[bert]

——and make very hefty profits-—

The thrust of the article belies that statement

they actually incur very hefty losses. Those losses, the economic reason for not recycling, clearly show there is no valid reason for recycling everything on a grand scale

[BfloGuy]

Those losses, the economic reason for not recycling, clearly show there is no valid reason for recycling everything on a grand scale

Exactly right. Prices mean something.

And the low prices for some recycled materials are an indication that more energy, resources, and manpower are needed to recycle them than to discard them and buy new. It's not dissimilar to ethanol which requires more energy to make than it ultimately provides.

But that concept is one that few leftists will bother to try and understand.

[wintertime]

I have not followed this topic so maybe someone can enlighten me.

Question:

If all trash were dumped in a landfill wouldn't those recyclable materials remain there? Then if the market ever demanded recycled materials wouldn't entrepreneurs know exactly where to find and figure out how to dig them back up again?

[ArtDodger]

“The thrust of the article belies that statement”
I would suggest not believing everything you read in an article. Scrap is a tremendously profitable business. Of course, when you put the president’s 6 (or 7) figure salary in the overhead column, they might not show any net income. But if one believes that, than it should be no problem taking the Clinton’s at their word that they are ‘dirt poor’.