The fact something is profitable (even vices) does not mean it requires regulations, unless the regulation in mind is direct or indirect cap on profit margins?

▲

0xffff2 a day ago | parent | next [-]

The missing regulation is some kind of tax or other disincentive against e-waste. I believe the premise of the GP is that such things can only be profitable if we chose to ignore their environmental impact.

▲

strbean a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's a lack of regulation to prevent negative externalities. Particularly with respect to waste management / product lifecycle.

	▲	rixed 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		...and consumption/dispersion/degradation of the finite/rare/precious resources used in the manufacturing process, which we could also factor in, if we wanted to be serious.

▲

palata a day ago | parent | prev [-]

E-waste like this exists because it's legal and profitable.

I believe that we as a society don't want e-waste (at least I don't). And when the society does not want something profitable to be done, it sets regulations.

If it wasn't illegal to steal your neighbour's car and sell it, then it would be profitable. But we as a society don't want it to happen.