An Import We Can Forgo Milwaukee Journal Sentinel September 22, 2005
The decisions a government makes concerning a state’s income are a balance of sacrifices and benefits. The article in the September 18, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel describes a deal the state of Wisconsin has with surrounding states concerning garbage landfilling. In this commentary, options for a better garbage receiving deal, the economic consequences and profits of those ideas, and which idea has the most benefits will be expressed. In 2004, Wisconsin accepted 2.2 million tones of garbage from surrounding states for a profit of roughly 6.6 million dollars. The amount of garbage Wisconsin takes in, however, has been rising for the past decade, almost doubling and doesn’t look like it is going to do anything but keep on rising. This article declares the problem this poses and the sheer magnitude of garbage piling into this state and how the monetary benefits aren’t enough to offset the cost. Law of demand is first suggested to balance the cost to the effect of selling landfill. State Representative Spencer Black proposed the idea of raising the price of landfill space by seven dollars, from three dollars per garbage ton. This connects with the law of demand by the theory that if price rises, the amount of landfill space sold declines. It is hoped that the rise in the price won’t decrease the garbage but put halt the increase in volume shipped to Wisconsin’s landfills.
With the rise in price, the increase in demand for landfill space is hoped to not get notably higher or lower, just stop. This is assumed to be true because of politicians’ assumptions, such as Spencer Black’s that landfill space is an inelastic good and therefore, will not change significantly with a large change in price. If Black is correct in his assumption, the price will rise and demand will stay constant. This would theoretically prove to be a very smart decision on the state of Wisconsin’s part because profit would skyrocket to Black’s estimated sum of 70 million dollars. A sum that would not only cover the cost of the entire recycling program but ease the burden on taxpayers who pay for the program now with property taxes. The opportunity cost of putting Black’s ideas into effect is leaving things as they are. More garbage is being transported into the state and more money is being made. So why consider Black’s ideas at all? The answer why Black is not just pushed to the side for wanting to change a profitable thing is because the state is dealing with garbage. Rational self-interest dictates that no one wants to live by a landfill and that if you don’t have to live by one you won’t. The opportunity cost of living without garbage and without money, however, is viewed by some as less important than living with garbage and with money. So live with garbage and money they do. Millions of dollars are being made for the exploitation of Natures great green earth and when has that stopped man before? No. Now is a time for change. This is a generation more dedicated to preserving nature since the Native Americans before Mayflower Settlement. Black’s idea is a step to conservation. Make landfill space expensive and people won’t want to use a lot. To achieve costly landfill space, the government can create a price floor. This would create graph ___. What is depicted in this graph is a surplus of landfill space. Normally a surplus is bad but when it deals with room for trash, it is good. If the government were not to do anything, trash brought into Wisconsin would carry on increasing. The short term profit would increase but the long term would have devastating effects. In the future for example, if development wants to occur on landfill sites, dozens of costly precautions must happen to make it sanitary and safe. What if a building were to start sinking into the historic landfill? The precautions needed would probably be costly and cancel out the profit made now. Obviously, these scenarios are terrible and the state of Wisconsin cannot continue to throw the garbage of the Midwest into its backyard.
Economics Hr. 4/5
9/23/05
An Import We Can Forgo
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
September 22, 2005
The decisions a government makes concerning a state’s income are a balance of sacrifices and benefits. The article in the September 18, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel describes a deal the state of Wisconsin has with surrounding states concerning garbage landfilling. In this commentary, options for a better garbage receiving deal, the economic consequences and profits of those ideas, and which idea has the most benefits will be expressed.
In 2004, Wisconsin accepted 2.2 million tones of garbage from surrounding states for a profit of roughly 6.6 million dollars. The amount of garbage Wisconsin takes in, however, has been rising for the past decade, almost doubling and doesn’t look like it is going to do anything but keep on rising. This article declares the problem this poses and the sheer magnitude of garbage piling into this state and how the monetary benefits aren’t enough to offset the cost.
Law of demand is first suggested to balance the cost to the effect of selling landfill. State Representative Spencer Black proposed the idea of raising the price of landfill space by seven dollars, from three dollars per garbage ton. This connects with the law of demand by the theory that if price rises, the amount of landfill space sold declines. It is hoped that the rise in the price won’t decrease the garbage but put halt the increase in volume shipped to Wisconsin’s landfills.
Reply
The opportunity cost of putting Black’s ideas into effect is leaving things as they are. More garbage is being transported into the state and more money is being made. So why consider Black’s ideas at all? The answer why Black is not just pushed to the side for wanting to change a profitable thing is because the state is dealing with garbage. Rational self-interest dictates that no one wants to live by a landfill and that if you don’t have to live by one you won’t. The opportunity cost of living without garbage and without money, however, is viewed by some as less important than living with garbage and with money. So live with garbage and money they do.
Millions of dollars are being made for the exploitation of Natures great green earth and when has that stopped man before? No. Now is a time for change. This is a generation more dedicated to preserving nature since the Native Americans before Mayflower Settlement. Black’s idea is a step to conservation. Make landfill space expensive and people won’t want to use a lot.
To achieve costly landfill space, the government can create a price floor. This would create graph ___. What is depicted in this graph is a surplus of landfill space. Normally a surplus is bad but when it deals with room for trash, it is good.
If the government were not to do anything, trash brought into Wisconsin would carry on increasing. The short term profit would increase but the long term would have devastating effects. In the future for example, if development wants to occur on landfill sites, dozens of costly precautions must happen to make it sanitary and safe. What if a building were to start sinking into the historic landfill? The precautions needed would probably be costly and cancel out the profit made now. Obviously, these scenarios are terrible and the state of Wisconsin cannot continue to throw the garbage of the Midwest into its backyard.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment