3 ms·

Market never adapts to things that are more expensive short term - like cleaner energy sources. Why would you put yourself at a competitive disadvantage (and th

by janoc 9y ago

Market never adapts to things that are more expensive short term - like cleaner energy sources. Why would you put yourself at a competitive disadvantage (and thus lose money) if you aren't forced to? Sometimes the regulation is needed for thing that are actually in higher (i.e. not only shareholders' but entire society's) interest. Such as clean air or not wasting non-renewable fuels. That is not to say we should go batshit crazy and e.g. ban all non-electric cars now but look what has happened with e.g. solar and wind after the regulations went into effect. At the start solar was several times more expensive than fossil fuels (e.g. coal), nobody would touch it as it simply wasn't competitive. After the regulations on coal and other "dirty" fuels went into effect making them more expensive to use along with subsidies for the solar panels and such, solar experienced a boom and now solar energy is almost at the same price level as fossil one and the costs are still going down. Even oil companies are investing in it now massively - simply because it became profitable (plus it is a good PR ...) All the while we have got a chance to breath cleaner air and have fewer cancers, for example. Free market is not a solution for everything and especially in the US you have plenty of good examples where it made the situation beyond fubar - e.g. the healthcare system.

oftenwrong 9y ago
The American healthcare system is far from a free market. It's a single payer system for the poor and the elderly. Outside of those groups, people have few choices about which plan they use, as they are generally provided by an employer. The cost of healthcare also leaves little room for price comparison - the price is not known until after care is provided. That said, "beyond fubar" is a completely accurate of description of American healthcare.
CompelTechnic 9y ago
I wish somebody here were highly knowledgeable about the CAFE standards that are potentially being rolled back. The details we should be focusing on are the details of the tradeoff: How much incremental cost is added to the vehicle due to the standard? How much fuel efficiency is gained? Are there other tradeoffs (safety, etc) due to engineering constraints? The environmental tradeoff has to be weighed as well, of course. I remember seeing articles in the past that indicated the fuel efficiency targets were essentially unrealistic, and unattainable without drastically altering the lineup of cars available from a given manufacturer. Hard to dig them up though. Here are some (admittedly biased) links: Against CAFE: CAFE standards increase vehicle deaths due to lighter vehicle weights: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/why-the-governments-cafe-standards-fuel-efficiency-should-berepealed-not https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/why-the-governme... A more neutral article cheerleading CAFE: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-cars-meet-the-new-54-mpg-cafe-standards-yes-they-can/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-cars-m... The more neutral article does mention a handful of technologies that help reach the fuel efficiency targets. Seemed like a lot of engineering (and therefore cost).

by janoc 9y ago

oftenwrong 9y ago

The American healthcare system is far from a free market. It's a single payer system for the poor and the elderly. Outside of those groups, people have few choices about which plan they use, as they are generally provided by an employer. The cost of healthcare also leaves little room for price comparison - the price is not known until after care is provided. That said, "beyond fubar" is a completely accurate of description of American healthcare.

CompelTechnic 9y ago

I wish somebody here were highly knowledgeable about the CAFE standards that are potentially being rolled back. The details we should be focusing on are the details of the tradeoff: How much incremental cost is added to the vehicle due to the standard? How much fuel efficiency is gained? Are there other tradeoffs (safety, etc) due to engineering constraints? The environmental tradeoff has to be weighed as well, of course. I remember seeing articles in the past that indicated the fuel efficiency targets were essentially unrealistic, and unattainable without drastically altering the lineup of cars available from a given manufacturer. Hard to dig them up though. Here are some (admittedly biased) links: Against CAFE: CAFE standards increase vehicle deaths due to lighter vehicle weights: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/why-the-governments-cafe-standards-fuel-efficiency-should-berepealed-not https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/why-the-governme... A more neutral article cheerleading CAFE: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-cars-meet-the-new-54-mpg-cafe-standards-yes-they-can/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-cars-m... The more neutral article does mention a handful of technologies that help reach the fuel efficiency targets. Seemed like a lot of engineering (and therefore cost).