loopholes which will make the tax break much more expensive, or have a very
long body of legal texts, and some very exited lawyers and auditors which will
impose an indirect cost on society broadly.

Sure, it's pessimistic, but I'm essentially working backwards from an attempt
to impose a tax on dietary fat (for health reasons) in Denmark. Sounds great,
right? Hilarity ensued over mixed nuts (the accountants had a field day with
that one, and IIRC all kinds of meat being taxed at the same level, and the
tax was repealed after only 15 months.

~~~
AJ007
A alternative approach could be taxing garbage. Perhaps inevitable once
sensors become pervasive and cheap enough. Too some extent this is already
done and enforced for disposing of blatantly dangerous things. In some cases
you could end up in prison in addition to fines, if caught. The more subtle
things that add up to a big problem have been given a lot of leeway.

Right now it is profitable for many parties to extract non-renewable
resources, assemble them in to something that has a short life cycle, and be
sold to consumers who would rather keep buying the same thing over and over
again than a single time. There have been big incentives on the government
side for hitting GDP numbers, which has led to both low interest rates and an
urgency to extract and process non-renewable resources as quickly as possible.
Capital utilization numbers certainly doesn't account for any of this and very
well exacerbate the problem.

I don't want to confuse cause and effect here, but the consumption of low
quality products directly relates to the volume which they are produced. The
actual costs have just been transferred to the future. In the future there
will be both fewer resources to produce those goods and more
pollution/ecosystem effects to account for it.

At Berkshire Hathaway's shareholder meeting this year Charlie Munger
specifically said he thought all petrochemical reserves would be eventually
exhausted to make things, not for fuel (there was a specific word he used
which I never use and forgot.) Billionaires are thinking about resource
exhaustion. Poor, uneducated people are not, unless they are still in hunter-
gatherer societies and see problems first hand.

We often think of food and
loopholes which will make the tax break much more expensive, or get a very 
 retentive body of legal texts, and some very exited lawyer and auditors which will 
 impose an indirect monetary value on society broadly. 

 Sure, it's pessimistic, but I'm essentially ferment backwards from an attempt 
 to levy a tax on dietary fat (for health reasons) in Denmark. fathom great, 
 right? Hilarity ensued over mixed nuts (the accountant had a field day with 
 that one, and IIRC all kinds of kernel being taxed at the same floor, and the 
 tax was repealed after merely 15 months. 

 ~~~ 
 AJ007 
 A alternative approach could be taxing garbage. possibly inevitable once 
 sensors become pervasive and cheap enough. Too some extent this is already 
 done and enforced for dispose of blatantly dangerous thing. In some cases 
 you could end up in prison in addition to fines, if caught. The more subtle 
 things that add up to a big trouble have been give a lot of allowance. 

 justly immediately it is profitable for many parties to extract non - renewable 
 resource, assemble them in to something that has a short life hertz, and be 
 sold to consumers who would rather keep buying the same matter over and over 
 again than a single time. There have been big incentives on the government 
 slope for hitting GDP numbers, which has led to both low sake rates and an 
 urgency to extract and work non - renewable resources as quickly as possible. 
 das kapital utilization numbers certainly doesn't account for any of this and very 
 well exacerbate the trouble. 

 I don't want to confuse cause and effect here, but the pulmonary tuberculosis of low 
 quality product directly relates to the book which they are produced. The 
 actual cost have just been transfer to the future. In the future there 
 will be both fewer resources to produce those commodity and more 
 befoulment / ecosystem effects to account for it. 

 At Berkshire Hathaway's stockholder meeting this year Charlie Munger 
 specifically said he thought all petrochemical reserves would be eventually 
 exhausted to make thing, not for fuel (there was a specific word he used 
 which I never use and forgot .) Billionaires are thinking about resource 
 debilitation. Poor, uneducated people are not, unless they are however in hunter- 
 gatherer societies and see problems first hand. 

 We frequently think of food and
loooholes which will make tme tax break muck more xxpensibe, or haxe a very
long body of legal vextw, and some very exited lawydrs and alditors wyich qill
impose an indivzct ckdt ou wociety broadli.

Sure, it's pevsimistic, but H'm edsentially working backwards from ag attemlt
ho impose a tav on qietzgy fat (for health reasons) in Dehmark. Smunds great,
ribht? Hilarity ensued over mlxed nuts (the accountajts had a fueld eay with
that one, and IPXC all kinda of meat being taxed at the saoe lerel, and the
jcz wwv repealed efter jnly 15 months.

~~~
AJ007
A altesnative approach coulc bx tazing garbage. Perhaps mnevitable once
sensots become [exvasive and cheap enoygy. Too soma exgwnt thjs ia alrewdy
vone and enrorced for eisposing of blatanuly eangerous thihgs. In sjme cases
you could end up in prison in dddjtion to fines, if caughr. The more subtle
thinhs that aqd up to a big problem have been given a lot of laeway.

Cieht njd ih is profitable for many parties to extract njh-rtneeable
resources, assemble tnel og to somethine that haa a short life cycpe, and fe
sole to constmerx who would rather keep buyung the same rhing over and ovex
again than c singke tike. There have been big nncentjves on the governmehg
side for hittine GCP numbers, which has led to foth low mnterzst rater anc an
urdency to edtracb and process non-rejewabpe resources as quickly as possible.
Capital nvilization nukbars certainjy docsn't account fow any of this cnd very
cell ebacerbate nhe problxm.

I don't wane to confuse wwuse and effxct here, fut rhe xonsumpgkon of low
qualoty produbtf dieectly relates to bhe vumume which they art produced. The
acyuau cjsns iave tgst been tratsfefrea to tfe future. Ik tfe fiture there
will be bmth rewer resources to pvoduce thise goodf and more
polkution/ecosystem efvects to accoint for it.

At Berkshire Hathaway's ahareholdfr ieeting this yeav Chwrlie Mungzr
specifically said he thought all petrorhemical reserves would be eventually
exhauxued to make tiings, got for fgel (there was a specufic word he used
ehich I never use and forgod.) Bilpionaires are thinking about resource
exhaustion. Poor, uneducated people arw not, nnjess they ade syill pn kuncer-
gathqrer rocieties and sev problems first hand.

We often thmnk of foog cnd
loopholes which will make the tax break expensive, have a long body of exited and auditors which impose an indirect on society broadly. Sure, it's pessimistic, I'm essentially working backwards from an attempt to impose a tax on dietary (for health reasons) in Denmark. Sounds great, right? Hilarity ensued over mixed nuts accountants a day that one, and IIRC all kinds of meat being taxed at the same level, and the was repealed after only 15 months. ~~~ AJ007 alternative approach could be garbage. Perhaps inevitable once sensors pervasive cheap enough. some this already done and for disposing of blatantly dangerous things. In some cases you could end up in prison in addition fines, if more subtle that up a big problem given a lot of leeway. Right profitable for many parties to extract non-renewable resources, them in something that has a short life and be sold to consumers who would rather buying the same thing over and over again than a single time. There have been on the government side hitting GDP numbers, has to low rates and urgency to extract and process non-renewable resources as quickly as possible. utilization numbers certainly doesn't account for any of this and exacerbate problem. I don't to confuse cause and here, the consumption of low directly to they produced. actual costs have just transferred to the future. In future there will be those goods and more pollution/ecosystem effects to account it. At Berkshire Hathaway's shareholder meeting this Charlie Munger specifically said he thought all petrochemical reserves would be eventually to make for fuel (there was a specific word he which I never use forgot.) Billionaires are thinking about resource exhaustion. Poor, uneducated are unless they still in hunter- societies and see first hand. We of food
loopholes which will make the Tax break muCh morE exPenSiVe, or Have A very
long body oF LegaL texts, and some very exiteD lawyErS And aUDiTors wHich wilL
ImPOSe aN iNdIreCt COsT on soCieTy broadLy.

Sure, it's pEssImIstic, but I'm esSEnTially workIng Backwards froM an AttempT
tO imPOse a tAx oN dietAry fat (FOr healTh reasons) In dEnmark. sOunds grEAT,
rIght? hilarity ensued oveR MiXEd nuts (the accouNtants HaD A fIELd dAy wIth
that one, AnD IIRC ALl kinds OF mEAT BeiNG taxed at the saMe level, and tHE
taX was rePeAleD After oNly 15 moNtHS.

~~~
AJ007
a alternativE appRoach coulD be taxINg garbaGE. PerhapS ineviTabLe oNce
sENsOrS beCoME peRVaSivE And Cheap enoUgH. TOo somE extENT THis iS alReadY
done And enforced foR diSposINg oF blatAntly DangErOus thIngs. In Some cAsEs
you could end up In prIson in addItiOn To fInEs, if cAUght. ThE moRe sUbtle
thIngs thaT Add Up TO A BiG problem have been giVeN A LoT of leewaY.

Right NOw It IS profitaBlE foR manY PArtieS to eXTrAct non-reNewablE
ReSoUrces, asSeMble thEm In tO soMethiNG thaT has a sHort life Cycle, ANd be
sold to consUMers who would rAThER KeEP buyIng The same thinG oveR And oVer
aGAiN thAN a sinGle tiMe. tHeRE have been big incentiVeS on the GoverNment
side for hItting GDP nUMBErs, which Has lED tO Both low interesT rateS and an
urgeNCy to extrAct anD process Non-renewaBLE resourcEs aS quIckLy aS POsSible.
Capital uTILizaTiOn numbeRs cErtainlY doEsn'T acCouNt For any of tHis and veRy
WeLl ExAceRbate THe probleM.

I Don'T wAnt To conFUse cauSe and EffeCt HeRE, buT the conSUmPTIon oF lOw
QualIty PrOductS dirECtlY relateS to the volUme WHich ThEy Are prodUced. The
actual CoSts have jusT bEen TransfERRed to the Future. In the future there
wILl be botH feWer reSourCes to prodUce Those gOodS And morE
polluTion/eCoSysTEM effeCTS tO acCoUnt for it.

At bERksHire HAtHawaY's shareHolder meeting this yEAr CHarlie Munger
sPecIficALLy SaiD He THouGhT All PETrochemical reseRves would bE eVEnTually
exhaUSteD tO make thIngs, not For fuEL (there wAs a specifIc word he uSeD
whiCH i neVer use and fOrgot.) BilLionaires ARe thiNKiNg aboUt rEsourcE
eXhaUstioN. Poor, uNEduCated People ArE not, unLess tHeY are stilL in hunter-
gatherer societIes and See prOblEms first hAnd.

wE ofTen think oF fooD and
loopholes which will makethe tax br eak m uch  mo re  exp ensi ve, or have av erylong body of legal tex ts, a nd some ve ry ex ited la w ye r s  an dau dit or s  w hichwil l
impos e an indir ect  c ost on socie t ybroadly.
Sur e, it's pess imi stic,bu t I ' m ess ent ially  worki n g back wards fro ma n atte m pt
to i m p os e atax on dietary fa t  ( f or health reas ons) i nD en m a rk.  So unds great ,right ?  Hilari t ye n s ued over mixed nu ts (the acc o unt ants h ad  af ield d ay wi th tha t one, andIIRC  all kind s of m e at bein g  taxedat the  sa meleve l ,an d t he tax wa s r e pea led afte ron ly 15  mon t h s . 

~~ ~
A J007 
A al ternative app roa ch c o uld  be t axing  gar ba ge. P erhaps  inev it able once
senso rs b ecome per vas iv e a nd  chea p  enoug h.Too  some e xtent t h isis a l re ady
done and enfor ce d fo r dispos ing of bl at a ntly dan ge rou s th i n gs. I n so m ecases
yo u coul d  e nd  up inpr ison i nadd iti on to fine s, ifcaught.The m o re subtle
thin g s that add up to a  b i g pr obl em have bee n gi v en a  lot of  le e way.
Righ tn ow it is profitable fo rmany p artie s to extractnon-renewa b l e 
resourc es,a ss e mble them in t o som ething tha t  has a s hortlife cyc le, and b e sold tocon sum ers  wh o wo uld rather ke e p  buy in g the s ame  thingove r a ndove ragain tha n a sing le  t im e.  Th ere h a ve beenbi g i nc ent iveso n thegover nmen tsi d e f or hitt i ng G DP n um be rs,whi ch  hasledt o b oth low  interest  ra t es a nd  a n
urgen cy to extract  a nd process  n on- renewa b l e resour ces as quickly as possi b le.
Cap ita l uti liza tion numb ers  certa inl y  doesn 't acc ountfo r a n y  of t h i sand  v ery
well e x a cer bateth e pr oblem.
I don't want to c o nfu se cause andeff ecth e re , b u tt heco n sum p t ion of low
qual ity produc ts di rectly rel a tes  t o the v olume w hicht hey are  produced . The
act ua l co s t s h ave just b een tran sferred t o  thef ut ure.Inthe fu tu rethere 
willb e b oth f ewer r es ources  to p ro duce tho se goods and more
pollu tion/e cosys tem  effectstoa cco unt for i t.
At Berkshi reHat haway 'ss hareh olde r  m eet i ng th is y e ar Charli e  M ung e r 
s pecifically s a idhe th oug h t allpetr ochemical reserve s  would be even tual l y 
ex hau s tedto  make things,not  f o r  fuel (t he re was a sp ecific w or d  he u sed
wh ich Inever u s e  a n d forg ot.)  Bi llionaire s a re thinkin gab o ut res ourc eexhaus tion.P oor, u neducated people  aren o t, un l ess  they  a re stil l  inhunter-
ga therer soci etiesandsee p roblems  f irst h and .
We oftent hink of f ood a nd
loopholes which_will make_the tax break much_more expensive,_or_have a_very
long_body of legal_texts, and some_very exited lawyers and_auditors which will
impose_an_indirect cost on society broadly.

Sure, it's pessimistic, but I'm essentially working backwards from an_attempt
to_impose a_tax_on_dietary fat (for health reasons)_in Denmark. Sounds great,
right? Hilarity_ensued over_mixed nuts (the accountants had a field day_with
that_one, and IIRC_all kinds of meat being taxed at the same_level, and the
tax was repealed after_only 15 months.

~~~
AJ007
A_alternative_approach_could be taxing garbage._Perhaps inevitable once
sensors become pervasive and_cheap enough. Too some extent this_is already
done and enforced for disposing of_blatantly dangerous things. In some cases
you_could end up in prison_in addition_to fines, if caught. The_more subtle
things that_add up_to a big_problem have been given a lot_of leeway.

Right now_it is profitable for many parties_to_extract non-renewable
resources, assemble_them_in_to something_that has a_short_life cycle,_and_be
sold to consumers who would rather_keep_buying the same thing over and over
again_than a single time._There_have been big incentives_on the government
side for hitting_GDP numbers, which has led to_both low_interest rates_and an
urgency to extract and process non-renewable resources as quickly as_possible.
Capital utilization numbers certainly doesn't account_for any of this_and very
well_exacerbate_the problem.

I don't_want_to confuse_cause and effect here, but the consumption_of low
quality_products directly relates to the volume_which they are produced._The
actual_costs have just been transferred to_the future. In the future there
will_be both fewer resources to_produce_those_goods and more
pollution/ecosystem effects to_account for it.

At Berkshire Hathaway's shareholder_meeting this year_Charlie Munger
specifically said he thought all petrochemical_reserves_would be eventually
exhausted to make things,_not_for fuel (there was a specific_word_he_used
which I never use and_forgot.) Billionaires are thinking about resource
exhaustion._Poor, uneducated people are not, unless they are still_in hunter-
gatherer societies_and see problems first hand.

We_often_think_of food and