Asymmetrical Information

wow. and its not just mr. fawrup. there is a whole unit (!) investigating empty cans and bottles.

Cost-benefit analysis, Jane! Don't be so quick to criticise. If Fawrup's (and this unit's) collective budget and payroll are less than the amount saved by discouraging out-of-staters to redeem bottles and cans in CA, then they would be helping the budget, not hurting it. And that doesn't sound implausible to me.

Wide-spread redemption fraud costs CA hundreds of dollars a year, a threat only over-shadowed by War on Terror.

CA is annoucing today, the "NARF" (No Alien Redemption Fraud) Program. NARF!

"What are going to do tomorrow Brain?"

"Same thing we do every day Pinky, Take over the world!"

"Yes Pinky, by using the NARF program we will eradicate redemption fraud, parlay our new found political power into a move to the Governor's mansion and then into the White House. Once there it is only a short step to - World Domination."

"Gee, Brain that sounds keen...NARF!

TRUE CONFESSIONS

I used to bring cans from Chicago to Grand Rapids, MI when I was in college to cash in on the deposit moolah.

I live in Rhode Island, which is surrounded by states requiring deposits on bottles and cans. Our demand is too low for smaller brewers to justify shipping separate non-deposit bottles here. Every trash day, scrappers come around to pull all the deposit bottles out of the recycling bins. The folks in Mass. better get one of them bottle deposit fraud units!

So, what are you saying? If our state government does something that may or may not be stupidly wasteful, but in any case that we didn't know about, we should hang our heads in shame and say "I guess we brought this on ourselves, so we have no right to complain about anything the government does"?

Interesting.

I'm sure this is just a weird coincidence, but the state controller of California, Steve Westley, is a former E-Bay employee and major stockholder. Surely a stand-up guy like him (he spoke at Extreme Makeover in Boston this year) wouldn't be concerned enough about the public image of his company so as to pressure anybody into going easy on these investigations.

Heh.

That's interesting -- I was under the impression that the machines in grocery stores that scan cans and bottles for deposit return reject out-of-state cans.

(I've seen it before, actually.)

Out of state cans are rejected in Iowa.

Now that they've speedily resolved the investigation of the multi-billion-dollar energy fraud by Enron et al, the state budget should soon be restored by the return of the stolen money. Right?

Oh wait, that was Martha Stewart that got a speedy trial. Never mind.

Maybe after the election...

Like Peter vE, I live in L'il Rhody, and should like to point out to those who say out-of-state cans can be rejected that the local Coca-Cola bottler is in Rhode Island, and that is where many border stores get their supplies: no way to distinguish between RI-bottled-and-bought vs RI-bottled-bought-elsewhere as yet. And we have "local" soft-drink brands from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, as well as "micro-brewery" beers sold inter-state. I have noticed that the border stores that do redemption limit the amount of payout to $6 per trip, cutting down on the profitability of collecting from trash.

Pity, in a way - I used to do it and made enough money to buy gas so I could get to employment interviews. Still could in an emergency, I suppose, it was only about six bucks a week.

And this has what, exactly, to do with California's budget problems?

I believe a Mr. Newman and a Mr. Kramer proved that the recycling scam is not economically feasible; unless, of course, it is Mother's Day.

Well, another probably 6 figure salary, plus staff to stop what is most likely less than 6 figure fraud, and people wonder what's wrong with the idea.

What happens to the poor out-of-state cans
that are rejected? Is there no santuary
available for them?

I don't see the problem. You have limited resources, and you have to put them where the need is greatest.

As another poster pointed out, California loses hundreds -- literally hundreds -- of tax dollars a year to out-of-state redemption fraud.

As for eBay fraud -- I don't what eBay is, I don't know what the internet is, and I don't use a computer. I have people who do all that for me. So I don't see a problem there.

It seems like the better solution would be to abandon the bottle redemption program altogether. That's certainly cheaper.

As I recall, these guys bilk the state out of hundreds of thousands of dollars each, re, re, re-cycling cans that have already been returned for deposit.

You should do a search on this, it's a serious theft and fraud problem taking adantage of the generous nature of our state.

...I know your posters are trying to make light, but honestly, this isn't about out of state cans being mixed in with the in-state cans.

Well Crissa, I do indeed understand how terrible it is for those nasty out-of-state cans to be mixing with in-state cans.

Can't have that, now can we? Pun not intended.

Bottle redemption fraud costs California anywhere from a low estimate of $5 million to a high of $40 million. I guess that makes it worth assigning someone to stop it. They have actualy caught people coming into California with truckloads of bottles.

Before you turn all snarky and snide, perhaps you really should take 2 minutes to investigate and see if you could be wrong.

You should do a search on this, it's a serious theft and fraud problem taking adantage of the generous nature of our state.

Is that actually the generous nature of your state, or just the state returning money that (under normal, non-fraud conditions) was charged to the consumer in the firs place?

I ask because I know MI has a policy that refunds 10 cents per can or bottle, but that was because they CHARGED the buyer ten cents per receptacle at the point of sale. An out-of-state redemption costs the state money, yes, but not because of generosity...

Perhaps an explanation of what this is all about is a bit overdue.

California is one of those states that collects a deposit on cans and bottles. The problem is when someone brings in a whole load of cans and bottles originally sold in another state where no deposit is charged, and collects the California deposit "refund".

Obviously there is a major weakness in the whole state-by-state deposit scheme here (especially when states that are small and close together have differing deposit policies, as with RI, CT, and MA), at least as long as the cans and bottles aren't coded state-by-state as well.

Looks like these guys are worth the cash shelled out.

And looks like Jane owes Our Fair State an apology. I won't expect it, however.

Gee, another class of crime made possible in the first place by government meddling. If the ransom scheme of charging consumer a deposit to artificially create a value for their transport to a recycler didn't exist there would be no basis for the crime and no need for an investment in law enforcement to combat it.

If there is genuine value in recycling without the ransom scheme it shouldn't be necessary to have the scheme. If it is necessary to make recycling happen on a large scale doesn't this suggest that there is something seriously wrong in the recycling value equation?

Alternately, seeing as federal functions have grown at such a horrifying pace in my lifetime, why can't they take on responsibility for the ransom scheme and make what state the items are recycled in a moot issue? Might it actually be more efficient to do something at the federal level for once?

Comments are Closed.