12 ms·

That rule ain't changing unfortunately. Regulatory capture is STRONG with automotive and the US sees it as a matter of national security (car makers would be pi

That rule ain't changing unfortunately. Regulatory capture is STRONG with automotive and the US sees it as a matter of national security (car makers would be pivoted to other ares in times of war).

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
How easily could they retool for an event like that? I think I've just hatched a conspiracy theory for why all our vehicles are absurdly sized...
- Our_Benefactors 4y ago
  More easily than if the factory doesn’t exist at all.
- asveikau 4y ago
  I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that they started making them larger to avoid environmental regulation (which is pretty ironic). Here's the first google result for "large cars regulation loophole", looks like an interesting read: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo... Edit: prior HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35609521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35609521
  - llanowarelves 4y ago
    Thanks for the links. Why is the phrase "conspiracy theory" used for that though? Sounds like it's a value-judgement free decision from manufacturers to follow the incentives from the policy as we'd predict: way cheaper and less work to make those (now pretty popular) vehicles bigger than R&D and re-tool factories to make smaller and/or more efficient. It would need to be made more efficient to get smaller otherwise you lose power. Truck owners are comparing power (even if they dont use it, and it's sometimes just brand bragging rights) so that sounds like a worse option if you're making and selling them.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      It's value-judgement free if they had no hand in crafting or maintaining the loophole, but undermining popular policy with a loophole is a very common strategy for dodging regulation. If that's the case here then they aren't simply honest corporations just trying to sail the sea of incentives, they are more like a schoolyard bully who has grabbed an environmental cause by the hand and is doing the "why are you punching yourself?" maneuver.
      - llanowarelves 4y ago
        I don't disagree with you on that component of it existing. The thing about policy is usually somebody big is warning the public ahead of time that the "affordable healthcare bill" (for another example) isn't actually affordable healthcare (it's mandated health insurance), get called debby-downers/negative/hateful, and then it happens that way anyway due to lawmaker and corp PR pushing it through while everyone else cheers. Actually reading the bill and thinking/wargaming how it will apply deterministically with basic thought experiments is discouraged. And all "sides" do this, from incentives. I question the validity of the spirit of bills when it repeats like that so often. At some point that is the spirit of the bill. This is of course ignoring the revolving door, regulatory capture, and lobbying angles, which are always in play some (maybe huge) %. Also predictable and deterministic, from incentives.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        It's fascinating that you think this has to do with the spirit of the bill at the same time as you list off the forces holding that spirit captive. You didn't reason yourself into this position, so I don't think you'll be reasoned out of it.
        llanowarelves 4y ago
        Ok, without resorting to insulting you as you are me, according to you, is the 10th Amendment a loophole or not? More generally, are people doing things because they aren't stopped from doing so a loophole or not? Are loopholes a feature or a bug? Does it depend on intentions or how it's used to be called this, or not? More importantly, why don't judges tend to rule in the "spirit of the law" over what's actually the law, if that's so obviously the thing that should matter the most? Are you willing to sign contracts with me on that basis? And see which philosophy wins? Or do you just want to complain and show your disapproval of me? There's how things are and how they "should" be and simply describing it in terms of a constellation of competing actors and overlapping interests at different layers and forces that motivate them (not always easy to tell, and I've already left open and taken into account the whole spectrum of characterizations: intentional v not, malicious v not, passive v active. I have my own not-strongly held opinion on the car one while acknowledging all of that) means I'm not reasoning (unlike you). Got it.
  - cptskippy 4y ago
    > I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that they started making them larger to avoid environmental regulation (which is pretty ironic). Why is it a conspiracy theory? I'd love to cite GA's Clean Air Act as an example but the rule around qualified vehicles has been amended 11 times since it was enacted in 1996 and I can't figure out how to see previous versions of the rule. https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/391-3-20-.03 https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/391-3-20-.03
- seizethecheese 4y ago
  Check out US history during WWII. Auto manufacturing was even pivoted to airplanes. Things must be more specialized now but I assume it could still happen quickly. My personal belief is this also explains American bias towards planes over rail.
  - woooooo 4y ago
    Every country's history in WW2. Even Italy had tanks made by Fiat.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      One of the scariest things I’ve ever heard about WWII I kid!
    - sofixa 4y ago
      It's not really the same. Fiat were an industrial concern that made planes, tanks, cars, trucks, etc. from before the war, and did so during the war too. Afterwards they split up, with today Iveco (a merger with a bunch of others) being the successor for buses and trucks, Fiat remaining the car brand, CNH Industrial for industrual (tractors and co) stuff, the aviation business being split between GE Aviation and Leonardo, etc. Meanwhile in the US, Ford had a small aviation division that made one plane, closed their aviation business in 1936, but during the war converted their factories to mass produce bombers (most notably the B-24). Today manufacturing is vastly more specialised, and today's planes are drastically more complex than their predecessors. Nonetheless, even basic trucks are a very important component of modern wars(for logistics), so in case of war any automotive factory could be useful.
birdyrooster 4y ago
So what you are saying is Tesla is building China’s future factories for armor.
- pvarangot 4y ago
  Yeah the US surprisingly sees things as a national security issue only when they don't interfere with corporations profiting, and fuck it if they make stuff more expensive for the dying middle class.
- deelowe 4y ago
  Maybe not armor, but yes.
nostromo 4y ago
This isn't necessarily regulatory capture or protectionism. Half of all cars sold in the US are imported. Toyota, a Japanese company, is the most popular brand of car sold in the US. So, yes, you can import cars all you want, they just need to follow US safety and emissions standards. These cars do not meet those requirements, so you can't import them. If you didn't block them as imports, we'd have lots of people just go to Mexico and buy highly-polluting vehicles to save money, and our problem with smog in the border states would be much worse.
- civilized 4y ago
  > You can import cars all you want, they just need to be safe and not pollute. These cars do not meet those requirements, so you can't import them. I don't understand. If this were the case, it seems like the rule wouldn't make an exception for 25+ year old cars.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    That exemption exists for car collectors, who generally have a different set of safety expectations of their cars than you would buying a used car at a corner lot.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - _ea1k 4y ago
      Exactly, and circumventing it for vehicles that get regularly used will create a real risk that the rule will get stricter. I do think the rule is a little too strict, but its almost inevitable that something like it would exist.
    - derefr 4y ago
      Kind of weird that car collectors in the US can't collect modern foreign cars, though. Why not instead just have "accredited collectors" like there are "accredited investors"? Wouldn't that be simpler? "Get the piece of paper waiving your right to car safety, and then you can buy whatever stupid cars you like, as long as you don't drive them very often."
paws 4y ago
Regulatory capture sucks and seems like one of those problems that's deeper and more prevalent than people realize. I'm interested in learning where it was actually _curtailed_ in some measurable way e.g. due to the public pushing back, or other reasons. If you know of resources/studies on the pushback story, assuming there is one, would be appreciated.
adrr 4y ago
You can import a car that meets US requirements. Just do European delivery on a Porsche or Mercedes.
- deelowe 4y ago
  And both have large manufacturing presences in the US b/c it cuts costs. That's the incentive.
lern_too_spel 4y ago
Gas taxes are going to have to be replaced for funding road repairs. Might as well include a weight tax for vehicle registration.
dcow 4y ago
These days you’d think the US would do the same for compute power. I suspect microchip production will play a huge role in the next war.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Microchips for million dollar smart bombs are important but the ability to give every able-bodied person in the country a machine gun or a tank shouldn’t be underestimated. In the end war is about controlling land and infantry are the best at that.
- deelowe 4y ago
  They are. Foxconn and Quanta both have a presence in the US due to incentives. TSMC is building in the US. Intel gets subsidies to stay in they US. Etc...

That rule ain't changing unfortunately. Regulatory capture is STRONG with automotive and the US sees it as a matter of national security (car makers would be pivoted to other ares in times of war).

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

How easily could they retool for an event like that? I think I've just hatched a conspiracy theory for why all our vehicles are absurdly sized...

Our_Benefactors 4y ago
More easily than if the factory doesn’t exist at all.
asveikau 4y ago
I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that they started making them larger to avoid environmental regulation (which is pretty ironic). Here's the first google result for "large cars regulation loophole", looks like an interesting read: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo... Edit: prior HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35609521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35609521
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  Thanks for the links. Why is the phrase "conspiracy theory" used for that though? Sounds like it's a value-judgement free decision from manufacturers to follow the incentives from the policy as we'd predict: way cheaper and less work to make those (now pretty popular) vehicles bigger than R&D and re-tool factories to make smaller and/or more efficient. It would need to be made more efficient to get smaller otherwise you lose power. Truck owners are comparing power (even if they dont use it, and it's sometimes just brand bragging rights) so that sounds like a worse option if you're making and selling them.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    It's value-judgement free if they had no hand in crafting or maintaining the loophole, but undermining popular policy with a loophole is a very common strategy for dodging regulation. If that's the case here then they aren't simply honest corporations just trying to sail the sea of incentives, they are more like a schoolyard bully who has grabbed an environmental cause by the hand and is doing the "why are you punching yourself?" maneuver.
    - llanowarelves 4y ago
      I don't disagree with you on that component of it existing. The thing about policy is usually somebody big is warning the public ahead of time that the "affordable healthcare bill" (for another example) isn't actually affordable healthcare (it's mandated health insurance), get called debby-downers/negative/hateful, and then it happens that way anyway due to lawmaker and corp PR pushing it through while everyone else cheers. Actually reading the bill and thinking/wargaming how it will apply deterministically with basic thought experiments is discouraged. And all "sides" do this, from incentives. I question the validity of the spirit of bills when it repeats like that so often. At some point that is the spirit of the bill. This is of course ignoring the revolving door, regulatory capture, and lobbying angles, which are always in play some (maybe huge) %. Also predictable and deterministic, from incentives.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        It's fascinating that you think this has to do with the spirit of the bill at the same time as you list off the forces holding that spirit captive. You didn't reason yourself into this position, so I don't think you'll be reasoned out of it.
        llanowarelves 4y ago
        Ok, without resorting to insulting you as you are me, according to you, is the 10th Amendment a loophole or not? More generally, are people doing things because they aren't stopped from doing so a loophole or not? Are loopholes a feature or a bug? Does it depend on intentions or how it's used to be called this, or not? More importantly, why don't judges tend to rule in the "spirit of the law" over what's actually the law, if that's so obviously the thing that should matter the most? Are you willing to sign contracts with me on that basis? And see which philosophy wins? Or do you just want to complain and show your disapproval of me? There's how things are and how they "should" be and simply describing it in terms of a constellation of competing actors and overlapping interests at different layers and forces that motivate them (not always easy to tell, and I've already left open and taken into account the whole spectrum of characterizations: intentional v not, malicious v not, passive v active. I have my own not-strongly held opinion on the car one while acknowledging all of that) means I'm not reasoning (unlike you). Got it.
- cptskippy 4y ago
  > I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that they started making them larger to avoid environmental regulation (which is pretty ironic). Why is it a conspiracy theory? I'd love to cite GA's Clean Air Act as an example but the rule around qualified vehicles has been amended 11 times since it was enacted in 1996 and I can't figure out how to see previous versions of the rule. https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/391-3-20-.03 https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/391-3-20-.03
seizethecheese 4y ago
Check out US history during WWII. Auto manufacturing was even pivoted to airplanes. Things must be more specialized now but I assume it could still happen quickly. My personal belief is this also explains American bias towards planes over rail.
- woooooo 4y ago
  Every country's history in WW2. Even Italy had tanks made by Fiat.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    One of the scariest things I’ve ever heard about WWII I kid!
  - sofixa 4y ago
    It's not really the same. Fiat were an industrial concern that made planes, tanks, cars, trucks, etc. from before the war, and did so during the war too. Afterwards they split up, with today Iveco (a merger with a bunch of others) being the successor for buses and trucks, Fiat remaining the car brand, CNH Industrial for industrual (tractors and co) stuff, the aviation business being split between GE Aviation and Leonardo, etc. Meanwhile in the US, Ford had a small aviation division that made one plane, closed their aviation business in 1936, but during the war converted their factories to mass produce bombers (most notably the B-24). Today manufacturing is vastly more specialised, and today's planes are drastically more complex than their predecessors. Nonetheless, even basic trucks are a very important component of modern wars(for logistics), so in case of war any automotive factory could be useful.

birdyrooster 4y ago

So what you are saying is Tesla is building China’s future factories for armor.

pvarangot 4y ago
Yeah the US surprisingly sees things as a national security issue only when they don't interfere with corporations profiting, and fuck it if they make stuff more expensive for the dying middle class.
deelowe 4y ago
Maybe not armor, but yes.

nostromo 4y ago

This isn't necessarily regulatory capture or protectionism. Half of all cars sold in the US are imported. Toyota, a Japanese company, is the most popular brand of car sold in the US. So, yes, you can import cars all you want, they just need to follow US safety and emissions standards. These cars do not meet those requirements, so you can't import them. If you didn't block them as imports, we'd have lots of people just go to Mexico and buy highly-polluting vehicles to save money, and our problem with smog in the border states would be much worse.

civilized 4y ago
> You can import cars all you want, they just need to be safe and not pollute. These cars do not meet those requirements, so you can't import them. I don't understand. If this were the case, it seems like the rule wouldn't make an exception for 25+ year old cars.
- nostromo 4y ago
  That exemption exists for car collectors, who generally have a different set of safety expectations of their cars than you would buying a used car at a corner lot.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    Exactly, and circumventing it for vehicles that get regularly used will create a real risk that the rule will get stricter. I do think the rule is a little too strict, but its almost inevitable that something like it would exist.
  - derefr 4y ago
    Kind of weird that car collectors in the US can't collect modern foreign cars, though. Why not instead just have "accredited collectors" like there are "accredited investors"? Wouldn't that be simpler? "Get the piece of paper waiving your right to car safety, and then you can buy whatever stupid cars you like, as long as you don't drive them very often."

paws 4y ago

Regulatory capture sucks and seems like one of those problems that's deeper and more prevalent than people realize. I'm interested in learning where it was actually _curtailed_ in some measurable way e.g. due to the public pushing back, or other reasons. If you know of resources/studies on the pushback story, assuming there is one, would be appreciated.

adrr 4y ago

You can import a car that meets US requirements. Just do European delivery on a Porsche or Mercedes.

deelowe 4y ago
And both have large manufacturing presences in the US b/c it cuts costs. That's the incentive.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

Gas taxes are going to have to be replaced for funding road repairs. Might as well include a weight tax for vehicle registration.

dcow 4y ago

These days you’d think the US would do the same for compute power. I suspect microchip production will play a huge role in the next war.

bombcar 4y ago
Microchips for million dollar smart bombs are important but the ability to give every able-bodied person in the country a machine gun or a tank shouldn’t be underestimated. In the end war is about controlling land and infantry are the best at that.
deelowe 4y ago
They are. Foxconn and Quanta both have a presence in the US due to incentives. TSMC is building in the US. Intel gets subsidies to stay in they US. Etc...