4 ms·

The entire purpose of these types of laws is to protect consumers against overwhelming corporate interests. Are you saying that all laws governing product quali

The entire purpose of these types of laws is to protect consumers against overwhelming corporate interests. Are you saying that all laws governing product quality are nonsense and that we should be relying entirely on the free market to protect our interests? Or do you just not like this particular law because you personally don't agree with it / don't care about device repairability?

mstodd 9y ago
I say they are all nonsense. I also don't trust people I've never met to make decisions for people they've never met. That aside, it's wrong to tell someone what they can and can't bring to market, and what someone can and can't be allowed to buy.
todd8 9y ago
The answers to your questions are no and no, but the reasons for my not wanting a repairable electronics law are economic, philosophical, and pragmatic/political. Naturally, consumers should be protected from fraudulent claims and misleading advertising. You are advocating something different, laws governing particular product qualities that you feel are important. Insisting on repairable electronics will increase the manufacturing costs (otherwise electronics would already be repairable due to price competition). The cost of repairable electronics will be born by everyone while the benefit goes to the people that care about repairable products. These costs seem hard to quantify and consumers preferences may change due to circumstances, but how can we fairly balance these trade offs? Who can we trust to be so wise and so impartial to shift the balance? Isn't it better to allow manufacturers to compete for consumers by making these trade offs? Isn't it better to allow consumers to make the choices themselves? Where is the line? Personally, I believe the line is somewhere around suitability for the purpose that a device is sold for. A printer should be capable of printing, otherwise the manufacturer has misled and committed fraud. But not every printer needs to be a color printer, not every printer needs to take inexpensive ink cartridges, not every printer needs to print on both sides of a sheet of paper. There are consumers that will choose printers that I wouldn't. I pay more for my printer because it uses larger less expensive ink that comes in less wasteful containers. I pay more for a printer that prints on both sides of a sheet of paper and saves paper. I hope that my printer is better for the environment, but many people wouldn't want to pay three times the cost of a basic printer for the printer that I use. Why is it right to take away the choices that others have? Why is it right to say only the rich can have a big screen TV that's repairable while others can't afford these new "better" but more costly TVs and consequently can't have any big screen TV? The reasoning that leads to this bill under discussion leads to all sorts of restriction on our ability to make choices in our lives. If you are sensitive about gluten, a law requiring gluten-free deserts at every restaurant might make sense; after all, I've had tasty gluten-free dishes. If you are allergic to peanuts, why not outlaw them in the state of Washington, because hey, we could all live without peanuts. There may be a day when all restaurants provide only gluten-free dishes; you can help them get there by opening your own restaurant and seeing if that's what consumers want. Likewise you can give your business to companies that you judge provide better products, whatever that means to you. Asking politicians to change the rules to restrict our freedoms seems like a bad idea. Just a couple more points: Generally, corporations are in life and death struggles with their competition. If a company can make a better product at the same price, consumers will buy it. If consumers want repairable electronics more than they want batter-life companies will compete on that basis. A big problem with regulations is that politicians can be lobbied to change the rules by corporations and special interests that have large vested interests. Smaller impacts spread across the entire population may make everyone worse off, but not by enough to move them to match the contributions of the special interests. I recommend the following video series by a Nobel Prize winning economist[1]: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

mstodd 9y ago

I say they are all nonsense. I also don't trust people I've never met to make decisions for people they've never met. That aside, it's wrong to tell someone what they can and can't bring to market, and what someone can and can't be allowed to buy.

todd8 9y ago

The answers to your questions are no and no, but the reasons for my not wanting a repairable electronics law are economic, philosophical, and pragmatic/political. Naturally, consumers should be protected from fraudulent claims and misleading advertising. You are advocating something different, laws governing particular product qualities that you feel are important. Insisting on repairable electronics will increase the manufacturing costs (otherwise electronics would already be repairable due to price competition). The cost of repairable electronics will be born by everyone while the benefit goes to the people that care about repairable products. These costs seem hard to quantify and consumers preferences may change due to circumstances, but how can we fairly balance these trade offs? Who can we trust to be so wise and so impartial to shift the balance? Isn't it better to allow manufacturers to compete for consumers by making these trade offs? Isn't it better to allow consumers to make the choices themselves? Where is the line? Personally, I believe the line is somewhere around suitability for the purpose that a device is sold for. A printer should be capable of printing, otherwise the manufacturer has misled and committed fraud. But not every printer needs to be a color printer, not every printer needs to take inexpensive ink cartridges, not every printer needs to print on both sides of a sheet of paper. There are consumers that will choose printers that I wouldn't. I pay more for my printer because it uses larger less expensive ink that comes in less wasteful containers. I pay more for a printer that prints on both sides of a sheet of paper and saves paper. I hope that my printer is better for the environment, but many people wouldn't want to pay three times the cost of a basic printer for the printer that I use. Why is it right to take away the choices that others have? Why is it right to say only the rich can have a big screen TV that's repairable while others can't afford these new "better" but more costly TVs and consequently can't have any big screen TV? The reasoning that leads to this bill under discussion leads to all sorts of restriction on our ability to make choices in our lives. If you are sensitive about gluten, a law requiring gluten-free deserts at every restaurant might make sense; after all, I've had tasty gluten-free dishes. If you are allergic to peanuts, why not outlaw them in the state of Washington, because hey, we could all live without peanuts. There may be a day when all restaurants provide only gluten-free dishes; you can help them get there by opening your own restaurant and seeing if that's what consumers want. Likewise you can give your business to companies that you judge provide better products, whatever that means to you. Asking politicians to change the rules to restrict our freedoms seems like a bad idea. Just a couple more points: Generally, corporations are in life and death struggles with their competition. If a company can make a better product at the same price, consumers will buy it. If consumers want repairable electronics more than they want batter-life companies will compete on that basis. A big problem with regulations is that politicians can be lobbied to change the rules by corporations and special interests that have large vested interests. Smaller impacts spread across the entire population may make everyone worse off, but not by enough to move them to match the contributions of the special interests. I recommend the following video series by a Nobel Prize winning economist[1]: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4