Metal Theft Prevented by Governments and Regulation?

[Richard_Cowell]

Sorry, working.

A few different points which Ill reply to:-

RE getting the dealer to shop the thief:-

The victims don’t know which metal trader will be approached by the thief, so they will need to make a deal with all metal dealers, and this deal may have to be different to encompass the different market conditions prevalent in that locality. Also all potential victims will need to do this to prevent their theft. The dealers would not know which victim the theft had occurred from. It would require a massive amount of coordination, and whilst I agree the market eventually would be able to react and co-ordinate this in the steady state, I disagree that it would react quickly to quickly changing circumstances. The government does not prevent victims from approaching metal dealers and offering rewards at present and yet this is not done for the practical reasons mentioned above.

Additionally, the theft itself is value destroying as the value of the metal is far less than the value of the destruction.

Re how do I know this?:-

The government told me, as the government is the focal point for this information. It seems to me there are two possibilities here:- Either the government is misleading me for corrupt ends, or the government is not. Without access to the numbers I cannot know which. However, I am personally happy that this example presents at least a theoretical context where the government does have a sound economic case for regulating. Now even of in this context the numbers have been skewed to mislead, I do not believe that in all other practical cases we know for certain that the government has acted corruptly. In my view the government is innocent until proven guilty on each and every count. I don’t think the government can be found guilty on all counts because found guilty on some (which I agree it has been). Therefore I do have faith that in some areas regulation is necessary.

Sell the metal in Europe?

This will increase the cost and risk to the thief, surpassing the benefit to them, and force them into not stealing, is the theory.

Why not a problem in America?

Don’t know - regulation, metal prices and practicalities of stealing (metal coverage, ease of guarding, ease of stealing) are all different in a different country, no doubt.

Why recent surge?

Metal prices have apparently risen lately, and also people in Britain are more unemployed and have lower state handouts than a few years ago.

Enforcement vs. loss costs?

AS mentioned the government has access to these numbers. So it is unfortunately a matter of trust in the government. But in theory it is true that enforcing regulation that deters companies from dealing in stolen metal costs less than the losses of not doing so. The concept here is that the metal is worth much more to the victim than the thief. So prevention of stealing is way more economical than the loss.

Regulation should prevent stealing

It is not regulation vs. no regulation. It is whether increased regulation drives the costs of stealing above the market value of metal.

[Autolykos]

@Richard Cowell

Metal prices have apparently risen lately, and also people in Britain are more unemployed and have lower state handouts than a few years ago.

And what caused those things to happen?

I hope you see my point, which is that this situation cannot realistically be taken in isolation.

@Richard Cowell

AS mentioned the government has access to these numbers. So it is unfortunately a matter of trust in the government. But in theory it is true that enforcing regulation that deters companies from dealing in stolen metal costs less than the losses of not doing so. The concept here is that the metal is worth much more to the victim than the thief. So prevention of stealing is way more economical than the loss.

I, for one, don’t have trust in the government. Why do you (apparently)?

What theory are you referring to? Please spell it out for me.

If the metal is worth much more to the owner than the would-be thief, wouldn’t the owner then be motivated to try to prevent stealing on his own?

@Richard Cowell

It is not regulation vs. no regulation. It is whether increased regulation drives the costs of stealing above the market value of metal.

In a free market, wouldn’t scrap-metal dealers wish to drive the costs of stealing above the market value of the scrap metal anyway?

Maybe what’s going on in the UK today is that the scrap-metal dealers - at least the big ones - are trying to distribute the enforcement costs onto a larger group of people (taxpayers) by getting the government to do the “dirty work”. If so, I wouldn’t be surprised - this drives a lot of business regulation.

[MaikU]

“if law was so good at preventing bad behavior the ten commandments would have prevented murder for the past several centuries. Once it is acknowledged government regulation does not prevent anything the discussion can advance”

nice said, fella.

[Wheylous]

That is actually an epic thought.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So prevention of stealing is way more economical than the loss.

You keep making these assertions. Since there is no supporting evidence to argue I will make an appeal to common sense.

It is more expensive to prevent theft than it is to steal. The market place has developed wonderful alternative solutions to theft prevention costs… INSURANCE!!!

Hey Bob I think I can save you some money. You are presently paying $x.xx per month in security. I will sell you an insurance policy for less than what you are presently paying in security and cover any losses or damage you incur arising from theft. Plus I will save you the head ache of managing security personell, payroll, etc. This is a win win Bob. It saves you time, money, and I get a new customer.

You are correct. It is not regulation vs. no regulation. It is not whether regulation effects the cost of stealing because it doesn’t. If you really want government to increase the costs of theft, government might as well create a new occupational license for thieving so thieves can become properly licensed. Government could also provide some limited immunity to properly licensed thieves for certain kinds of theft. Oh wait… government already does that… they are called Police. No flippen wonder minor traffic “infractions” are a couple hundred dollars… government run stealing is expensive!

The question is who has the responsibility to protect their property. In the market example above the market worked out a fair, efficient way and that was sell insurance to property owners, you know the person(s) who benefits from property ownership. I reckon insurance companies figured out there wasn’t much demand in the market of customers willing to pay insurance for someone else’s property.

But what you want to do with your so called regulation is force people to pay for the property ownership risks of other people yet at the same time try to sell me on the ridiculous idea it is not forcing people to pay for the property ownership risks of other people.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Richard Cowell

[…] but the key point here is that down-sizing he state and de-regulating is in no-ones interest.

How so? Is not in the interest of metal theives to have metal theiving de-regulated?

[Kakugo]

Speaking from experience… most European countries already have similar legislation in place. Did it work? Judging from the theft of metal (mostly copper) I’d say not. Evidently there are more than a few unscrupulous scrap metal dealers who managed to find a way around the rules since, invariably, nobody gets caught. Last year around here there was a spate of manhole covers thefts. Again controls on scrap metal dealers were increased and again nobody was caught. Apparently regulating the business doesn’t work to stop theft.

On the issue of private security… in my area there’s an increasing number of shut down factories. Since the ground they sit on is often heavily contaminated, the properties are nigh on worthless. However these buildings often contains something of great value: miles and miles of heavy gauge copper wire. The older the building, the better since copper wires made a couple decades ago were of higher purity than what’s commonly available today. Owners of these buildings (mostly banks) have increasingly started to post private security guards to save the potential goldmine: before you could just drive up with a van in the middle of night, rip as much copper wire as you could and drive away without anybody noticing. Did it work? Well, metal thieves have switched their attention to an unlikely target: cemeteries. Cemeteries are publicly owned and, apart from a very few exceptions, invariably unguarded.

[Jargon]

The victims don’t know which metal trader will be approached by the thief, so they will need to make a deal with all metal dealers.

Granted

and this deal may have to be different to encompass the different market conditions prevalent in that locality.

Hmm, could you elaborate on this phenomenon of different market conditions over localities?

Also all potential victims will need to do this to prevent their theft. The dealers would not know which victim the theft had occurred from.

Yes. Simple, metal comes in, call up the metal-men. If one of them is missing metal, then they come in and pick it up.

It would require a massive amount of coordination, and whilst I agree the market eventually would be able to react and co-ordinate this in the steady state, I disagree that it would react quickly to quickly changing circumstances.

Which circumstances?

The government does not prevent victims from approaching metal dealers and offering rewards at present and yet this is not done for the practical reasons mentioned above.

Wat.

Additionally, the theft itself is value destroying as the value of the metal is far less than the value of the destruction.

What is being destroyed? It is indeed expensive for metal-men to buy back their metal. Here’s an easy fix. Metalmen call scrapbuyers, pay them money to not buy any scrap without ID and an address. Thereafter every purchase of scrap would either be legitimate or conducive to arrest. Simple.

The government told me, as the government is the focal point for this information. It seems to me there are two possibilities here:- Either the government is misleading me for corrupt ends, or the government is not. Without access to the numbers I cannot know which. However, I am personally happy that this example presents at least a theoretical context where the government does have a sound economic case for regulating. Now even of in this context the numbers have been skewed to mislead, I do not believe that in all other practical cases we know for certain that the government has acted corruptly. In my view the government is innocent until proven guilty on each and every count. I don’t think the government can be found guilty on all counts because found guilty on some (which I agree it has been). Therefore I do have faith that in some areas regulation is necessary.

Really you think so? Let’s look at this critically? What are the incentives for government telling you the truth? What are the incentives for government lying to you? What are the incentives for regulating or de-regulating?

Technically the government can never be ‘innocent until proven guilty’, since its existence necessarily depends on criminal action.

Metal prices have apparently risen lately, and also people in Britain are more unemployed and have lower state handouts than a few years ago.

Ever wonder why?

AS mentioned the government has access to these numbers. So it is unfortunately a matter of trust in the government. But in theory it is true that enforcing regulation that deters companies from dealing in stolen metal costs less than the losses of not doing so. The concept here is that the metal is worth much more to the victim than the thief. So prevention of stealing is way more economical than the loss.

It is true? Where does it say that? How can you measure the losses when the money that is expropriated to enforce the regulation is money that will never be invested in its original path, of which there are many? How do you so faithfully assert that it is less expensive for the state to guard peoples metal than it is for people to guard their own metals?

I love how regulation has become the pavlovian buzzword. Regulation is everything orderly, rational, sensible, for-the-greater-good, common-sense. Deregulation is everything reckless, dangerous, corporate-sycophantic, etc. I honestly believe that most people follow this kind of connotation-heavy thinking (more feeling than thinking really), and reading posts like this only reinforces the notion.

[MaikU]

@Kakugo

Again controls on scrap metal dealers were increased and again nobody was caught. Apparently regulating the business doesn’t work to stop theft.

don’t be such narrow-minded. We just need more regulation, pf…

[Kakugo]

@MaikU

@Kakugo

Again controls on scrap metal dealers were increased and again nobody was caught. Apparently regulating the business doesn’t work to stop theft.

don’t be such narrow-minded. We just need more regulation, pf…

My bad, I forgot to include “Shocking news!”