My apologies. Exactly what were your questioning when you asked about "my theories". My basic point (theory, if you will) is that recycling programs do not make economic sense when they must account for all costs associated with the overall activity. If all costs are included, from the point where the waste leaves the hand of the consumer, to the point of ultimate re-use or disposal, there is no municipal solid waste recycling program in the world that would make economic sense. The material involved is just not worth enough money to pay for all the costs.
I base my "theory" on common sense and my own experience. Take your average householder. Say he dedicates six square feet of interior space and ten square feet of exterior space for recycling, and invests $25 on durable materials (bins, trashcans, etc) required. Further suppose he spend just 15 minutes a week engaged in recycling activities, and produces the prodigious total of one can of plastic bottles, one-half can of aluminum, and a twenty pound bale of paper each week.
I'm going to commit math here, so forgive me...
Where I come from, interior residential space costs about $100 a square foot, but lets suppose this householder's cost is $50. Further estimate that his exterior cost is $10 per square foot, typical in the suburbs. Add this to his $25 for recycling materials, and you have a capitalized cost of $425.00. Given an 8% internal rate of return, his weekly cost of capital is 65 cents. Also assume that this person makes a living wage of $10.00 per hour. His weekly cost of labor is $2.50. So we have a total weekly cost of $3.15.
Now are you or anybody else in the world going to pay $3.15 for a can of plastic bottles, a half-can of aluminum and a twenty pound bale of newsprint, to be picked up from an individual house? It just doesn't make economic sense. The material is not worth that much, even if it were delivered directly to your processing facility.
The way recycling makes money, where it makes money, is because nobody compensates the householder.