer making the rules and they get it right in the beginning. Otherwise, you end up with spaghetti law that has to constantly be patched to cover up oversights and changes in the world, which leads to system in which no one really knows what the rules are.
This seems to contradict your previous assertion that we'd see better results if no one knew exactly what the rules were, and had to be careful not to break any rules "just in case" to avoid social scorn. I would support an argument that the US/UK system(s) of common law lead to some messy legal landscapes, but the solution to that is civil law, not lack of law.
My real argument is that the government shouldn't even be involved in creating these artificial entities we call corporations. How many problems would be solved if the government just stayed out of it and there was no such thing as a corporation? Since that's where most of the pro-government rants seem to be targeted, it's amusing to me that there would be no corporations without the government being involved to begin with.
People have basic rights. If Walmart or whoever is violating those, someone needs to do some time. Otherwise, I don't really care. I don't even know what "livable wages" are. Seems to me, most of the people I see working at WM are your typical fat, lazy Americans. They're certainly making much more than enough to eat. And never mind what the other 95+% of the world seems to be able to live on.
Our definition of necessity is a bit warped here in the materialistic American culture. "Livable" is quite doable on those wages. The problem is we're a wanting culture and that requires money to satisfy. We'd probably be better off as a nation if that's all anyone made. Our priorities might actually get straight.
The concept of a "Livable wage" and the effects of poverty on dietary habits and obesity aside, how do you determine when someone's basic rights are being violated? How do you determine who's culpable, and who should "do time"?
You clearly point out the consequence of regulation. It is great for maintaining the status quo. You can't regulate progress, because you don't know where you're going. Without progress, problems don't get solved.
And, collapse is a good thing. If we'd stop jumping in and rescuing everyone, that would reduce volatility. By artificially removing risk for corporations and individuals, we're encouraging risky behavior.
Regulations are only good for solving problems we've already had. And, they always create new ones. The whole financial collapse was setup by the regulations that came out of the S&L failures in the early 90's. They always create more problems than they solve.
You may want to check your timeline. The financial collapse came about when the regulations that were put in place as a result of the S&L failures in the 80's and 90's were lifted. While the regulations were in place, we had a relatively smooth economic picture. Take the regulations off the financial sector, and we had an incredible surge, followed by a spectacular blowout.
You're correct that regulations tend to prevent the problems that we already know might happen, and don't protect against the new ones. You are incorrect in your assertion that regulations prevent all progress. Regulation is like the speed limits and weight limits on the highway. It dictates some restraint, so you can reach your destination (e.g., make progress) without being a menace to the other people around you. You may not be able to get as much stuff to your destination as fast as you'd like, but the chances that you'll lose control and kill everyone else on the road are significantly reduced. And while you might argue that "Hey, I'd be a responsible driver/citize
is to never throw anything away and hoard all my old computer components in my basement or under my desk.
This seems to contradict your previous assertion that we'd see better results if no one knew exactly what the rules were, and had to be careful not to break any rules "just in case" to avoid social scorn. I would support an argument that the US/UK system(s) of common law lead to some messy legal landscapes, but the solution to that is civil law, not lack of law.
It seems to contradict your preconceived notions about where I'm coming from and thus what you perceived my assertion to be. It's just part of the American political process, so I can't blame you for naturally trying to identify my "position."
It doesn't contradict my assertion at all. I'm saying that you never get the rules right to begin with and the inevitable product of regulation is a bureaucratic mess where the state of Louisiana can't stop the flow of oil onto it's shore because of the mess. You get a system where huge environmental disasters are created by those kind to the politicians despite their being "regulated." My position that social pressure is more effective still stands. "Regulation" makes the people that should be paying attention either corrupt or so unconcerned that they ignore their duty to society.
The concept of a "Livable wage" and the effects of poverty on dietary habits and obesity aside, how do you determine when someone's basic rights are being violated? How do you determine who's culpable, and who should "do time"?
It's ok. Everyone likes to ignore that our problem as a nation is that we're fat, lazy and ignorant because we feel entitled to everything we want in the world. Fix that, all this other shit gets in line.
Someone's rights are violated when anyone denies them their life, liberty or property. Whoever does that is the one that's culpable and thus the one that should do time, if the violation is severe enough.
You may want to check your timeline. The financial collapse came about when the regulations that were put in place as a result of the S&L failures in the 80's and 90's were lifted. While the regulations were in place, we had a relatively smooth economic picture. Take the regulations off the financial sector, and we had an incredible surge, followed by a spectacular blowout.
I'm talking about the regulations that gave Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more power to subsidize subprime loans, which was exactly what caused the recession. When the government is backing your bad bets and actively encouraging you to make them, you tend to get people making bad bets and the nation left holding the bag if they lose while they just get richer, along with their political buddies on both sides of the political duopoly, if they win.
You're correct that regulations tend to prevent the problems that we already know might happen, and don't protect against the new ones. You are incorrect in your assertion that regulations prevent all progress. Regulation is like the speed limits and weight limits on the highway. It dictates some restraint, so you can reach your destination (e.g., make progress) without being a menace to the other people around you. You may not be able to get as much stuff to your destination as fast as you'd like, but the chances that you'll lose control and kill everyone else on the road are significantly reduced. And while you might argue that "Hey, I'd be a responsible driver/citizen," there's plenty of evidence from Wall Street that not everyone is, and they're the ones we need to regulate.
I never said they prevent all progress. In fact, I never said we should have no regulation at all. I look at the world practically. I know how things SHOULD work. Unfortunately, we live in a world where they work as they work, not how they should. If everyone gets a say in every decision, democracy, right, how many good decisions and to what level can they be made? And how long will those good decisions keep being made as problems fade from vi
Through *competent* government recruited from people with *proper education* (yes, politician is a job, and as every job requires training) chosen by people *with a clue* basing their choice on *merit* and *competence*. Not on looks, not on pretty face, not on slogans, not on promises. A choice of a competent craftsman in the craft of politics, not a skilled actor, master of speechcraft.
Of course considering the mindset of most human beings this will never happen.
We're fucked.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Comment removed based on user account deletion