4 ms·
The trouble is, the government gets constant complaints about services not working, or not being up to par with the public. The government should probably not b
by abakker 7y ago
The trouble is, the government gets constant complaints about services not working, or not being up to par with the public. The government should probably not be a proving ground for manufacturers that have not successfully delivered before. Instead, private enterprise can do that, and success with private enterprises should be a qualifying event for future public delivery.
An interesting observation, though, might be that consumer/public safety are opposed in some form to a truly competitive market. many companies could build vehicles that couldn't meet emissions or crash test requirements. But, if we want to guarantee those things, then it necessarily reduces the competitive pool to those enterprises willing to invest to be able to meet those standards. It is probably not of primary significance, but I like how policies aimed at saving consumers/the public from harm can also cause the public harm in the form of reduced competition and increased income inequality down the road.
- toyg 7y ago> consumer/public safety are opposed in some form to a truly competitive market. I had a relative in the chemical industry, and she was always bitching about this: "small players can never match the big ones in certain areas, because they can not afford the red-tape to certify this or that". On the other hand, these regulations exist for a reason - most legislators don't wake up in the morning excited to ban some obscure compound. I'd rather have fewer jobs and money, if I can be sure I won't be poisoned so that someone else can make a quick buck.