DIYbanter - View Single Post

Andy Hall

On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of
providers so that people can choose what they want and with local
authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and
supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is
accomodated.

That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range
of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale

Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger
geographical areas.

You're missing the point.

No I'm not.

Consider increasing transport costs at a time
of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.

I don't accept that the approach does result in increased transport
costs. Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling
half way around the planet does.

(and
someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's
another issue, sorry, set of costs).

That can be aggregated and outsourced as well

Hm. I think

I'm perfectly happy to have
essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible
to me (the electorate).

Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine.

Alternatively, you have the option to select products
based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far
better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.

Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their
marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and
transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers
ensures the problem will persist.

There already is huge over-regulation in these areas. Adding more is
unlikely to alter the behaviour of consumers who want to buy a) on
price and b) on the attractiveness of the packaging.

I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their
packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.

I see. So now we have this interference extending into customer choice
as well?

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder
being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for
it to be legalised in some circumstances.

Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the victim as well.

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess,
you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.

Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.

And your rubbish is disposed of.

Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the
supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do
the work.

You're not thinking it through.

Yes I am.

I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated
notion that competition on the free market spit always results in the
best of all possible worlds.

Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time.
Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find
a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.

You should get out more, or at least open
your eyes and mind.

I get "out" as you put it probably more than you do - spending approx.
a third of my time doing so in terms of traveling to different
countries and seeing different environments.

As regards your demand that you be absolved from
sorting your own rubbish for recycling: put your money where your mouth
is.[1] If you think there's a market for the service, start a business
supplying it.

At the point that the market is deregulated, that may be an interesting
proposition.

If you're too lazy to do that (or have a niggling doubt
that there's insufficient demand), hire someone else to do it.

Pointless until there is market deregulation.

But stop
proselytising the free market spit

... are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

while at the same time demanding
that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at
no extra charge (as quoted above "I am not happy if I am expected to do
part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price
or they do the work.")

At the moment they do provide the service that I am paying for,
although not particularly well.
At the point that they wish to reduce it by requiring an additional
action on my part and not on theirs,
it is a reduction in service.