Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale, a tale of a shopping carnival. This won’t be a story of a fateful trip, but instead some of the best blog entries to come out of the world of shopping…….

@Gaming the Credit System: From the IKEA spokesperson’s quoted text: “… But we know our customers want to help and support the sustainability of our planet – for today – and for the future of our children.” That sounds like they’re assuming I have the same values they do. And you’re right — the presentation bugs me. It seems like they are trying to distract the issue, much in the way a pickpocket bumps into you or has his buddy distract you while he’s grabbing your wallet. That bugs me. And I don’t quite agree that IKEA’s and Ukrop’s are doing the same thing — I now get less for the same amount of money at IKEA (same price, no bags) whereas Ukrop’s takes money for the bags right off my bill if I don’t use them.

@Patrick: I re-use them in many of the same ways you do.

@Michael: I’m not sure we disagree exactly. It’s the presentation by IKEA that bugs me. If you want to charge me for bags, that’s fine, Just do it and move on. Don’t cover it with layers of BS.

Like the guvernator said, make it sexy…

An outright prohibition pisses customers off mightily.

“Costco doesn’t use bags” is disingenuous: Costco doesn’t sell most of their things in packages small enough their lack of bags matter. Your friendly neighborhood grocery or Ikea would quickly run out of boxes if they tried something similar.

Economically speaking, “Sin taxes” have a wide acceptance places where outright prohibition causes backlash of a prolonged nature . People get pissed at first about sin taxes, but they cause a subtle and gentle acceptance of the new behavior over time. (You buy less booze that you would otherwise because of how expensive it is. The sin tax on it is effective). The “Wiskey Rebellion” is an exception on this matter.

Sure, someone collects the money from a sin tax. Always happens that way. However the behavior it’s against does lessen. And people don’t get so up in arms about it that they tar and feather you in the village square, or in the case of Ikea, throw out 10% of their customer base.

I know this is a finance blog, but Americans as a whole need to learn to waste less. Recycling plastic means less raw petroleum to produce new plastic. On a large scale the decreased petroleum demand could reduce the cost of gas. Granted, the scale would have to be large, but many people don’t tend to think about things like that.

It’s the same thing with all recycling, and using more energy efficient products. Less energy consumption equals lower prices and more resources for everyone. At least until people come up with new ways to waste energy…

Let’s assume that the two places (now just Store A and Store B) sell the same products at the same prices. So if you buy Product X from both A and B, and they give you a plastic bag, you pay $1.00 at each place. At Store A, the “sticker price” of Product X is $1.00 but they rebate you $0.03 when you use your own bag. At Store B, the “sticker price” is $0.97 but they charge you $0.03 to buy a plastic bag. They’re the exact same thing! But you seem to prefer Store A.

At both places, you have an economic incentive to not use plastic bags, but you still have the option to do so. It’s just the way that the option is presented to you that seems to get your goat.

You say they’re “assuming that your values are the same as their values.” Well, not really — that’s why they’re charging you for it! Their values are clear. Your values are not. If they assumed that you agreed with their values, then yes, they would just drop bags completely. They are charging you for bags to give you a reason to support their values — it’ll save you money, which any rational person can see is in their own best interest. Their reasoning is “Even if customers don’t want to support the environment, surely they will want to save money, so we can create a program that can do both.”

CK, I don’t really mind that they’re giving me the choice of purchasing bags. What I disagree with is how they’re blowing sunshine my direction and making assumptions that my values are the same as their values in order to further their ends.

As another example, I was asked on two recent flights to give up my aisle seat. One person asked me directly. The other one approached it by saying that “it was my turn to get the window seat.” I don’t really care about the window seat, it wasn’t “my turn,” and the real purpose was for me to give her my seat.

Does that answer your confusion? If not I’ll try again.