4 ms·

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo... > The

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo... > The Justice Department has opened an antitrust inquiry into the four major automakers that struck a deal with California this year to reduce automobile emissions

colejohnson66 7y ago
> Now, the Justice Department is investigating whether the four automakers violated federal antitrust laws by reaching a deal with California, on the grounds that the agreement could potentially limit consumer choice, those people said. That makes no sense at all. “We will comply with stricter emissions control without government intervention, so we signed a deal with California to formalize it.” Where would better emissions control harm consumer choice?
- rjf72 7y ago
  It kills the used market (as older vehicles are generally non-compliant) forcing consumers to buy at least relatively new vehicles.
  - bt848 7y ago
    That's not how these regulations work. There are no controls on the resale market in California. There is an emissions inspection regime but it's for SO2, not CO2.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    No it doesn’t. An agreement to make new cars with better emissions does not affect the used car market. Now, a regulation about enforcing those emission standards... that would affect the market.
  - taylodl 7y ago
    Surely the "consumer choice" argument doesn't apply to the used market? Besides, since LA is the city that practically invented smog why don't they have the right to regulate their air quality as they see fit? An emissions standard that works well in the great plains may not work so well in the great cities.
- stale2002 7y ago
  It would harm consumer choice to buy a cheaper car that has lower emissions standards.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    It’s the market solving the problem without government intervention. Isn’t that the whole premise of the Republican Party? “Let the free market solve itself”?
    - stale2002 7y ago
      > “Let the free market solve itself”? This specific situation violates anti trust law. It is illegal for a bunch of companies to come together and say "we all agree to not sell below this price", or "we all agree to not sell this cheap thing". Anti trust law is something that both parties support. It is not controversial to say that price fixing should be illegal. And this applies to both Republicans and democrats.
- derekp7 7y ago
  It has to do with anti collusion laws. Companies are not allowed to all agree to raise prices together, for example. And tougher pollution standards is more expensive to manufacture. So if any one company decided on their own to raise their own standards, they would be at a competitive disadvantage if everyone else was selling cheaper cars. So the only way to do this is to get everyone else to agree to the same thing. But that type of agreement is illegal, which is why companies will often lobby for tougher legal standards because everyone else would have to comply also.

colejohnson66 7y ago

> Now, the Justice Department is investigating whether the four automakers violated federal antitrust laws by reaching a deal with California, on the grounds that the agreement could potentially limit consumer choice, those people said. That makes no sense at all. “We will comply with stricter emissions control without government intervention, so we signed a deal with California to formalize it.” Where would better emissions control harm consumer choice?

rjf72 7y ago
It kills the used market (as older vehicles are generally non-compliant) forcing consumers to buy at least relatively new vehicles.
- bt848 7y ago
  That's not how these regulations work. There are no controls on the resale market in California. There is an emissions inspection regime but it's for SO2, not CO2.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  No it doesn’t. An agreement to make new cars with better emissions does not affect the used car market. Now, a regulation about enforcing those emission standards... that would affect the market.
- taylodl 7y ago
  Surely the "consumer choice" argument doesn't apply to the used market? Besides, since LA is the city that practically invented smog why don't they have the right to regulate their air quality as they see fit? An emissions standard that works well in the great plains may not work so well in the great cities.
stale2002 7y ago
It would harm consumer choice to buy a cheaper car that has lower emissions standards.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  It’s the market solving the problem without government intervention. Isn’t that the whole premise of the Republican Party? “Let the free market solve itself”?
  - stale2002 7y ago
    > “Let the free market solve itself”? This specific situation violates anti trust law. It is illegal for a bunch of companies to come together and say "we all agree to not sell below this price", or "we all agree to not sell this cheap thing". Anti trust law is something that both parties support. It is not controversial to say that price fixing should be illegal. And this applies to both Republicans and democrats.
derekp7 7y ago
It has to do with anti collusion laws. Companies are not allowed to all agree to raise prices together, for example. And tougher pollution standards is more expensive to manufacture. So if any one company decided on their own to raise their own standards, they would be at a competitive disadvantage if everyone else was selling cheaper cars. So the only way to do this is to get everyone else to agree to the same thing. But that type of agreement is illegal, which is why companies will often lobby for tougher legal standards because everyone else would have to comply also.