4 ms·

People can already freely choose to buy goods with comparatively longer, clearer, better-honored warranties, which would put upward pressure towards your 10 yea

by ponow 8y ago

People can already freely choose to buy goods with comparatively longer, clearer, better-honored warranties, which would put upward pressure towards your 10 year goal. Unfortunately, providing that protection is expensive for manufacturers, who understandably pass it on to buyers. It appears that buyers prioritize lower upfront cost rather than better warranties, a trade-off that ought to be theirs to make.

liotier 8y ago
> It appears that buyers prioritize lower upfront cost rather than better warranties, a trade-off that ought to be theirs to make. Not just an individual choice but a social choice too, therefore the State has a role to play. In trading lower upfront cost for shorter life, consumers produce externalities such as pollution and raw materials depletion. The State must reinternalize those externalities and the mechanism to do that is either regulatory (mandatory 10 year warranty) or fiscal (recycling tax).
- ponow 8y ago
  The term "social choice" is unnecessarily confusing, and should be deprecated. I don't believe you're referring to a population as a whole making a choice, but rather a population having to endure a consequence of an individual choice. Thus the individual is potentially committing a tort. I have been accumulating unrepaired gizmos in my hoard. When is a tortious act committed? Only when I concede that I will never repair an item? What if I combined parts into a combination? I can't escape the thought that even choosing to possess an unrepairable item will be regarded as a Wrongful Act.
Double_a_92 8y ago
The standards would also put pressure on the consumer. It worked in the EU with Vacuum cleaners. People preferred to buy the vacuums with more wattage because they tought they would be stronger. But that just punished manufacturers that developped energy efficient motors. So some regulation was appropriate.
User23 8y ago
I don't want a warranty. I want a quality product that won't fail for some predictable use life rather than a piece of junk that I can get a "free" replacement for. Of course it's only free if I don't value my time or the lack of use of the product for the duration of the warranty process. Inevitably the manufacturer erects bureaucratic barriers to minimize the real cost of the warranty on their crap. The only time a warranty is worth anything to me is when it's so costly to the manufacturer to honor it that they have a compelling incentive to make a quality product that won't break. Warranties in this class are usually for a good long period, 10 years or more.
vbezhenar 8y ago
There are people who would sell their kidney to buy new iPhone. That's a little extreme, but generally people can't decide what's really better for them, they don't see a whole picture. If you drive a car, you must have insurance for your liability in case you damaged someone's car. A lot of people would choose not to buy that insurance if there wasn't law about it.

by ponow 8y ago

liotier 8y ago

> It appears that buyers prioritize lower upfront cost rather than better warranties, a trade-off that ought to be theirs to make. Not just an individual choice but a social choice too, therefore the State has a role to play. In trading lower upfront cost for shorter life, consumers produce externalities such as pollution and raw materials depletion. The State must reinternalize those externalities and the mechanism to do that is either regulatory (mandatory 10 year warranty) or fiscal (recycling tax).

ponow 8y ago
The term "social choice" is unnecessarily confusing, and should be deprecated. I don't believe you're referring to a population as a whole making a choice, but rather a population having to endure a consequence of an individual choice. Thus the individual is potentially committing a tort. I have been accumulating unrepaired gizmos in my hoard. When is a tortious act committed? Only when I concede that I will never repair an item? What if I combined parts into a combination? I can't escape the thought that even choosing to possess an unrepairable item will be regarded as a Wrongful Act.

Double_a_92 8y ago

The standards would also put pressure on the consumer. It worked in the EU with Vacuum cleaners. People preferred to buy the vacuums with more wattage because they tought they would be stronger. But that just punished manufacturers that developped energy efficient motors. So some regulation was appropriate.

User23 8y ago

I don't want a warranty. I want a quality product that won't fail for some predictable use life rather than a piece of junk that I can get a "free" replacement for. Of course it's only free if I don't value my time or the lack of use of the product for the duration of the warranty process. Inevitably the manufacturer erects bureaucratic barriers to minimize the real cost of the warranty on their crap. The only time a warranty is worth anything to me is when it's so costly to the manufacturer to honor it that they have a compelling incentive to make a quality product that won't break. Warranties in this class are usually for a good long period, 10 years or more.

vbezhenar 8y ago

There are people who would sell their kidney to buy new iPhone. That's a little extreme, but generally people can't decide what's really better for them, they don't see a whole picture. If you drive a car, you must have insurance for your liability in case you damaged someone's car. A lot of people would choose not to buy that insurance if there wasn't law about it.