9 ms·
If it’s a valuable program someone else can do the work. Oh no, the government is not doing something… so someone can turn it into a business or start a nonpro
by newsclues 1y ago
If it’s a valuable program someone else can do the work.
Oh no, the government is not doing something… so someone can turn it into a business or start a nonprofit or academia can do something useful.
And government resources can help other more critical projects.
- whatshisface 1y agoThe government has a couple of things that a startup doesn't: 1. The trust of the public. (This is essential for certifications.) 2. The ability to borrow at the lowest interest rate. (This is mainly due to the above.) That makes spending to organize or coordinate the industry and the public a natural government activity.
- tomrod 1y agoAlso, provision of public goods.
- detourdog 1y agoOur New England town hall has on display the weights and scales that were used to regulate our local trade. Measuring energy usage seems like a natural expansion of this role. Even the empire had Imperial Bureau of Standards.
- anonym29 1y agoEnergy Star didn't only measure energy usage, it restricted freedom of trade between what were otherwise two parties voluntarily engaging in trade with no fraud, coercion, or deceit. Poor analogy.
- detourdog 1y agoI would need more information on the restriction of trade.
- tomrod 1y agoIt can't be provided since it is fake.
- margalabargala 1y agoEnergy Star is an entirely voluntary program. It restricted nothing.
- newsclues 1y agoThe trust is the energy star brand, not the organization that owns it. Also parts of the public do not trust government. Not sure why a long running and effective program needs government to borrow money, especially if industry finds the program valuable (enough to fund). I’m fine with government starting programs like this, but think they should eventually be divested and run as self sufficient organizations and not constantly be a drain on the taxpayer.
- whatshisface 1y agoWhy would anyone trust the EnergyStar trademark if it had been sold to an entity that was not trusted?
- margalabargala 1y agoEvery dollar spent on Energy Star yielded about $340 of consumer savings. How is this a "drain"?
- anonym29 1y agoThe government does not have the trust of the public. Presidential approval ratings in recent administrations have been under 50% on both sides of the aisle and Congress is even lower than that. If anything, distrust of government is nearly a core value inherent to being an American, again - regardless of which side you're on. Stonewall, George Floyd Protests, and Jan 6 were all protests against government, and they're all progress compared to the past, when these tensions would have instead started armed conflicts, like the anti-government sentiment that started both the revolutionary war and the civil war.
- wildzzz 1y agoPresidential approval ratings have little to do with the public's approval of the bureaucracy that sits in the background, quietly making their lives better
- anonym29 1y agoYou're of the opinion that the public's approval of the bureaucracy is higher, rather than lower? president > congress > nameless, faceless bureaucracy
- delfinom 1y agoThe problem is industry is under capitalism. They have all the incentive to start their own programs, numerous multiples of that are completely misleading and unfair to one up each other on marketing. Instead of their being one central neutral auditor.
- newsclues 1y agoIf your claim is the problem is capitalism, and that industry is beholden to it, your argument fails to consider the government’s relationship with capitalism.
- brookst 1y agoIt’s not perfectly transitive. Three things that can all be true: 1. Industry has no incentive to improve per-unit efficiency if it impacts price 2. Government is largely beholden to industry, especially in oligarch America. 3. A government efficiency mandate can be better than nothing.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y agoIf your claim is the problem is the government and/or it's relationship with capitalism, your argument fails to consider capitalism
- constantcrying 1y agoI don't know why you get down voted for saying something so sensible. You are exactly right. Industry can create their own certification scheme with some independent entity, which sets the certification standards. Energy star is not safety relevant, which is the one thing which government arguably should have oversight over.
- fzeroracer 1y agoWhy should the government have oversight over safety? If it's so critical, then the industry can create their own independent entity and safety scheme.
- constantcrying 1y ago>Why should the government have oversight over safety? Because the additional cost is worth it when lives are at stake. Cost doesn't mean just mean money. Government oversight creates significant friction and there needs to be a very good reason to accept that friction into an industry. Risk to human lives is one of the few things where it is sensible to introduce that friction.
- orwin 1y agoCan you help me remember what was the standard for charging small devices until a government took the reins and forced the industry to cooperate? Was it more or less friction for everyone? Government are there to prevent friction for its citizens, not for faceless entities.
- constantcrying 1y agoHow is mandating standards in any way relevant to the discussion? >Government are there to prevent friction for its citizens, not for faceless entities. Have you ever tried to get a safety critical system certified by a government authority?
- 1y ago
- fzeroracer 1y agoDoes your argument equally apply to things like food standards and safety? I'm curious where your cutoff for this is, or if you genuinely believe the government should provide no services at all.