Pushing possibilities is now on twitter. You can follow by typing in the same user name I use for this blog, sfrable, or you can look up my real name Steven Frable. Why Twitter? Three reasons:
Sometimes I have ideas that don’t necessarily warrant a blog post, especially those that happen on the fly and are just merely questions or comments. Given my new purchase of the Google Nexus One, I feel that Twitter is the perfect tool for optimizing on the fly ideas and comments. The integration with this blog will help those who only visit here through searches of interest (not many followers yet) get snippets of what I am thinking at the time.
Which leads me to the second reason: it helps me understand my readership base. I can only see how many visit and what they are reading; not who follows. I don’t know if anyone has subscribed to my RSS feed or not. With Twitter, not only do I know how many are following, but who is actually following. I hope that I would be able to follow others that have the same interest and build new ideas from it. I find it to be more productive when I am trying to peak some interest either for someone or for myself.
Finally, I used to post “Some interesting links…” Usually I was emulating what other bloggers do when they aggregate what they have been reading, but I found my self using it as a filler post, finding a slew of links for the purpose of making a post. It seemed more like work and I only wanted to post the link that I found most interesting. So, I will be using Twitter to post those links. This will help in keeping my blog posts to have something substantial as opposed to just providing filler.
It is the question that everyone will get at some point in their life when they go to a grocery store. Usually, its not a complicated one. Paper are sturdier for heavier loads, but only if it isn’t raining. Plastic is preferred for small purchases and inclement weather. When the decision moves past the evaluation of these simple costs, you end up with a lot of nonsense, especially when its under the guise of which is “greener.” And that is what Oregon is debating for a new bill: how would you like to kill the earth today, paper or plastic?
[State Senator Mark] Hass is spearheading a bill that is up for a hearing Tuesday in Salem that would outlaw single-use plastic bags at checkout. Paper bags would remain legal.
His plastic bag indictment: They contribute to litter, are minimally recycled, regularly gum up recycling sorting machines, harm marine life and are made from fossil fuels.
…
But Seattle voters shot down a bag fee last year, and the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, backed by bag producers, has scored a series of victories in California. Stephen Joseph, the coalition’s attorney, said he’s “horrified” that San Francisco is passing out paper instead of plastic.
“The evidence is very strongly in favor of plastic bags being better for the environment,” Joseph said.
They both have their benefits, but both are terrible for the environment. Fighting over which is worse is a waste of time. I like pointing out how silly this debate actually is because it shows an example of taking the idea of “going green” a step too far. However, solutions are available that doesn’t necessitate bans, and should not be overlooked.
Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association, said grocers’ voluntary efforts have boosted reusable bag use by 400 percent in four years, with about a tenth of customers using them. But the association, which represents large grocers, is wary of a ban. Some customers — especially those who walk or wait for the bus in the rain — prefer plastic, he said. Others use them for garbage-can liners, lunch bags and picking up after their dogs.
Melinda Merrill, a Fred Meyer spokeswoman, said grocers also worry about cost, with paper bags three or four times more expensive than plastic. A voluntary marketing push — and a nickel-a-bag credit for reusable bags — allowed Fred Meyer to order 14 million fewer plastic bags and 2.2 million fewer paper bags in 2008 than in 2007, when it began offering 99-cent canvas bags.
Moral of the story? Switch to your own bags. Companies pay you to do so. You can feel good too and gives you the freedom to exact your moral superiority over those who find value in refusing to use their own. Everybody wins.
Micron Technology and Intel Corp. announced a joint venture to create what the companies are calling “the smallest, most advanced process technology in the semiconductor industry.”
The companies introduced an 8 gigabyte, 25-nanometer “NAND” memory chip that they said will increase storage for portable music and media players, smart phones and more. It is the latest in the joint venture’s ever-shrinking NAND innovations. The two companies say they have doubled the density of NAND every 18 months — they started with a 50 nm device in 2006 and dropped it to 36 nm in 2008.
Stacking processors will certainly get easier for even smaller devices.
It’s a bit late, but I want to comment on it considering it is relatively good news above the surface. For those who didn’t see, the advanced release for GDP in 4th quarter clocked growth at around 5.7%. (here) Considering that this is an advanced release, it will most likely get revised downward later to a more conservative estimate. Why so high? Inventories, mostly, and it is expected that such a growth rate can’t be maintained. ( IHS Global Insight sees growth in 2010 to be around 2.5% – 3.0%)
Beneath the surface there is a nugget of optimism that I want to point out, and that Obama should pay attention to, since timing is critical. From the BEA release:
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 2.9 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 5.9 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 15.4 percent, compared with a decrease of 18.4 percent. Equipment and software increased 13.3 percent, compared with an increase of
1.5 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 5.7 percent, compared with an increase of 18.9 percent.
If you haven’t read previously, I pointed out Greg Mankiw’s belief that an investment tax credit is a great way to spur growth in the economy. I made my case here on Mankiw’s point. Already businesses are seeing that it is profitable in some sectors, notably software, to decide to invest. As you can see it has spurred tremendous growth for output, which means that demand can only follow. This in turn will create jobs. Obama has already indicated an attempt in his State of the Union speech (here) to try and pass a job bill to include an investment tax credit. Smart move. However, Obama continues to supplant the focus on small businesses when he should be focusing on all sizes. I am sure not many populists will even notice in order to gain steam against it, because after all, it helps everyone, not just small businesses. But Obama needs to act quickly if he is going to want to keep growth like this for 2010. Let’s hope, for something like this at least, that politics don’t get in the way again.
Just recently read an article from the Economic Review by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas (here) about energy price states. I thought that this particular graph from the report (here) highlighting energy prices and recessionary cycles over the course of 40 years gives some perspective on the run up of natural gas and oil prices.
Continuing this trend means guaranteed higher energy prices in the future. How high do energy prices have to go in order to provide incentive for alternative means to be viable?
A little nugget from U.S. Regional at IHS Global Insight: (this is from our internal database but this particular data can be found from the BLS)
The last time employment was as low as it was now in the U.S. was in March 2004. During the decade, 17 states have had fewer jobs now than they did a decade ago.
Here they are with the date for when their employment was as low as it was now. Quite incredible. Michigan hasn’t added any new jobs for over 22 years!
After reading an article from Oregon Live, (here) I have become really excited about my belief in a future market that I have entitled as a “Waste products aftermarket.” For a more detailed account, please see my recent posts on a theoretical framework and part I.
The article details the efforts of a recycling business called Total Reclaim located in Alaska, Oregon and Washington. The primary business of Total Reclaim is through the recycling of e-waste products such as TVs and computer monitors. Among other services, they recycle other durables that have been thrown away including refrigerators and HVACs.
A video here explains their production process in detail:
Notice towards the end of the video the on-site production process of plastic pellets. Not only is this a finished product that can go back into new electronics, it adds value to something that otherwise would have gone into a landfill. There is money to be made there. Your taking a product worth nothing and processing it into a product worth something.
The primary driver for their business in e-waste is thanks to support from state legislatures. In all three states that Total Reclaim operates, it is illegal to throw away your e-waste in traditional land fills. (i.e. throw them out onto the curb for trash pickup) The only legal way to discard e-waste in these states is to bring them to a licensed recycling center such as Total Reclaim. For a fee that varies depending on what you bring in, they will recycle your e-waste.
The fee is an important factor to consider. If there was no ban on curbside e-waste, what would the price be then? Right now, the cost to recycle e-waste can average (give or take) $50. The ban obviously forces people to demand Total Reclaim services (explains their 30% growth) which can push the price for recycling down. Thanks to the legislation, the price for e-waste recycling has fallen. In addition, legislators are looking to eliminate the deferred cost of waste management and instead make the cost upfront by forcing manufacturers to offer a rebate so that the cost of recycling of the device is already factored in the purchase price. This will lead to more downward pressures on the price of recycling.
Already you can see a viable business opportunity and a large amount of growth given the partnership that Total Reclaim has with the public. Akin to the beginnings of the railroad and telephone industry, with waste product aftermarkets in its infancy, government support should help nurture growth. Continued public support, (like the manufacture rebate program) expanding coverage to outer areas of the state, (or even lobbying to change legislation in other states…or better, federally) and the discovering and implementation of new technologies in order to offer more products and services could mean that Total Reclaim is one of the leading companies that could make this into a viable and profitable opportunity that is focused on sustainable business practices and providing value for environmental safety and conservation.
This is starting to become a serious interest of mine. Previously, I did a post on bio-diesel made from chicken fat (here) and how it may mark the beginning of a waste product aftermarket within green economies. I will also write a piece on a company I am currently reading up on, Total Reclaim. (here) Although the idea itself is nothing new, I feel I need to make a theoretical framework for this.
Essentially, for our 21st-century economy, a new economy, the “green economy,” going green is expected to be the next big thing. This proposition has been made solely on the popular value judgment that there is a rising demand for eco-friendly products. There is nothing new about this. We can already see this with products ranging from toilet paper made from recycled paper to cell phones made from recycled materials.
There is nothing new about recycled products or aftermarkets either. If businesses are able to find ways to cut down and recoup costs by either adding value on site through production or from scrap, most are going to do so. (see auto aftermarkets as a popular example) Marketing products as green helps signal to eco-conscious consumers that these particular products (such as the cell phone linked above) will lower ones environmental footprint.
But is there necessarily a market for it? I believe that currently, there is, but it is fractured and not on par with the types of commodity markets we have today. Most business decisions regarding recycled products are not core competencies, but are more along the lines of reducing the marginal unit cost of particular products and their waste. These are the questions I want to continue to ask as more and more examples show up throughout the U.S. (and the world) on how businesses start to shift to waste products as a revenue source rather than efficiency measures.
How do I believe this change will happen? Remember, most of the important part of the surge in the waste product aftermarket is the demand to go green. Businesses have incentives to offer value for eco-friendly consumers as the demand to go green becomes even more popular. But how far will it go? As businesses start to take advantage of utilizing new technologies and implementing cost effective production techniques, cost for recycling will severely plummet. As profitability ensues, businesses will be able to acquire capital in order for them to grow. Then industry consolidation should be in order as businesses begin to attain economies of scale. By then, these companies will be able to sell their products on an open market commodities exchange, much like what we do with many natural resources available today. And the incentive for doing this? Commodities will be facing a long-term supply shortage as more and more countries begin to develop, demanding more resources and putting a strain on what is currently available. These forces will drive up the price of commodities, (a long-term trend we have currently experienced via China and other nations) making recycled materials an economic reality. And the best part is that it won’t be dependent upon the demand for green products anymore, but a means for making our industrial ecology more efficient.
This is the value proposition I am making for the future of our world economy. Technologies continue to be developed that make the production and reduction of physical goods not only a scientific reality, but an economic one. As more and more technological breakthroughs make it through the news, I will be there to comment on it. (here) As more and more environmental policy creates a more economic reality, I will be there to comment on it. (here) As more and more unexpected impacts from economic decisions influence the way we produce and consume products, I will be there to comment on it. (here)
I will continue my posts for waste product aftermarkets in parts as more and more real world cases come to light, charting the progress of this future. I believe that this is the most realistic avenue that our world can move in, not only for the betterment of the world, but to push possibilities farther then we have ever imagined.
Turns out cigarettes and gambling are complement goods: (here)
State video gambling tax receipts plummeted by nearly 18 percent in the last quarter of 2009, buffeted by the beginning of a statewide indoor smoking on bars and casinos and a recession that hit Montana hard.The gross video gambling-machine taxes will be about $12.5 million for the quarter that ran from October through December 2009, said Rick Ask, administrator of the Gambling Control Division in the state Justice Department. That’s about $2.7 million, or 17.8 percent, less than what the tax revenues were the previous three months, from July through September 2009.
The quarterly gambling-machine taxes are down by 16.8 percent, or $2.5 million, compared with the previous three-month period from September through December 2008, Ask said.
It certainly shows the unintended consequence of a policy that although is good at heart; can hurt the bank. So why would gambling and cigarettes be complements? Does nicotine help relieve the stress of losing money? Maybe smoking has a direct effect on one’s discount rate for gambling.
