Hacker News Reader

Comment by jadenPete | Hacker News Reader

I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natural resources is the problem, why not impose a blanket, Pigovian-style tax on all extracted resources?

I got the same feeling when they mandated USB-C on Apple devices. If the problem of waste were tackled categorically, then the state wouldn’t need to get involved in matters it has no business getting involved in.

It has to stop at some point. Eventually, the regulations will become so complicated, unknowable, and unenforceable, that they’ll have no choice but to say “this is enough” and start tackling the root of the problem instead.

View on HN

You have an odd perception of what constitutes "micro-targetting".

Why apparel specifically? Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry where enormous quantities of unsold product are intentionally destroyed to then be replaced in the market by newly made equivalent articles.

Why was USB-C mandated specifically on Apple devices? Well here's the thing: it wasn't. It was mandated on smartphones in general, and Apple was the only company that specifically tried to fight the regulation because apparently they're special.

> Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry

Because it is very visible to low information voters who are also red/green voters.

Are you a high-information voter? If so, could you please provide information about any consumer industry that comes even close to the apparel industry in terms of a) ubiquity and market scale and b) destruction of unsold but undamaged items while still producing equally functional equivalents for market?

Is there such a thing as fast-cutlery? Or fast-furniture? Maybe fast-book or fast-vehicle? Fast-whitegood perhaps? I'm at a loss here, I've only heard of fast-fashion.

I feel like there is a lot of waste in packaging specifically. Like way, way more colorful plastic polymers go into the trash way faster making products look appealing on the shelf than from clothing. Don't have the numbers to back it up though.

Uh, yes? Food and consumer electronics are larger or similar scale to fashion and undamaged goods for both are landfilled at massive/similar rates to clothing.

Books are the same logic as apparel, "print more than needed, pulp what doesnt sale". Its just much smaller.

Food is perishable, clearly we can’t force manufacturers or shops to keep unsold perished stock.

Unsold electronics aren’t destroyed on a seasonal basis to make room for a new collection.

Same goes for books… and pulp from booms can create new paper to print new books on

> Are you a high-information voter?

Yes I am.

> Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry where enormous quantities of unsold product are intentionally destroyed to then be replaced in the market by newly made equivalent articles

If that's so bad, why is doing so the cheapest option? What makes you think you know better than the market what's wasteful?

Regulation is not about knowing better than the market. It is about correcting harmful externalities that markets would not solve on their own.

If disposing of my own shirt in a landfill I pay for is an "externality[y]" justifying state intervention, then every domain of life is subject to top down control. I don't want to live in a society in which resources are allocation in general by edict instead of the market.

Look it's not that hard. Is <problem> (in this case, pollution) a problem that needs solving? If the answer is yes, then it needs to be regulated even if you personally don't like laws. Sorry!

Why is <problem> a problem? Because you say so? If it's such a problem, why is it so cheap to do? What cost is unaccounted?

By definition externality is not priced in by the market.

Why should I believe an externality exists in this situation? What is the evidence?

> If it's such a problem, why is it so cheap to do?

Why would you assume it doesn’t based on price when externality by definition is not accounted for in price?

But why are you lying? It's not about you, no one is stopping you to go and throw everything you own in a landfill, this is about the companies that act environmental in their marketing, but then go ahead and destroy new and unused products.

What makes you think that what's cost effective (in terms of money, of course) for a given company involves optimally conserving resources?

The obvious counter-example is that polluting is very cost-effective in an unregulated environment there are others - such as this.

> What makes you think that what's cost effective...involves optimally conserving resources

The words "cost" and "effective "perhaps?

> Polluting

Pollution is an economic externality. If I buy a shift and throw it out unworn, I've wasted only my own resources. (I'm paying for the landfill of course.)

You could argue that my wasting that shirt hurt you because I could have instead spent those resources on productive activity that benefits you, and therefore I had a duty to keep it -- but that's just communism with extra steps.

Are you under the impression that the planet has effectively infinite carrying capacity and ability to support an "optimal market" indefinitely?

I am of the opinion that markets and prices, not EU regulators, should tell us where scarcity is. We're bad at optimizing manually for the same reason we're bad at guessing where program hotspots are. The market is a profiler.

Do you honestly believe this? Where did you study economics? This regulation is not about scarcity. It is about over abundance.

Overproduction is a failure mode in capitalist systems. The market can’t correct for this because negative externalities do not feed back into supply or demand.

Actors in a capitalist system have an incentive to maximize profit. How is it profit-maximizing to pay to produce an item and throw it away unsold?

> negative externalities do not feed back into supply or demand.

What is the unaccounted externality? Clothing makers pay for material inputs and labor inputs. They pay for transportation. If they discard goods, they pay for more transportation and for the landfill. What specific externality is unaccounted?

The unaccounted externality is the wasted energy to create a thing and destroy it without ever using it.

This may be profit maximizing because it maintains the exclusivity of the brand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

And you presume to know better than they do what to do with that energy? Do you think you have a general right to override people's resource allocation decisions when you believe they're being wasteful?

> Do you think you have a general right to override people's resource allocation decisions when you believe they're being wasteful?

Me personally? No, of course not. But I do think our government has the responsibility to govern.

1. In this case, not using the energy at all would have been better. 2. The legislature of a sovereign polity would have, and be able to delegate, that right. If and when the legislature should make use of that right is a political question.

What if I dump toxic industrial waste in the river upstream of your house? I pay for access to the river. Does that hurt you?

Slight correction: it wasn't even for smartphones alone, it was for portable devices in general [0]. As a consequence, all ebook devices like Kindle etc, vapes and other devices had to switch from Micro-USB to USB-C.

[0] https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-common-c...

> As a consequence, all ebook devices like Kindle etc, vapes and other devices had to switch from Micro-USB to USB-C.

Finally, I can charge my book and my cigarette with one cable!

(This statement would have been extremely confusing in the 90s.)

> micro-targeted > mandated USB-C on Apple devices

There is no law that states specifically Apple must specifically use USB-C. IIUC, the law is that all brands/manufacturers should use the same type of charger, an industry standard. That was apparently USB-C. Apple was the odd one out and had to change. If something better comes along, the industry as a whole can upgrade.

Americans always ask - but who decides - the industry decides. The industry gets to decide what they want to use.

I dont really care about waste too much as I think it's a non-issue blown out of proportion, but mandating standards and interoperability creates a lot of value for consumers and prevents anticompetive behavior.

> I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natural resources is the problem, why not impose a blanket, Pigovian-style tax on all extracted resources?

"Don't attempt to in any way address the problem unless you're willing to go for an absolute maximalist solution" is a pretty weird stance.

I agree wholeheartedly, seems to be a symptom of bureaucracy. Rules upon rules that end up as the status quo without consolidation and a good refactor.

There's a bilingual relationship between the responsibilities of the state and the rights of the consumer. That point you describe - where they'll tackle the root problem - isn't coming. In truth, these are feel good measures anyway - naive attempts to fix a downstream problem that won't pan out. That's my opinion, anyway.

People will say something needs to be done about waste and microplastics then complain when actual action is taken.

One of the largest contributors to microplastics in our world is clothing. If companies need to start taking responsibility and reducing their supply, that's good for everyone. If companies feel pressured by regulations because they can no longer produce endless shit and artificially inflate prices by destroying half the shit they produce, then I'm in favor of it. I'd even be in favor of governments shutting down corporations that massively overproduce. It's the 21st century and these companies measure every single little aspect of their business. If they need to trash a bunch of their clothes, it's because they're being actively wasteful. Cost reduction is one of the most fundamental aspects of capitalism, and if companies aren't even concerned about that aspect, then they deserve to be crushed.

Do you live in the EU? No? Then it's none of your business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com