On 2006-12-15 22:08:00 +0000, Frank Erskine
said:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:08:56 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2006-12-15 19:02:49 +0000, John Beardmore said:



I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do
do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations
about it seriously.

The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and
are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the
costs involved, including the duplications that arise from the use of
management consultants.

I thought that every LA publishes performance indicators on the web,
together with estimated and revised costing for each directorate.
Mine certainly does.

They should, but the level of detail isn't there.

For example, my local highways department, in order to carry out a
survey for traffic planning and distribution hired an outside firm to
do most of the work while staff members sat in the office. This was
unknown to most councillors until they were made aware of it. It's
but one example of paying twice because those employed to do the work
are lazy, incompetent or both. In terms of the published figures £X
appeared as opposed to the £X/2 that it should have cost.

On 2006-12-15 21:45:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message .com,
writes


Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more
business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer
market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to
do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.

But you dont want that. I do.

I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to
create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that
was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum
environmental standards.


So would I. It should be based on these principles:

- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't
done properly, there will be no long term

- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably
means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's
not. This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the
business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not
good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the
inefficiency.

- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones.
The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should
result in change of management.

- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service
that the customer is willing to buy. This does not mean minimal
provision or minimal environmental standards. Customers should be
able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price.

On 2006-12-15 21:46:33 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 01:59:17 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I thought you were the one that wanted to add wagons, road miles and
multiple service providers ?

Nope. That was your supposition in terms of adding road miles.

Well - it seems like a reasonable supposition, and you seem unable to
refute it.


There is no point in measuring it either way. What actually counts is
the total picture, not just one small part.

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

this is true of all the views on this thread, I'm not sure it really
tells us much.

Well - for a start, maybe it suggests that stating your own view as
though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self
evident authority is a problem ?

Thats odd, cos I dont recall ever claiming any such a thing. Its just
one more objection that doesnt stand up.

However I'll venture as far to say one or 2 points this time probably
are self evident, which is rarely the case.


John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied,
neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established
over a good many years by various scholars on the topic.

There may be good scholars and bad scholars, but if Andy or anybody else
wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's
what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some
detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up
our own minds.

he has done. If you want more info, there are already writings on
capitalism that can be consulted. There is no need or reason to rehash
such things.


Your claim
that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal
ideology doesnt even begin to be true.

From what I've seen economics is not an exact science, and from what
I've seen there are certain things it does not address at all, like
protection of global commons ! These are well rehearsed arguments at
MBA level. It seems a bit spurious to only trot out one side of the
argument.

So our mostly capitalist system does not have fishing quotas? Our
mostly capitalist system does not legislate against flytipping? Fact is
our system does tackle the tragedy of the commons.

Anyway, protection of global commons is not a problem with refuse
collection today. We have legislation in place to prevent what are now
illegal disposal methods.

This is another objection that doesnt stand up.


While there are things that

a) we value,

or

b) we depend on,

that are not represented by simple cash values, economics will never
give a complete picture of any but the most artificial of situations
that can be fully described by simple market mechanics.

This is basic capitalist principles that anyone can read up.


It is specifically the failure to deal with or value environmental
issues that makes the 'proposal' from Andy so questionable for so many
of us.

That isnt really so. If consumers want a green service, and most do,
thats what theyll buy.

2ndly arguments such as that shipping waste plastic to china is a must
do are at best open to debate. You seem unwilling to recognise that
there are some significant issues with the POV driving todays garbage
system in UK.


Given that he seems unable to engage with anything other than wild
allegations about local authorities and 'leaving it to the market',

'Leave it to the market' is the answer. And he's gone into rather more
explantion that you give him credit for there.

I
suggest that his position is personal ideology -

Your claim that Andy's wish to let capitalism have a market is a
personal ideology is 100% bogus, and on this point, yes I do think this
is obvious, self evident. It has the reality-connectedness of a carrot
called gordon with 4 wings, 6 eyes and 100 noses.


at least in as far as
it doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced view,

of course, it isnt meant to be. Its no more balanced than your one
sided views, or mine.


it doesn't seem to
take the views of many stakeholders into account, and it's not shared by
all, (I suspect most), of the population.

No view is shared by all the population. As for most, I would be
curious to see your evidence. If you have any


The mechanics of markets my be "well established", but that doesn't mean
that introducing a market where there wasn't one [of the same type]
before, will bring about a situation that will be universally seen as
better.

John this is a nuts objection. In no political or market system on
earth is there ever a 100% consensus that its better than the last
system.


And if you want to bring about a situation that won't be seen as
better universally, in a democracy, you need to start convincing the
rest of us.

Why would I 'need' to do that do you think? It is an option, a choice,
one of many things I may or may not do with my life, and nothing more.


So start, or go whistle !

Charm school

John, you've argued page after page after page here, and still have not
come up with ANY valid objection to opening the market up to
capitalism. Not even one.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:

For example, my local highways department, in order to carry out a
survey for traffic planning and distribution hired an outside firm to
do most of the work while staff members sat in the office. This was
unknown to most councillors until they were made aware of it. It's
but one example of paying twice because those employed to do the work
are lazy, incompetent or both. In terms of the published figures £X
appeared as opposed to the £X/2 that it should have cost.

The most basic of capitalist principles tells us why LAs are not
greatly motivated to do as well as they can, while private companies
are. No system guarantees us the best across the board all the time,
but putting serious incentives of both carrot and stick type, as
capitalism does, is clearly going to motivate and generally produce
significant improvement over unmotivated (monopolistic) systems.


NT

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-04 16:39:38 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be
doing what he's employed to do.

By whom? Who is paying?

We all pay, but that doesn't mean you proposal would do the job better,
nor necessarily even cheaper.

in a state owned marketplace it doesnt even mean the job needs doing.

Well - I suspect most of us think that it does.

I think you'll find lots of people recognise that state action is at
times doing things that they dont think need doing.

A well known example would be the prosecution of a market trader
selling in pounds and ounces. If that LA were in the free market they'd
be history after that one. But today's LAs can continue to act like
tinpot dictators without regard for democracy, and at times they do.


Let alone that the people who are paying wish to pay for it.

Well - it's true that most people will avoid tax where they can, but
most people still want their rubbish taken away.

thats not the issue, the issue is over things that the people dont
think need doing.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:

Therein lies the problem. We all pay, yet we are not told what we are
paying for but are simply expected to continue to write ever increasing
cheques (used metaphorically).

If a private company operated like this they would lose a lot of
business. They would be replaced by another business that saw the
opportunity to offer what people voted for.

Telling the customer what the purchased service is is an expected basic
thing in capitalism. Yes there are some companies that dont, so you can
have that if you wish. But needless to say businesses that tell you
whats being offered hold the great majority of the marketplace in their
area.

This unfortunately is how far LAs are removed from good business
practice.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:

Therein lies the problem. We all pay, yet we are not told what we are
paying for but are simply expected to continue to write ever increasing
cheques (used metaphorically).

If a private company operated like this they would lose a lot of
business. They would be replaced by another business that saw the
opportunity to offer what people voted for.

Telling the customer what the purchased service is is an expected basic
thing in capitalism. Yes there are some companies that dont, so you can
have that if you wish. But needless to say businesses that tell you
whats being offered hold the great majority of the marketplace in their
area.

This unfortunately is how far state monopolies such as LAs are removed
from good business practice.


NT

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes

Might be a better deal to sort the LA out.

Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more
business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer
market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to
do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.

But you dont want that. I do.

I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to
create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that
was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum
environmental standards.

Andy answered this pretty good. But lets look from another angle.

If we look at the reality of free markets, there is a spread of
standards. There is everything from cheap and basic (eg MG metro) to
sumptuous luxury (eg Rolls Royce, Ferrari). There are also a smaller
number of companies serving smaller or niche areas (eg Citroen 2CV,
skoda, Landrover, smartcar etc)

So what people purchase is more or less what they want. Its not perfect
because there arent infinite choices, but there are core reasons
covered in any book on free markets why its better than 100% state
control. You only need look at Russia in the 80s to see what a state
controlled command economy gets you, and thats what we have with LAs
and garbage collection.

Point by point...


but I'd hate to create short termist

well, companies only stay in business if they address the medium and
long term issues too. Short termists dont stick around.

hire and fire,

hiring and firing is done on the basis of what staff the business needs
to fulfil its services, and on whether the staff are competent. Compare
with LAs where incompetents are usually either allowed to stay in the
post or moved to another post. So I wonder why you'd hate less
incompetence and less cost waste.

'quarterly profits' culture

every business needs to streamline itself financially. LAs dont need
to, its why theyre so efficient. Again I wonder why you'd actively want
such inefficiency and excess costs.

was focussed on minimal cost,

why do you want a service at a price higher than it need be to fulfil
all the requirements? Do you enjoy adding 0s onto your council tax
cheques?

minimal provision,

private companies provide whatever level of provision the customer
wants - and since there are several companies, each purchaser can have
a lot closer to what they want than with the command economy.

and minimum environmental standards.

In the freeish marketplace, required environmental standards are laid
down by law. That aspect of business is controlled by central
givernment, not by businesses. So service providers cant fall below
those and realistically expect to stay in business and out of the
courts. Companies can choose to improve further on those standards, and
many do.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-15 08:33:34 +0000, David Hansen
said:

We are currently in much the same position as we were with gas and
electricity some years ago. Large users can select a provider. In
the case of waste, unlike electricity and gas some years ago, small
users can also select a provider if they want.

No they can't unless they are also permitted not to pay the LA.

In the case of
electricity and gas there was some agitation for small users to be
allowed to do the same thing. There is almost no agitation in the
case of waste and few if any small users have taken up the option
they already have.

That's because there isn't an option.

Do you really believe in the case of electricity or gas that users would pay
for an alternative supplier in addition to their present one?

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being
dealt with much earlier on in the thread.


NT

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:33:34 +0000 David Hansen wrote :

There is almost no agitation in the
case of waste and few if any small users have taken up the option
they already have.

A key reason is because it is a natural monopoly. You do not have
to be in the business to see that the cost in terms of wages,
vehicles etc of collecting from 1/3 of a street is going to be more
than half that of collecting from 2/3. So if you have two companies
that split the business this way, the one with 2/3 can undercut the
other (for the same level of service) and will eventually put them
out of business (at which point if not regulated they can clean up
in the other sense). Alternatively they come to a gentleman's
agreement to keep prices at a level where both make money, the one
with the larger share of the business, lots of money.

This may be half true. If it turns out this way I expect what would
happen is one company would take over on per street or per collection
area basis. IOW the housing estate would be serviced by Budgetgarb &
Co, the town centre by Freshpaintedgarb Co, the shopping mall by
Suitedbootedgarb Co, and the rough area by Wtfdoyouwantgarb Co.

IOW even if this 'natural non-monopoly' situation occurs, local
services will stll be much better matched to customer wishes than is
the case today.

And sure enough this is what we see in some market areas.


NT

John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes
sarah wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, (sarah) said:
Andy Hall wrote:

but not half as mythical as saying LAs must use the least energy of all
options!

Straw man. All I've expressed is the concern that the proposed scheme
would increase fuel used, congestion, number of vehicles and staff used
to do the same job etc.

....exactly what you just called a straw man then.


At the moment, I think they are obliged to chase 'bast value', which I
guess gives them a lot of scope for subjective consideration.

nominally yes, but realistically no. There isnt the competition there,
the investment in new trials, incompetents stay in their jobs etc.


Or alternatively, the rubbish is processed the cheapest way, regardless
of consequences.

its down to the customer and the law. Personally I'd be in favour of
reducing customer costs,

This is fine as long as the people at the sharp end don't have their
wages cut just because some suit fancies better first quarter figures.

I think the basics of capitalism are already well known. To get
factual, wages in the private sector are mostly higher than in the
public sector, despite services being delivered more competitively.
Feel free to wonder why.


and can think of ways to do it while in the
same measure increasing recycling.

Maybe. Go on then...

I was about to tell you my thoughts on that, but it would take us off
the point. The whole point here is that in a freeish market everyone
that thinks they can improve on existing services is free to try it,
and see if it works. (And motivated to do so.) And if it does, others
will follow. This just doesnt happen in the command economy of LAs.


The law determines the parameters garbage services work within, just as
they do today.

Possibly, though I suspect the law would need to be changed to allow
this unbundling of services.

probably, though I wouldnt assume it.

Hopefully there would be no loss of
environmental stringency in the process.

why would one lower the legal requirements at the same time as
privatisation?


Are you proposing a two- (or more) tier cost for
refuse disposal, with one price for those of us who sort their own and
another for those who prefer not to sully their hands with it? How much
would implementing *that* cost?

nothing. You leave the market to it,

And that makes it free ? Oh good !!

That makes it more cost efficient.

Key word there is COST.

Yes, thats one of them. Lowered costs mean more people can afford
silver medal type services.


The cost of deciding on price is a
very small part of a large business operation's costs. Other
differences will dwarf this one.

I had in mind the delivery of multiple services rather than the
submission of prices.

OK. Lets take fro example garbage collectors being willing to go onto a
persons property to collect bags if they have an orange sticker in the
front window. The cost of that little exta labour is paid for by the
silver service buyers. In fact in private enterprise it is common to
have basic services at cost with the fancier options bringing in the
profit. Thus all win, the low cost service is cheaper, those wishing
and happy to pay for fancy services can have that too. All standard
stuff in retail today.

The orange sticker is of course an example, there are various ways to
do it irl.


and people will buy from whichever
firm does closest to what they want. It would result in economies
rather than costs.

Yes - but that makes the preferred outcome cheap, not the most
sustainable one.

it makes it whichever the people of Britain vote for on a yearly basis,
it is the ultimate democracy.

I'm not sure that democracy is much better for 'saving the planet' than
capitalism, but I don't remember when we last had a referendum about
waste services, never mind one per year !

Man, this is basics of free markets stuff. Each time a customer buys a
service they are voting with their wallet. They will vote for the
service they prefer by paying for it. Capitalism is the ultimate
democracy. Capitalism enables the people to determine what they get by
this method of voting with their money.


With private enterprise comparison and analysis are pssible. How well
comparison is done varies of course.

Actually I don't see any evidence at all that private business is at all
good at making environmental performance data public, either in
sufficient detail, or in a timely way.

And if the data isn't generally available, saying "comparison and
analysis are possible", while formally true is utterly missing the
point. In the real world, this information is generally not available.

It is elementary to legally require publication of environmental data
(or if the market is controlled via the LA, ie without a change in the
law, to contractually require it).


When you've only got one system,
there is no possibility of comparison of the options, and nothing can
be learnt, because there are no comparison facts to learn anything
from.

If it can be measured, it can be improved. 'Continuous Improvement'
doesn't requite competition.

no, it just happens 4x faster in a free economy. This is 101 stuff.


The availability of comparison
data

What availability would that be ??

Is that a promise ?

is it a sensible question to ak me to promise what I dont control? I
think it relevant to garbage collection and would vote for full data
being available.


why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling?
Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.

I guess the real answer is that most people are happy enough to recycle
what they can easily, and while not ecstatic about LA waste services,
don't really want to think about alternatives foisted upon them.

foisted? wouldnt they rather have choice than the current foisting? All
those people that have changed from british gas and BT have all voted
yes with their wallets to that one.


At the end of the day, LCA will indicate where materials aren't worth
recycling, and should be able to give a clue as to the best way to
dispose of them.

In a sense, it doesn't require a debate, such as doing the LCA in each
locale. Maybe when you have the LCA data there might be something to
debate.

you're welcome to your undying faith in LCAs. To pretend there is no
debate is so unrealistic it seems almost disingenuous, though I daresay
you really do believe so.


Well - you can lobby your democratically elected members using sound
numerically supported arguments if you like.

I hope youre kidding, but I get the feeling you're not.

Well - you seem keen on democracy

yes. Do you see how a free market implements it, whereas LAs are
command economy?


... ...but less able to come up with
plausible figures.

what figures, concerning what? If you want examples of what happens
when command markets go free, UK has several examples you can look at.
If you want 101 principles of capitalism, again theres no need for me
to rehash it all.


NT

John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, (sarah) said:

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.

But if you want to continue having your waste collected with an
environmental impact / footprint that as small as it is now, you may not
be, and indeed, there is no guarantee that your existing service
provision would be offered.

a tired argument thats been routed over and over.


Well - this is indeed the big one ! Is there any centralised reporting
and analysis of LCA data broken down by region ? That could certainly
inform a more systematic approach.

what, you mean you dont have the detailed data either? In principle you
could do LCAs for each option if you wished, but there is one problem,
in that you dont appear to have fully grasped the variety of options
open in the freeish marketplace, so would likely be LCAing only one not
especially competitive option.


NT

In message . com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

this is true of all the views on this thread, I'm not sure it really
tells us much.

Well - for a start, maybe it suggests that stating your own view as
though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self
evident authority is a problem ?

Thats odd, cos I dont recall ever claiming any such a thing.

Not explicitly.


Its just
one more objection that doesnt stand up.

Oh I don't know. When you say something a tad patronising like

"John, the mechanics of different markets have been well
studied, neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been
well established over a good many years by various scholars on
the topic"

it makes my teeth itch. Unpacking that we have,

"John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied"

which is no doubt true, but that doesn't mean they've been well
understood ! Then

"neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well
established over a good many years by various scholars on the
topic"

which doesn't seem too clever either. All of which seems to be an
attempt to imply that this stuff is studied, accepted, well understood,
and not worthy of further discussion or criticism - in short that we
should accept it as an axiom.

Now - I'm not an economist, and I don't know that you are, but I have
written simulations of retail markets to train Deloitte Touche
accountants, and friends of mine from university went on to do modelling
of futures markets, so I'm not totally green about it either.

It seems to me that this is all way more complex and less well
understood than you would have us believe, and if you want me to accept
your view as an axiom, you'll have to be a lot more convincing than
this.

I don't think it's unfair to say that you wrote that as though we should
accept it as self evident truth, spoken with absolute self, and you
present it as if you know it to be unassailable and beyond question. I
could be wrong of course, but I doubt you've found anything in economic
theory that

a) maps particularly directly onto this problem,

or

b) has any particularly good model for accounting the use and / or
destruction of global commons.

And if you imply this without a firm foundation in economic theory, it
is disingenuous at best, and certainly not posted from a position of
authoritative knowledge.


However I'll venture as far to say one or 2 points this time probably
are self evident, which is rarely the case.

I'll venture to suggest that we wouldn't agree on which ones !


John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied,
neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established
over a good many years by various scholars on the topic.

There may be good scholars and bad scholars, but if Andy or anybody else
wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's
what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some
detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up
our own minds.

he has done.

Last thing I heard was his declining to make specific proposals !


If you want more info, there are already writings on
capitalism that can be consulted.

Asserting such, while true, is too vague to be useful. If you've got a
point, please make it specifically rather than alluding to some body of
knowledge which you expect to be out there.


There is no need or reason to rehash
such things.

There is every reason if you want me to act on the basis of your beliefs
rather than mine !

There is writing on all sorts of other things too, like ethics and the
environment. Start from the premiss that I'm about as keen to grub
about in academic works on economics as you to spend ages reading about
environmental ethics.


Your claim
that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal
ideology doesnt even begin to be true.

From what I've seen economics is not an exact science, and from what
I've seen there are certain things it does not address at all, like
protection of global commons ! These are well rehearsed arguments at
MBA level. It seems a bit spurious to only trot out one side of the
argument.

So our mostly capitalist system does not have fishing quotas? Our
mostly capitalist system does not legislate against flytipping? Fact is
our system does tackle the tragedy of the commons.

And yet we still have fish stocks in rapid decline in most parts of the
world !

What sort of tackling would this be ?


Anyway, protection of global commons is not a problem with refuse
collection today.

Another statement of your own view as though it is absolute self evident
truth, spoken with absolute self evident authority. Have you got no
idea at all that other people might not completely share your belief
system ?

If you haven't noticed that there are problems every possible waste
disposal method that affect global commons, you are simply a waste of
space from the point of view of this debate !


We have legislation in place to prevent what are now
illegal disposal methods.

Which doesn't mean that there is "not a problem with refuse collection
today".


This is another objection that doesnt stand up.

ROFL !!


While there are things that

a) we value,

or

b) we depend on,

that are not represented by simple cash values, economics will never
give a complete picture of any but the most artificial of situations
that can be fully described by simple market mechanics.

This is basic capitalist principles that anyone can read up.

The hell it is. Essentially it's an area that has been outside the
gamut of traditional capitalist thinking and description. If you
believe otherwise, cite your sources.


It is specifically the failure to deal with or value environmental
issues that makes the 'proposal' from Andy so questionable for so many
of us.

That isnt really so. If consumers want a green service, and most do,
thats what theyll buy.

Not if they want a cheaper service more, but the cheaper service may not
be [as] sustainable, so although cheaper in the shot term, the cheaper
solution may impose a greater cost on humanity as a whole, and on users
of the service in the longer term.


2ndly arguments such as that shipping waste plastic to china is a must
do are at best open to debate.

Better yet, they are open to LCA. Better to resolve and fix problems
from a position of knowledge than prejudice.


You seem unwilling to recognise that
there are some significant issues with the POV driving todays garbage
system in UK.

Oh no. I recognise that there are huge problems, but I don't think they
are best resolved by leaving it to the uninformed to make decisions,
without factual support, when they have short term financial incentives
to choose less sustainable solutions.


Given that he seems unable to engage with anything other than wild
allegations about local authorities and 'leaving it to the market',

'Leave it to the market' is the answer.

ROFL !


And he's gone into rather more
explantion that you give him credit for there.

Well - he's certainly aired his prejudices. I wouldn't dignify them
with the term "explanation".


I
suggest that his position is personal ideology -

Your claim that Andy's wish to let capitalism have a market is a
personal ideology is 100% bogus, and on this point, yes I do think this
is obvious, self evident. It has the reality-connectedness of a carrot
called gordon with 4 wings, 6 eyes and 100 noses.

Well - if he thinks there is justification, let him prove it by some
method other than repeated assertion !


at least in as far as
it doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced view,

of course, it isnt meant to be. Its no more balanced than your one
sided views, or mine.

Indeed, but if he can't justify his position, he won't get support for
the change he wants to make - which is pretty much fine by me.


it doesn't seem to
take the views of many stakeholders into account, and it's not shared by
all, (I suspect most), of the population.

No view is shared by all the population.

Well - his views aren't shared by a bunch of people in this news group
for a start, and I'm utterly certain we aren't the only ones, so that
assertion is toast too !


As for most, I would be
curious to see your evidence. If you have any

Well I guess it stems from the period when Derby was considering setting
up and EFW plant. There was very considerable debate about the whole
issue of waste disposal. I was involved, privately, talking to
activists, participating in public meetings, etc, but not one person
spoke in favour of setting up a number of competing services to cover
the same geographical areas, or 'leaving it to the market' !


The mechanics of markets my be "well established", but that doesn't mean
that introducing a market where there wasn't one [of the same type]
before, will bring about a situation that will be universally seen as
better.

John this is a nuts objection. In no political or market system on
earth is there ever a 100% consensus that its better than the last
system.

Fair point, but you have no evidence that it will be better at all.

Keep in mind my original comment:

"...if Andy or anybody else wants to gain popular support for his
scheme, and in a democracy that's what he needs, first he'll have
to tell us what he proposes, and in some detail, then he'll have to
tell us why it's better, then we can make up our own minds".


And if you want to bring about a situation that won't be seen as
better universally, in a democracy, you need to start convincing the
rest of us.

Why would I 'need' to do that do you think? It is an option, a choice,
one of many things I may or may not do with my life, and nothing more.

Well - you seem to be advocating a change, and if you want wide
support, my experience would suggest you'll have your work cut out.

Of course if you don't want change, that's fine, but you seem to putting
quite a bit of effort into arguing is support of Andys idea for someone
who isn't supporting it.


So start, or go whistle !

Charm school

Quite so.


John, you've argued page after page after page here,

Well - it seems worth trying to tease out what you think and why.


and still have not
come up with ANY valid objection to opening the market up to
capitalism. Not even one.

Well - you don't have to accept my arguments any more than I have to
accept yours. It doesn't particularly matter that we disagree.


Enjoy ! J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 21:42:58 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

The point is that provision of the service that the customer
wants is a pre-requisite to participation.
The service I want is the one I've got WITHOUT any other thanks.
Then I'm pleased for you. I am sure that you will have no
objection to others having what they want to have as well.
I'll support what I think is justified thanks.
Sometimes there is more to life than giving everybody what they want
just because they happen to want it.

I see. That doesn't seem like a particularly democratic viewpoint to me.

Well - did people vote for speed limits and taxes ?


You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with
your personal ideology than any particular lack of skill.
It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the
natural order.
That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept
that your view isn't universally shared.
It would appear to be in the free world - possibly different in
Myanmar and N. Korea.
There seem to be plenty of dissenting voices in this news group. I
don't think any of us post from Korea, do you ?
Who knows? I frequently post from all sorts of obscure places.
Well - I think you'll find that most of us are based in the UK.

So am I. However, I do have the opportunity to broaden my horizons.



If you are unable to realise the basics of administrative
overhead, then there is not really a basis for discussion.
I am quite able to realise it. You apparently are unable to measure it.
There is no need when it is self-evident.
Not good enough I'm afraid.

You disappoint me. Didn't they teach you basic economics on this eco
course of yours, or would that have been too inconvenient to the cause?

They touch on the limitations of seeing performance purely in terms of
economic indicators.

Did they teach you anything about the environment when / if you studied
economics ?


and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no
A bold yet spurious assumption...
It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that
that's spurious.
I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary.
In the way that it is currently implemented, it is certainly
unnecessary - we are paying twice.
I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA
staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your
protestations about it seriously.
The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously
and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do
and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from
of management consultants.
Well - all of that can only be good !

Oh definitely. Then the questions will be asked as to how and when
this will be reduced.

How, when and IF.


so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier
and cut out the middle man. Clear enough?
Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct.
It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe
that Father Christmas funds local authorities.
Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role,
and a thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to
pay for it !
Either the LAs or a central licensing body -
Well - either way, it has to be resourced.
Of course, but not anything like the wasteful levels it is today.
Maybe, but we only have your assertion for that, and you seem to
have no more than limited local observation and prejudice to justify
your position.

From what I hear, the waste is quite widespread. Council tax levels
have gone up all over the country and the return has not increased to
match it.

Is this not due to a decrease in central government funding for LAs as
opposed to simple embezzlement ?


certainly not at current staffing levels.
Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do !
If this means more work per local civil servant then I'm very keen
on the idea; or even better less work by them in total and
substantially fewer heads.
Well - we won't know what might be possible until you detail your
proposal will we ?

I already have. The proposal is to remove local authorities from the
food chain in waste collection and for it to be replaced by licensed
free enterprise operators.

Still sadly lacking in detail.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message . com,
writes
Andy Hall wrote:

For example, my local highways department, in order to carry out a
survey for traffic planning and distribution hired an outside firm to
do most of the work while staff members sat in the office. This was
unknown to most councillors until they were made aware of it. It's
but one example of paying twice because those employed to do the work
are lazy, incompetent or both. In terms of the published figures £X
appeared as opposed to the £X/2 that it should have cost.

The most basic of capitalist principles tells us why LAs are not
greatly motivated to do as well as they can,

In terms of which indicators ?


while private companies
are.

In terms of which indicators ?


No system guarantees us the best across the board all the time,
but putting serious incentives of both carrot and stick type, as
capitalism does, is clearly going to motivate and generally produce
significant improvement over unmotivated (monopolistic) systems.

I'm not sure this need be the case. The army for example is something
of a monopoly, but it still seems to manage to create incentives for
people that join of both stick and carrot variety.

Being able to motivate people does not require external competition,
merely commitment.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message om,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:

Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be
doing what he's employed to do.

By whom? Who is paying?

We all pay, but that doesn't mean you proposal would do the job better,
nor necessarily even cheaper.

in a state owned marketplace it doesnt even mean the job needs doing.

Well - I suspect most of us think that it does.

I think you'll find lots of people recognise that state action is at
times doing things that they dont think need doing.

A well known example would be the prosecution of a market trader
selling in pounds and ounces. If that LA were in the free market they'd
be history after that one.

I doubt it. Prosecuting people for using obsolete units is a pretty
small part of an LAs work.


But today's LAs can continue to act like
tinpot dictators without regard for democracy, and at times they do.

Yes - but there are far more serious abuses than waste collection.


Let alone that the people who are paying wish to pay for it.

Well - it's true that most people will avoid tax where they can, but
most people still want their rubbish taken away.

thats not the issue, the issue is over things that the people dont
think need doing.

Then what was your point about "people who are paying wish to pay for
it" ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being
dealt with much earlier on in the thread.

It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it
hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-12-16 03:06:02 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I'll support what I think is justified thanks.
Sometimes there is more to life than giving everybody what they want
just because they happen to want it.

I see. That doesn't seem like a particularly democratic viewpoint to me.

Well - did people vote for speed limits and taxes ?

Do they pay for speed limits?



You disappoint me. Didn't they teach you basic economics on this eco
course of yours, or would that have been too inconvenient to the cause?

They touch on the limitations of seeing performance purely in terms of
economic indicators.

"Touch on"... I think that that says it all.


The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and
are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the
costs involved, including the duplications that arise from of
management consultants.
Well - all of that can only be good !

Oh definitely. Then the questions will be asked as to how and when
this will be reduced.

How, when and IF.

It'll be a *when*. No doubt about that. The incompetence needs to
be exposed.



so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut
out the middle man. Clear enough?
Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct.
It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that
Father Christmas funds local authorities.
Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a
thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it !
Either the LAs or a central licensing body -
Well - either way, it has to be resourced.
Of course, but not anything like the wasteful levels it is today.
Maybe, but we only have your assertion for that, and you seem to have
no more than limited local observation and prejudice to justify your
position.

From what I hear, the waste is quite widespread. Council tax levels
have gone up all over the country and the return has not increased to
match it.

Is this not due to a decrease in central government funding for LAs as
opposed to simple embezzlement ?

I don't think that anybody suggested that anyone was doing anything
illegal. Nonetheless, the massive increases have to be investigated..
In absence of further information, one has to ask the questions as to
why. It's very easy to hide behind the "someone else's fault"
argument. However, the alarm bells ring as soon as one sees external
consultants being brought in to do work that should be being done
internally. If it happens in one place and department then it will
probably be happening elsewhere. In my example of a traffic scheme, I
also learned that the same firm of management consultants had sold
their services to at least 4 other surrounding local authorities.





certainly not at current staffing levels.
Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do !
If this means more work per local civil servant then I'm very keen on
the idea; or even better less work by them in total and substantially
fewer heads.
Well - we won't know what might be possible until you detail your
proposal will we ?

I already have. The proposal is to remove local authorities from the
food chain in waste collection and for it to be replaced by licensed
free enterprise operators.

Still sadly lacking in detail.



I didn't set out to provide detail, just the principle and the reasons for it.

On 2006-12-16 07:55:12 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being
dealt with much earlier on in the thread.

It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it
hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.

So why do you keep making what is an erroneous argument?

In message .com,
writes
Andy Hall wrote:

Therein lies the problem. We all pay, yet we are not told what we are
paying for but are simply expected to continue to write ever increasing
cheques (used metaphorically).

Queried in other message.


If a private company operated like this they would lose a lot of
business.

Depends what the activity is.

Of the cost of provision of waste services goes up because of
legislation that applies to a whole sector...


They would be replaced by another business that saw the
opportunity to offer what people voted for.

....It's not as if other businesses would be able to offer a deal that
was much better.


Telling the customer what the purchased service is is an expected basic
thing in capitalism.

Which assumes that capitalism is all there is.


Yes there are some companies that dont, so you can
have that if you wish. But needless to say businesses that tell you
whats being offered hold the great majority of the marketplace in their
area.

Transparency is good, but IME, businesses tell you what they want you to
know and are not good at either financial or environmental detail -
certainly no more transparent than LAs.


This unfortunately is how far LAs are removed from good business
practice.

Which embeds the assumption that they are, or should be businesses.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 21:45:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message .com,
writes

Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more
business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer
market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to
do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.
But you dont want that. I do.
I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to
create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that
was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum
environmental standards.

So would I. It should be based on these principles:

- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't
done properly, there will be no long term

Good...


- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably
means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's
not.

Or at least redeploying them.

Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business. Seems to me that
the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times
and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.


This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business
under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at
doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the inefficiency.

And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand
on their services.

Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If
so, why ?


- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones.
The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should
result in change of management.

But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a
profit.


- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service
that the customer is willing to buy.

Broadly.


This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental
standards.

Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing that
providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment
utterly.

I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not
been driven by legislation. Are you ?


Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and
for the best price.

In many situations, yes.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:

I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to
create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that
was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum
environmental standards.

Andy answered this pretty good.

I'll judge that my self thanks. Your accolades mean little.


But lets look from another angle.

If we look at the reality of free markets, there is a spread of
standards. There is everything from cheap and basic (eg MG metro) to
sumptuous luxury (eg Rolls Royce, Ferrari). There are also a smaller
number of companies serving smaller or niche areas (eg Citroen 2CV,
skoda, Landrover, smartcar etc)

So what people purchase is more or less what they want. Its not perfect
because there arent infinite choices, but there are core reasons
covered in any book on free markets why its better than 100% state
control. You only need look at Russia in the 80s to see what a state
controlled command economy gets you, and thats what we have with LAs
and garbage collection.

Point by point...

Warm generalisations, but when you say "why its better than 100% state
control" you need to say in which respects it's better, because it may
not be better in all respects, and different respects are given
different weights by each of us.


but I'd hate to create short termist

well, companies only stay in business if they address the medium and
long term issues too. Short termists dont stick around.

Hmm... Many companies I work with won't invest in environmental
improvements unless they can get a pay back in under two years,
sometimes in as little as 6 months. I wish they wouldn't stick around.


hire and fire,

hiring and firing is done on the basis of what staff the business needs
to fulfil its services, and on whether the staff are competent. Compare
with LAs where incompetents are usually either allowed to stay in the
post or moved to another post.

Can happen I know !


So I wonder why you'd hate less
incompetence and less cost waste.

I certainly don't endorse either, but it is important to be fair to both
parties.


'quarterly profits' culture

every business needs to streamline itself financially. LAs dont need
to, its why theyre so efficient. Again I wonder why you'd actively want
such inefficiency and excess costs.

Well

a) they aren't businesses,

and

b) as far as I can see they have pretty tight internal financial
controls.


was focussed on minimal cost,

why do you want a service at a price higher than it need be to fulfil
all the requirements? Do you enjoy adding 0s onto your council tax
cheques?

Not at all, but for example, I want

'buildings made to last'

not

'buildings made to win the next election that won't
be affordable to heat in 30 years'.


minimal provision,

private companies provide whatever level of provision the customer
wants - and since there are several companies, each purchaser can have
a lot closer to what they want than with the command economy.

Depends. If the customer is an LA, they should be able to specify
exactly what they and by way of a building or service.


and minimum environmental standards.

In the freeish marketplace, required environmental standards are laid
down by law.

Which is not an aspect of capitalism !


That aspect of business is controlled by central
givernment, not by businesses. So service providers cant fall below
those and realistically expect to stay in business and out of the
courts.

As long as the law is enforced, which it seldom is all that well.


Companies can choose to improve further on those standards,

Yes.


and
many do.

Though much of it is greenwash.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 21:46:33 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 01:59:17 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

I thought you were the one that wanted to add wagons, road miles
and multiple service providers ?
Nope. That was your supposition in terms of adding road miles.
Well - it seems like a reasonable supposition, and you seem unable
to refute it.

There is no point in measuring it either way.

The axiom

'if you don't measure it, you can't manage it'

has much virtue.


What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part.

So presumably you either

don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,

or

you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will
want to hear ?


It seems to me that the 'picture' is made up of many facets, but that
most of them are amenable to numeric specification and description.

If you're going to try and sell your scheme on the basis of inumerate
spin and an emotional appeal to choice, I don't think you'll get a lot
of takers.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-15 08:33:34 +0000, David Hansen
said:

Do you really believe in the case of electricity or gas that users would pay
for an alternative supplier in addition to their present one?

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being
dealt with much earlier on in the thread.

Obviously the way it was dealt with didn't satisfy everybody.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , David Hansen
writes
On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being
dealt with much earlier on in the thread.

It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it
hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.



Yes - it gets a bit galling when people tell you that something is
dealt with, when they don't want to talk about it any more !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-16 07:55:12 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it
being
dealt with much earlier on in the thread.
It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it
hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.

So why do you keep making what is an erroneous argument?

ROFL !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes


So would I. It should be based on these principles:

- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't
done properly, there will be no long term

Good...


- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably
means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's
not.

Or at least redeploying them.

Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are
viable and are beneficial to the business. If not, then they have to
go.


Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business.

They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably
because they don't know how to do so.


Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the
same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses
customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the
consequences are obvious.




This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business
under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at
doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the
inefficiency.

And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand
on their services.

They should operate as businesses.


Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If
so, why ?

Absolutely. We always need less government. This is even more true
during an economic downturn because effort should be directed towards
making money for the economy rather than spending it.



- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The
occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result
in change of management.

But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit.

It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and
for profit to be engineered to zero. There is, however, nothing
wrong with making a profit.




- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service
that the customer is willing to buy.

Broadly.


This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards.

Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing
that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment
utterly.

Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you.


I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not
been driven by legislation. Are you ?

This isn't particularly relevant to the subject.




Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and
for the best price.

In many situations, yes.

In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not.
Waste collection isn't one of them.

On 2006-12-16 23:04:23 +0000, John Beardmore said:


The axiom

'if you don't measure it, you can't manage it'

has much virtue.

Used appropriately.




What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part.

So presumably you either

don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,

or

you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will
want to hear ?

Wrong on both counts.




It seems to me that the 'picture' is made up of many facets, but that
most of them are amenable to numeric specification and description.

If you're going to try and sell your scheme on the basis of inumerate
spin and an emotional appeal to choice, I don't think you'll get a lot
of takers.


There's nothing emotional. It's a simple matter of customers being
able to choose the type of service appropriate to their requirements.

In article ,
says...
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 21:45:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message .com,
writes

Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more
business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer
market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to
do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.
But you dont want that. I do.
I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to
create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that
was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum
environmental standards.

So would I. It should be based on these principles:

- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't
done properly, there will be no long term

- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably
means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's
not.


Or at least redeploying them.

Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business. Seems to me that
the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times
and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.


It can depend on the method of transfer.

My city has this deal...

Recycling - Certain materials (junk newspapers, beer cans, etc)
are picked up for "free" each week. An official bin is offered
for $10, but some people just put stuff out in supermarket bags
next to their neighbour's bins. My vague understanding is that
there is an exchange with the collection company. They don't
charge the city for pickup, but they take all profits from
selling the stuff to recycling facilities.

Official City Coucil Rubbish Bags - Put in whatever you want,
within safety limits. You must use the Coucil's distinctive
printed yellow bags, which are sold at supermarkets and dairies.
They cost more than plain plastic bags, because their price
contributes to the budget for rubbish collection and tip (dump)
costs. There is apparently an additional line item on the yearly
rates (property tax based on percentage of house/flat value.)

There is also an experimental business compost program. They
charge less for pickup, but they require sorting. Good for a
supermarket.

There is also at least one private company picking up
wheelie-bins. Those may contain biodegradable scraps or regular
rubbish. I don't need one, so I don't know the options.

There is a local company (not gubmint-owned) that apparently
receives the city's biodegradable's (including some material from
the sewage plant), and which sells lawn/garden compost,
fertiliser, etc.

Anyway, you say:


the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the
same in good times and bad, even if the volume of
waste falls.


In my area/system, I can influence this:

Filter my recyclable to my "free"-pickup bin.

Reduce my rubbish volume, so that my use of Council bags is less
frequent. Personally, I might only fill four a year.

This also involves directing my biodegradables to my own garden.
Compost for me, and I can't participate in the business program,
anyway.

In hard times (socially or personally) I might resort to a small
once-a-month bag of rubbish (can't recycle or compost) stuffed
into to the nearest public bin. The kind that is there to reduce
litter. Maybe 100-litres. And emptied by the city. And I might
justify that by saying, "My tax dollars paid for it already."
And my city of a half-million apparently only has one cop
assigned to enforcing that particular no-dumping rule.


--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

So would I. It should be based on these principles:
- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term
isn't done properly, there will be no long term
Good...

- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably
means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when
it's not.
Or at least redeploying them.

Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are
viable and are beneficial to the business.

The what ?


If not, then they have to go.

Well yes ultimately.


Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business.

They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably
because they don't know how to do so.

Again, this assumes that they are businesses.


Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be
the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses
customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the
consequences are obvious.

Yes - we mover back to a single provider solution and will have wasted
a huge amount of effort implementing your scheme.


This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the
business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is
not good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding
the inefficiency.
And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable
demand on their services.

They should operate as businesses.

Says who ?


Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ?
If so, why ?

Absolutely. We always need less government.

But not particularly in an economic downturn then.


This is even more true during an economic downturn because effort
should be directed towards making money for the economy rather than
spending it.

But the bins still need to be emptied.


- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones.
The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should
result in change of management.
But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a
profit.

It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and
for profit to be engineered to zero.

I'm not suggesting that it be "engineered to zero", but that it "should
not be about making a profit".


There is, however, nothing wrong with making a profit.

Nothing wrong with delivering a service as your primary objective
either.


- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service
that the customer is willing to buy.
Broadly.

This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental
standards.
Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing
that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment
utterly.

Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you.

Nor have all your assertions about capitalism and markets specified any
particular fetters.


I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has
not been driven by legislation. Are you ?

This isn't particularly relevant to the subject.

Nor does the whole discussion have much to do with "Siting of panels for
solar water heating".

But my point stands - unfettered capitalism takes pretty much no
account of global commons and environmental performance. Minimum
standards of safety, health and environmental legislation have been
imposed, which on the whole, industry has not wanted, and there is
little reason to expect much more than minimum levels of compliance from
industry, if indeed that.


Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them
and for the best price.
In many situations, yes.

In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not.
Waste collection isn't one of them.

But protection of the environment is.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-16 23:04:23 +0000, John Beardmore said:

The axiom
'if you don't measure it, you can't manage it'
has much virtue.

Used appropriately.

Well indeed !


What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small
part.
So presumably you either
don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,
or
you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will
want to hear ?

Wrong on both counts.

So why don't you quantify all the bits that people want know about ?

Embarrassment ?


It seems to me that the 'picture' is made up of many facets, but
that most of them are amenable to numeric specification and description.
If you're going to try and sell your scheme on the basis of
inumerate spin and an emotional appeal to choice, I don't think you'll
get a lot of takers.

There's nothing emotional. It's a simple matter of customers being
able to choose the type of service appropriate to their requirements.

Well yes - so why are you trying to tell us that re number of vehicles,
road miles, and therefore congestion etc, "There is no point in
measuring it either way" ? What do you have to hide ? Are there any
other truths you'd like to be economical with ?

If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your emotional
rants about local authorities and markets ?

If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the very
transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.

How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never
mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them or
to the environment ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 02:48:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, (sarah) said:

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.
Not have you made any case to support the notion that it wouldn't.

I didn't set out to do so.

OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs
then ?

If not, why not ?

And presumably road miles, congestion etc ?


Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind
the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when
pushed...

I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this was
not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the point that
increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase in road miles
for collection.

You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !


Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half
way around the planet does.
So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.

Why don't you do that?

Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my time.


However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.?

No more than you.

Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.


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.

Yes, but 'society' has so much longer to dwell on it !

If society existed.

Well - we thing we do. YMMV.


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.
Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around
environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.

Sigh.... the old chestnuts.

They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.


Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human
development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never
ultimately works.

Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human
development either.


Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will
find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.
And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'.
So what's the right compromise ?

Freedom of choice fo rthe customer.

With no restrictions ?


But stop
proselytising the free market spit
.. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

You started it !

Don't think so...

seemed to start the attack on local authorities and
rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same, directly
to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead
of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a
lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting of panels for
solar water heating.


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.
Or an additional activity, depending on your perspective.
In the sense that sorting is a requirement that is imposed neither
by you or the LA, neither of you is trying to reduce the service
provided by the other - this argument is just emotional fluff.

Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants
isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent.

Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional
services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged
to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making
a market more free is not the only worthy objective.


If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU
and exercise your democratic right.
Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required,
to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is
least resource intensive when done at source.

That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and
customers are being forced into a one size fits all.

Depends how well it fits.

In my experience, most people are fairly happy.


It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be
accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time
or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.

If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the choice
of how it is achieved.

As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact, is
not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting waste.


For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it
myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However,
I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it.

Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement
that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very
wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable.

Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can
show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing
significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles,
fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-12-17 13:13:27 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

So would I. It should be based on these principles:
- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't
done properly, there will be no long term
Good...

- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably
means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's
not.
Or at least redeploying them.

Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are
viable and are beneficial to the business.

The what ?

The business.



If not, then they have to go.

Well yes ultimately.

Sooner rather than later.

The Micawber principle seldom works.




Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business.

They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably
because they don't know how to do so.

Again, this assumes that they are businesses.

Operating on business principles ensures the best return on investment
for the capital employed. Since council tax payers are funding all of
this, they are entitled to the best return. That means the minimum
cost to achieve the objectives required.



Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the
same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses
customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the
consequences are obvious.

Yes - we mover back to a single provider solution and will have wasted
a huge amount of effort implementing your scheme.

Nope. N-1 does not equal 1 unless N was 2 beforehand.



This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business
under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at
doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the
inefficiency.
And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand
on their services.

They should operate as businesses.

Says who ?


Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If
so, why ?

Absolutely. We always need less government.

But not particularly in an economic downturn then.

That's especially when it is needed. Reduction of the tax burden is
one of the best ways to stimulate an economy. That means reducing
public sector costs. The most effective way of doing that is to reduce
head count.




This is even more true during an economic downturn because effort
should be directed towards making money for the economy rather than
spending it.

But the bins still need to be emptied.

Of course. However, this does not require public sector involvement.




- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The
occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result
in change of management.
But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit.

It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and
for profit to be engineered to zero.

I'm not suggesting that it be "engineered to zero", but that it "should
not be about making a profit".

Therein lies the rub. If the mentality is that there will always be
more funding to cover the incompetences and wastage, then there is
never an incentive for improvement. Unless the tools of carrot and
stick are available, that doesn't happen. Every organisation should
be run on this basis - extras for over-performance, dismissal for
persistent under-performance. It's perfectly simple to run an
operation on a profit basis and reinvest the profits or to distribute
as a staff incentive.




There is, however, nothing wrong with making a profit.

Nothing wrong with delivering a service as your primary objective either.

Only provided that people want to buy what you have to sell and accept
the price to be reasonable.




- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service
that the customer is willing to buy.
Broadly.

This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards.
Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing
that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment
utterly.

Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you.

Nor have all your assertions about capitalism and markets specified any
particular fetters.

They have all the way along. Several times I have said that the
service products offered would have to achieve a minimum level but that
providers may wish to offer more for a higher price.



I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not
been driven by legislation. Are you ?

This isn't particularly relevant to the subject.

Nor does the whole discussion have much to do with "Siting of panels
for solar water heating".

But my point stands - unfettered capitalism takes pretty much no
account of global commons and environmental performance.

Nobody proposed unfettered capitalism.

Minimum standards of safety, health and environmental legislation have
been imposed, which on the whole, industry has not wanted, and there is
little reason to expect much more than minimum levels of compliance
from industry, if indeed that.

It's quite possible to set the standards required by legislation. If
those aren't adequate, then the requirements can be altered to take
account of that.





Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and
for the best price.
In many situations, yes.

In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not.
Waste collection isn't one of them.

But protection of the environment is.



No it isn't.

On 2006-12-17 13:28:04 +0000, John Beardmore said:


What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part.
So presumably you either
don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,
or
you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will
want to hear ?

Wrong on both counts.

So why don't you quantify all the bits that people want know about ?

Embarrassment ?

Nope. I haven't set out to detail a comprehensive set of schemes,
just a principle.



Well yes - so why are you trying to tell us that re number of
vehicles, road miles, and therefore congestion etc, "There is no point
in measuring it either way" ? What do you have to hide ? Are there
any other truths you'd like to be economical with ?

There's nothing to hide at all. Measurement of road miles may be one
criterion. Aggregation of rubbish and movement between waste transfer
stations or half way around the world another. This is all before one
looks at the lifetime environmental cost of products. Finally, what
is important is the total picture - not one small piece of it.



If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your emotional
rants about local authorities and markets ?

There's nothing emotional, just simple economics and freedom of choice.
One doesn't need detailed numbers in order to understand the basic
economics of the situation.


If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the very
transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.

There's no clouding in free enterprise. If you run your business well
and provide what customers are willing to buy then you stay in
business. If you don't then you go out of business. That is quite
crystal clear.

On the other hand, if one examines the behaviour of the environmental
lobby, one sees obfuscation, political correctness and lack of clear
justification for actions, while at the same time plenty of pushing for
yet more legislation.


How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never
mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them or
to the environment ?

People are more intelligent than I think you give them credit for.
My suggestion is the exact opposite of foisting something on people -
that is the situation we have today because of public sector
involvement.

On 2006-12-17 15:12:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:



OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs then ?

There may or there may not be. The volume of rubbish remains the
same in either scenario

Transport cost would be a factor for each provider to work out and to
decide on the most cost efficient
solution.



Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind the
notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when pushed...

I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this was
not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the point that
increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase in road miles
for collection.

You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !

I made the point that what actually matters is the total impact of a
situation and not just one aspect of it.



Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half way
around the planet does.
So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.

Why don't you do that?

Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my time.

But you were claiming to have a degree in the subject, so I naturally
assumed that you would have
the required set of skills.



However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.?

No more than you.

Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.

Ah, that's OK then. It would certainly make a difference to the
current situation where all this goes on behind the scenes and the
customer gets a bill which he is forced to pay.




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.

Yes, but 'society' has so much longer to dwell on it !

If society existed.

Well - we thing we do. YMMV.

Oh it does.......


Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time.
Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around
environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.

Sigh.... the old chestnuts.

They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.

There isn't any viable alternative. Given that situation, the correct
approach is to achieve what is wanted by creating a win rather than a
loss situation such that there is incentive to take a course of action
as opposed
to a penalty for not.





Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human
development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never
ultimately works.

Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human
development either.

That depends on the extent to which you believe that human behaviour
influences ecosystems. Undoubtedly it does to some extent, the
question is the degree and indeed whether a course of corrective action
will actually make a difference.




Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find
a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.
And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'.
So what's the right compromise ?

Freedom of choice fo rthe customer.

With no restrictions ?

Refer to first point. If people find restrictions too intrusive, they
will find a way around them.




But stop
proselytising the free market spit
.. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

You started it !

Don't think so...

seemed to start the attack on local authorities
and rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same,
directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have
the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value
and cost a lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting
of panels for solar water heating.

You need to look more carefully.



Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants
isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent.

Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional
services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged
to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making
a market more free is not the only worthy objective.

It's the only one that ultimately works.....




If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU
and exercise your democratic right.
Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to
sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least
resource intensive when done at source.

That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and
customers are being forced into a one size fits all.

Depends how well it fits.

In my experience, most people are fairly happy.

Have they been asked the question or offered choice? Most people
would assume that the LA will continue to arrange rubbish collection
and therefore from thinking inside this restriction have no comparison.
Advancement happens from thinking outside the box and not accepting the
status quo.





It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be
accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time
or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.

If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the choice
of how it is achieved.

As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact, is
not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting waste.

If you remember, there were several points made about use of technology
to sort and process waste.

Nonetheless, there is much discredit around recycling with numerous
scams going on in order to meet artificial targets. Until there is
more honesty about that, there is little point in discussing
environmental impact of measuring one detail vs. another.




For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it
myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However,
I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it.

Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement
that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very
wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable.

Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can
show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing
significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles,
fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.

I wasn't seeking votes....

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 02:59:15 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message om,
writes
sarah wrote:

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly.
That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose
opinion do
we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking
the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their
business,
And don't have any market incentive to improve environmental
practice.

So it should be made incentive and not penalty.

How did you have in mind ?


This is another illustration of how and why the public sector mentality
doesn't work well.

I don't think so.


and putting it into
the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.
Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all()
about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.

The knack is not having the quango at all but people who know what they
are doing and are in touch with
economic reality.

I see you make no mention of environmental reality.


Then to take it
further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy
that wastes energy and costs money is continued.
Not totally convinced it has failed...

It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts
for 2% of energy consumption.

I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy light
bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a hobby.

Care to cite a source ?


Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a
freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was
to develop fittings the customers liked.
So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?

Poor technology implementation and something that people don't really want.

So the market is free to make fittings that people would like then.
They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not
doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.


Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private
business
sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease
being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer
wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there,
as the individual either prospers or loses it all.
Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The
environment has generally not been one of them.

Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think
about how to make
that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of
forcing unnatural behaviour.

I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not
something capitalism has been good at.

Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job
done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though
marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions. Not sure that
makes it the most appropriate tool.

Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as
possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is
something I'm happy to invest effort in.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-12-17 18:10:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 02:59:15 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message om,
writes
sarah wrote:

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly.
That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose opinion do
we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking
the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their
business,
And don't have any market incentive to improve environmental practice.

So it should be made incentive and not penalty.

How did you have in mind ?

There are plenty. Reductions in corporation tax for businesses
implementing a relevant environmental policy would be but one.


and putting it into
the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.
Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all() about
the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.

The knack is not having the quango at all but people who know what they
are doing and are in touch with
economic reality.

I see you make no mention of environmental reality.

Improvement in environmental reality won't happen to any worthwhile
degree until and unless the economic realities are addressed. Hence
the point about incentive rather than bullying.




Then to take it
further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy
that wastes energy and costs money is continued.
Not totally convinced it has failed...

It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts
for 2% of energy consumption.

I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy
light bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a
hobby.

Care to cite a source ?

I said energy consumption, not electricity consumption.

It's really very simple. Add up the number of incandescent bulbs
required in a house with their ratings. Work out the usage pattern.
Calculate the amount of electricity used in kWh averaged over a year.
Then look at the energy bills.




Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a
freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was
to develop fittings the customers liked.
So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?

Poor technology implementation and something that people don't really want.

So the market is free to make fittings that people would like then.

It is but doesn't because interest is limited.

They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not
doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.

Exactly. People don't want this stuff and are voting with their money.




Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business
sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease
being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer
wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there,
as the individual either prospers or loses it all.
Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The
environment has generally not been one of them.

Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think
about how to make
that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of
forcing unnatural behaviour.

I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not
something capitalism has been good at.

That's just broad brushed nonsense


Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job
done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though
marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions.

Not sure that makes it the most appropriate tool.

Legislation certainly isn't. Marketing is very effective and
produces sustained results if done honestly and competently. This is
something that the green lobby has attempted to do and has been found
out on the first and failed on the second.




Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as
possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is
something I'm happy to invest effort in.



That is reasonable, provided that it is even handed and facts are
separated from guesses and agendas.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-17 13:28:04 +0000, John Beardmore said:

What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small
part.
So presumably you either
don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,
or
you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will
want to hear ?
Wrong on both counts.
So why don't you quantify all the bits that people want know about ?
Embarrassment ?

Nope. I haven't set out to detail a comprehensive set of schemes,
just a principle.

Well - without the detail it amounts to little more than a tirade about
LAs and markets.


Well yes - so why are you trying to tell us that re number of
vehicles, road miles, and therefore congestion etc, "There is no point
in measuring it either way" ? What do you have to hide ? Are there
any other truths you'd like to be economical with ?

There's nothing to hide at all. Measurement of road miles may be one
criterion. Aggregation of rubbish and movement between waste transfer
stations or half way around the world another.

Indeed.


This is all before one looks at the lifetime environmental cost of
products. Finally, what is important is the total picture - not one
small piece of it.

I think we'd agree on that, though if you want to influence product
design to reduce waste, it'll probably tale some pretty invasive
government.


If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your
emotional rants about local authorities and markets ?

There's nothing emotional, just simple economics and freedom of choice.
One doesn't need detailed numbers in order to understand the basic
economics of the situation.

Well as things stand, our assumptions seem to differ so widely that
there is very little common ground in the conclusions we seem likely to
come to.

In such circumstances I suggest that we need more numbers than the 'none
at all' the discussion seems to be based on.


If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the
very transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.

There's no clouding in free enterprise. If you run your business well
and provide what customers are willing to buy then you stay in
business. If you don't then you go out of business. That is quite
crystal clear.

Indeed, but earlier you seemed to be suggesting that private enterprise
offered greater transparency of data about environmental impacts etc.

This I very much doubt.


On the other hand, if one examines the behaviour of the environmental
lobby, one sees obfuscation,

Occasionally. I'm not sure this is too common though.


political correctness

Gets everywhere I'm afraid ! Not unique to the environmental sector.


and lack of clear justification for actions,

I'm not convinced. Any half way decent analysis of the resources
available to us or the land area required to maintain our present rate
of consumption suggests that we have clear problems that are not being
addressed by market forces. Your reluctance to find out about the work
that has been done in no way diminishes it.

And if you examine business, there seems to be obfuscation, inability to
see things in other than market oriented terms, and clear motivation to
'follow the money'. Doesn't strike me as a very pretty, or flexible
picture.


while at the same time plenty of pushing for yet more legislation.

Well - if it gets the job done...


How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never
mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them
or to the environment ?

People are more intelligent than I think you give them credit for.

Indeed, but if they can't get hold of the data, including that which
you've said need not be quantified, how are they to choose ?


My suggestion is the exact opposite of foisting something on people
- that is the situation we have today because of public sector
involvement.

No - you just want to foist something on them which you happen to
prefer. It's different, and it might be closer to a free market, but
there's no guarantee of anything very much, including that it will
actually be cheaper, that most people will prefer any of the choices on
offer, or that the aggregate environmental impact / footprint will be
lower.

No matter how much you talk it up, it really does sound thoroughly
underwhelming.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-17 15:12:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:


OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport
costs then ?

There may or there may not be. The volume of rubbish remains the
same in either scenario

Transport cost would be a factor for each provider to work out and to
decide on the most cost efficient
solution.

Well - unless they all share the same collection trips, it's pretty
hard to see how the number of road miles won't increase isn't it ?


Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind
the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when
pushed...
I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this
was not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the
point that increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase
miles for collection.
You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !

I made the point that what actually matters is the total impact of a
situation and not just one aspect of it.

Well yes, but you've also
Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling
half way around the planet does.
So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.
Why don't you do that?
Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my
time.

But you were claiming to have a degree in the subject, so I naturally
assumed that you would have
the required set of skills.

Indeed I do, but


However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.?
No more than you.
Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.

Ah, that's OK then. It would certainly make a difference to the
current situation where all this goes on behind the scenes and the
customer gets a bill which he is forced to pay.

Well yes. That's usually the way industry goes about things, and the
civil service too.


Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time.
Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around
environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.
Sigh.... the old chestnuts.
They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.

There isn't any viable alternative.

Well there is. Environmental legislation has been a great success in
the areas it has reached, and it reaches more month by month.


Given that situation, the correct approach is to achieve what is
wanted by creating a win rather than a loss situation such that there
is incentive to take a course of action as opposed
to a penalty for not.

That requires people to take a long view, and that requires them to be
familiar with the issues, and that takes time and a desire to act
responsibly. In many respects our problems may be too urgent for that.
If legislation is the least worst option, let them legislate.


Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human
development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never
ultimately works.
Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human
development either.

That depends on the extent to which you believe that human behaviour
influences ecosystems. Undoubtedly it does to some extent, the
question is the degree

Yes.


and indeed whether a course of corrective action will actually make a
difference.

Indeed.


Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will
find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.
And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'.
So what's the right compromise ?
Freedom of choice fo rthe customer.
With no restrictions ?

Refer to first point. If people find restrictions too intrusive, they
will find a way around them.

Possibly. I'll worry about that when it becomes a major problem.


But stop
proselytising the free market spit
.. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

You started it !
Don't think so...
seemed to start the attack on local authorities
and rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same,
directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have
the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value
and cost a lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting
of panels for solar water heating.

You need to look more carefully.

Well whatever - that message certainly had the content I quoted. If
you'd gone off on one before then, I apologise for not noticing.


Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer
wants isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent.
Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional
services, which while it's something you personally want, may be
judged to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely
imposed. Making a market more free is not the only worthy objective.

It's the only one that ultimately works.....

Oh I don't know. Legislation seems to be effective in many areas.


If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the
and exercise your democratic right.
Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required,
to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is
least resource intensive when done at source.
That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and
customers are being forced into a one size fits all.
Depends how well it fits.
In my experience, most people are fairly happy.

Have they been asked the question or offered choice? Most people
would assume that the LA will continue to arrange rubbish collection
and therefore from thinking inside this restriction have no comparison.
Advancement happens from thinking outside the box and not accepting the
status quo.

First you have to convince people that it is an advance at all.


It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be
accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of
time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.
If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the
choice of how it is achieved.
As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact,
is not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting
waste.

If you remember, there were several points made about use of technology
to sort and process waste.

On both sides...


Nonetheless, there is much discredit around recycling with numerous
scams going on in order to meet artificial targets. Until there is
more honesty about that, there is little point in discussing
environmental impact of measuring one detail vs. another.

Nonsense - it's only by measurement that you can get to the bottom of
what is worthwhile and what is scam or futile consequence of overzealous
legislation.


For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do
it myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required.
However, I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage
to do it.
Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state
involvement that results in the restriction of choice of service
based on very wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be
unacceptable.
Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you
can
show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing
significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles,
fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.

I wasn't seeking votes....

Happy to hear it !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore