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.

▲

roughly 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

birdsongs 2 hours ago | parent | prev | 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 an hour 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.

▲

Nition 3 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?

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They mostly do keep unsold stock, only a fraction of it gets destroyed. See the EEA's full analysis from 2024 (https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/the-destr...).
	▲	philwelch 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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 3 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.