Brad said, 2) We could have a durability tax (actually it would not be a tax but a law requiring every product to come with a paid-up insurance policy for the costs of its removal from the world). Every product would have added to its price the cost of its recycling (which, in many cases, would include its demolition). Something that was built to last forever would have a zero charge added, for the obvious reason. But a piece of junk, ~shoddy ~ -- excuse me: something built not to last, would have a high surcharge due to the early expectation of having to recycle it.
arthur replies, Most versions of "full cost pricing" would include the full costs of the product, including disposal. So far as a society we haven't dealt with the millions of old computers that are being refused by many waste disposal companies as being too costly to recycle and too dangerous to throw as is into landfill. -----Original Message----- From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MCM Management: "Demolition means progress" I'm watching a show in the History Channel, which has a segment on MCM Management demolition company. I am a "fan" of CDI (Controlled Demolition Inc., Phoenix Maryland), but as Chairman Mao said: Let a thousand demolition contractors blossom. [Aside: The way I watched "911" was hearing the voice of Mark(?) Loizeaux on WABC explaining how the terrorists hit the building in the place he would have set charges to bring it down -- what a brilliant presence of mind and background somebody at WABC had to get the head of CDI on the phone as the WTC was coming down!] But back to MCM Mgmt on The History Channel today.... And I had a thought -- actually 2 thoughts. (1) We see the consequencess of having an oil extractor in the White House. I think we would perhaps do better to have a demolition contractor in the White House. (2) We could have a durability tax (actually it would not be a tax but a law requiring every product to come with a paid-up insurance policy for the costs of its removal from the world). Every product would have added to its price the cost of its recycling (which, in many cases, would include its demolition). Something that was built to last forever would have a zero charge added, for the obvious reason. But a piece of junk, ~shoddy ~ -- excuse me: something built not to last, would have a high surcharge due to the early expectation of having to recycle it. Even the rich might find something to like in this, since clearly the deconstruction assessment on a Yugo would be much hither than on a Mercedes-Benz. Anything which appreciates in value as it gets older would just have to settle for no tax -- so there would be a "progressive" rate penalty, although I would not object to the government actually subsidizing things that incresase in value as they get older --> which could lead to persons being paid to own things of quality --L leading to a condition of such ownership being a contract of trusteeship, which would be fulfilled, in part, by the prospect beneficiary purchasing a surety bond for the value of the product to be entrusted to them, which would provide more work for actuaries, notaries, etc. Demolition means progress. (--MCM Mangement) Or as I used to say in IBM System Product Devision development: The programmer who eliminates lines of code (i.e., who has a negative linse-of-code-per-man- month productivity number) may be far more productive than the person who produces many lines of code (thus creating many opportunities for "bugs" and cost of other programmers to maintain the code in future). \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
