This is an interesting idea and maybe well see it happening in some places. It all depends. The reporter that says We should be doing this reminds me of times when a customer of mine might suggest a product that Chilkat should do. After 12 years in the business, Ive developed an expertise in undestanding my market. I understand how to evaluate business options -- the work and cost involved in producing a product, the potential size of the market, and the perceived subjective value of the product by a potential customer. These factors must be such that developing the product is profitable (i.e. earns me a sufficient income). If a customer happens to suggest a good idea, its almost always already on my To Do list. Otherwise, the customers idea is usually a bad one -- because the customer really doesnt know the business. I dont know the supermarket business, so I dont know if the Inglorious Fruit Idea is a good one. I can say this: If its a profitable strategy, supermarkets should already be rushing to implement it. If they havent, you have to ask WHY? I would think that the costs of growing, harvesting, transporting, packaging, etc. are essentially the same for both ugly and nicely-formed fruits. If the profit margin is already thin, then offering the ugly fruits at a 30% discount is a money-loser. You and I know the objective value of an ugly fruit is equal to the objective value of a visually appealing fruit -- but are the subjective values equal? If people are not willing to pay as much for ugly fruit because they subjectively value them less, then its not feasible to sell ugly fruit. It would make no sense to pay for the shipping, packaging, and retail space for ugly fruit if it doesnt sell. (If it sold in those other countries, you have to ask WHY? Maybe people in those countries subjectively value ugly fruit virtually the same as pristine nicely-formed fruit. Maybe its not the same in our culture?) If waste is the main concern, then reducing the overall supply of fruits would raise prices so that it becomes profitable to sell ugly fruit. (Maybe you want the govt to get involved because agriculture is too efficient? Did you know that during the depths of the Great Depression, the Agriculture Adjustment Act ordered farmers to destroy crops and kill livestock with the goal of raising prices (nevermind how the unemployed would be able to afford higher prices...)) In my opinion, waste is a sign of abundance, productivity, and efficiency. Its a side-effect of success. When you grow something in your backyard, such as tomatoes, peppers, or whatever, having too much with the result of not being able to consume it all, is a result of a great growing season. Who would prefer poor growing seasons with no waste as opposed to the former? When it comes to reducing waste, technology and entrepreneurialism is a double-edged sword. When a free-market is allowed to operate, profitable uses will be found for existing waste. On the other hand, advances in productivity and efficiency create more abundance and thus more waste. Its a cycle that should be allowed to go round and round because it results in more abundance and higher living standards. Trouble arises when non-free market types start trying to solve waste problems. They do so with the help of government because coercion is the only way to force people to pay more, produce less, reduce productivity, etc. The only way to not waste something is to produce less of that thing -- in other words -- to make it more scarce. This causes prices to rise, and thus consumption is reduced because people cannot afford the thing -- and thus the goal of no-waste is thwarted. So the goal is then to redistribute wealth so that poor people can afford more of the thing that is higher-priced, scarce, and wasted, and round-and-round we go. Repeat that cycle enough times and you unwind modern society back to the subsistence level egalitarian society where nothing goes to waste. Fantastic. Problem solved.
Posted on: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:42:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015