Lifecycle cost of

A can of coca-cola might be sold for $1, but it actually costs way more than $1. Think about the issues it creates, like diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and litter. Those things add up. At the end of the day, coke ends up making a few cents in profit, but in doing so they are creating many dollars worth of harm. So, in effect, they are creating a net loss in the world.

But what about economic growth, deforestation, overproduction, and pollution? They're similar, but much worse. A few people get rich from it, but everyone else suffers. The suffering and damage outweighs any profits.

We need to rethink economics to consider the entire cost of something over its entire existence.

why did my title get messed up?

it was supposed to be 'Lifecycle cost of "cheap" things'

Yes, these are called externalities. Ideally government taxes industries to account for these costs, but muh economy muh endless economic expansion boomers get butthurt.

A gallon of cow milk may cost only $2 in the supermarket, but it costs:

- 2000 gallons of drinkable water
- shitloads of greenhouse gas (methane) into the atmosphere
- the poisoning of the ecosystem with toxic fertilizer
- the suffering of the animal and its separated newborn calf
- increased healthcare costs for the human consumer of the milk
- deforestation to grow soybeans and corn for the cow

The price is also only as low as it is because of subsidies to farmers; the government is doing the opposite of what they should here by making these harmful side effects more profitable. They also do the same for oil companies for the same reason. Boomers will rape the planet and all living beings on it just for their stocks to go up.

Unabomber was right. But nobody cares.

neurotic ecofaggot donnie darko

>>4
twitterbrain memetrog

>>5
correct

>>4
Unabomber was a retard who wanted to destroy all the good things about civilization to get rid of just some of the bad ones. Also insane and inane.