If companies are taking raw materials worth more than zero, and turning them into clothing worth less than zero, then I think deterring them from doing that is beneficial to society overall.

▲

cperciva 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If they knew in advance that the clothing wouldn't sell, they would never have made it!

But companies stockpile goods in anticipation of potential demand. For example, they'll "overproduce" winter coats because some winters are colder than average. This sort of anti-overproduction law means that the next time there's an unexpected need -- for example an unusually cold winter -- there will be a shortage because there won't be any warehouses full of "just in case" inventory.

▲

birdsongs 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Do we really need warehouses full of "just in case" inventory? It's not life or death, it's just slightly more profitable for companies to overproduce than it is for them to attempt to meet demand exactly.

Climate change is coming, fast and brutal. I'm okay with these multi-billion-dollar revenue companies making a few points less in profits, if it means slowing climate change by even a fraction of a fraction of a point.

They don't need those profits. But our children need a viable planet.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Companies can't meet demand exactly, no matter what profit margin they take, because it's not possible to predict demand exactly. Biasing towards overproduction is how you minimize the risk of shortages when there's a bit more demand than you expected.

▲

roughly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So they externalize the cost of their own incompetence and you’re suggesting it’s bad to internalize that cost.

▲

Nition 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could they overproduce and keep unsold stock for next winter, and if unsold stock gets too high, stop producing more until it reduces?

	▲	philwelch an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They could, but it’s a tradeoff. Inventory costs money and if you cut production, that means laying off workers and possibly selling productive assets, at which point it becomes more expensive to scale production back up. Every business decision is a tradeoff. Smart government interventions in the economy add weight to that tradeoff to reflect externalities not otherwise accounted for; this is how cap-and-trade on SO2 emissions works. Hamfisted government interventions set hard and fast rules that ignore tradeoffs and lead to unintended consequences.

▲

Swenrekcah 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems to me that is exactly what could be enabled by this law. It is forbidding the destruction of last year’s winter coats.

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What about cases where 2 pieces of clothing when bundled together have value due to making it more efficient for people to find the right size, but over the right size is found the other becomes waste? A company can't prevent a consumer from ruining the wasted clothes.

	▲	1718627440 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How low is your population density, that there is no other person, who might have this size? > A company can't prevent a consumer from ruining the wasted clothes. When a consumer ruins clothing during try on he needs to buy it. I have always expected that rule to be the same everywhere.