4 ms·

> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out

> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out eventually.

naturalethic 13y ago
Government mandates are indeed arbitrary. Gold star.
- danielbarla 13y ago
  Granted, the Aus government has a history of over-protective, arbitrary mandates (e.g. hot tap regulations [1]). I don't feel strongly in either direction, although I have an aversion to silly and wasteful rules. That said, in the case of mandatory warranty policy, I can definitely see some merit. It definitely seems like certain appliances are being sold in a lemon market [2] (think blenders, etc), where the market is flooded with sub-standard, cheap products. These can become the norm and set overly low price expectations, making it difficult for good products to compete. How this applies to top-end smartphones is another discussion. I don't see why it should be difficult for a them to honor the policy, given their focus on quality. What's important is that all companies honor the mandate, and compete on an equal footing w.r.t. consumer expectations. [1] http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20Temperature%20and%20Scalds%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
  - venus 13y ago
    What's so arbitrary and over-protective about the tap regulations you linked to? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and the statistics presented about the decline in third degree burns is a great outcome. Isn't that exactly what government is supposed to do?
    - danielbarla 13y ago
      Perhaps it wasn't the best example in that sense, it seems they have done their homework. It was just the first one that came to mind, and I've heard several people express disgust with it (and other, similar regulations). Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about these types of things; on the one hand, they are probably correct, and they probably do more good than harm. On the other hand, having an over-regulated country might have a negative effect on both the competitiveness of the economy (companies having to navigate a minefield of regulations, driving costs up), as well as coming at the cost of personal freedoms (along the lines of: hey, if I want to have a tap running at 70 degrees, should I not be allowed to?). These are just silly examples, but I think you get the idea.
      - AngryHymen 13y ago
        The protectionism applied to our local book market doesn't make much sense. It's why my partner and I don't buy physical books here. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-the-lunacy-of-protectionism-writ-large/story-fn59niix-1226008398855 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-the-lun...
      - venus 13y ago
        I get what you're trying to say, but yeah, that's a bad example. I think it's extremely reasonable to regulate that things are safe by default - in fact, that is a core functionality of government. If you really want a tap that will output water hot enough to give 3rd degree burns in one second, I am sure that is possible, the point is that by default it does not. As for competitiveness, I'm not sure how having more burns victims being paid for by medicare is great for the economy, nor do I see how it's efficient for every homebuilder to be forced to go and become an expert on burns so they know exactly what delivery temperature their taps should be set to. It's far more efficient to have a central expert organisation do this research, then declare it the standard. I don't agree with it all the time, of course. Bicycle helmets would be my #1 example, where I think the regulatory authorities have made a big mistake not considering all the externalities and second order ramifications of their policy.

> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out eventually.

naturalethic 13y ago

Government mandates are indeed arbitrary. Gold star.

danielbarla 13y ago
Granted, the Aus government has a history of over-protective, arbitrary mandates (e.g. hot tap regulations [1]). I don't feel strongly in either direction, although I have an aversion to silly and wasteful rules. That said, in the case of mandatory warranty policy, I can definitely see some merit. It definitely seems like certain appliances are being sold in a lemon market [2] (think blenders, etc), where the market is flooded with sub-standard, cheap products. These can become the norm and set overly low price expectations, making it difficult for good products to compete. How this applies to top-end smartphones is another discussion. I don't see why it should be difficult for a them to honor the policy, given their focus on quality. What's important is that all companies honor the mandate, and compete on an equal footing w.r.t. consumer expectations. [1] http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20Temperature%20and%20Scalds%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
- venus 13y ago
  What's so arbitrary and over-protective about the tap regulations you linked to? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and the statistics presented about the decline in third degree burns is a great outcome. Isn't that exactly what government is supposed to do?
  - danielbarla 13y ago
    Perhaps it wasn't the best example in that sense, it seems they have done their homework. It was just the first one that came to mind, and I've heard several people express disgust with it (and other, similar regulations). Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about these types of things; on the one hand, they are probably correct, and they probably do more good than harm. On the other hand, having an over-regulated country might have a negative effect on both the competitiveness of the economy (companies having to navigate a minefield of regulations, driving costs up), as well as coming at the cost of personal freedoms (along the lines of: hey, if I want to have a tap running at 70 degrees, should I not be allowed to?). These are just silly examples, but I think you get the idea.
    - AngryHymen 13y ago
      The protectionism applied to our local book market doesn't make much sense. It's why my partner and I don't buy physical books here. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-the-lunacy-of-protectionism-writ-large/story-fn59niix-1226008398855 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-the-lun...
    - venus 13y ago
      I get what you're trying to say, but yeah, that's a bad example. I think it's extremely reasonable to regulate that things are safe by default - in fact, that is a core functionality of government. If you really want a tap that will output water hot enough to give 3rd degree burns in one second, I am sure that is possible, the point is that by default it does not. As for competitiveness, I'm not sure how having more burns victims being paid for by medicare is great for the economy, nor do I see how it's efficient for every homebuilder to be forced to go and become an expert on burns so they know exactly what delivery temperature their taps should be set to. It's far more efficient to have a central expert organisation do this research, then declare it the standard. I don't agree with it all the time, of course. Bicycle helmets would be my #1 example, where I think the regulatory authorities have made a big mistake not considering all the externalities and second order ramifications of their policy.