4 ms·

>Paternalistic meddling with free consumer choices is always fraught with peril. Actually I'd say that governments typically get away with paternalistic meddin

• gaadd33 13y ago
  Aren't the CAFE standards to offset the emissions and damage caused by them since you can't directly bill that to an individual user of a specific car? It seems like it would be better to just add a carbon tax to gasoline but I assume that is significantly more unpalatable than the CAFE standards. Tesla's portion of a tax with similar intent is baked into the cost of electricity so consumers pay for it gradually rather than in a lump sum when purchasing the car.
• revelation 13y ago
  Conventional gas cars produce massive negative externalities that, if not accounted for (by charging any of the parties indirectly or directly involved in producing them), lead to market inefficiencies. The very nature of externalities makes it that they are very difficult to accurately measure, but rest assured, whatever extra cost new CAFE standards bring is not merely a drop in the bucket for the damage already produced and unremedied. So here the government is ensuring a more efficient and free market, not doing any "paternalistic meddling".
  • declan 13y ago
    Even if you're right about the "massive negative externalities," what makes you think the government's Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling here gets it right? Also, even Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling can lead to other massive negative externalities by significantly increasing the cost of new cars (see my link above). Then consumers are less likely to purchase newer cars that, all else being equal, tend to be safer. So we have more deaths. So, again, even if you're right about these "massive negative externalities," presumably meaning environmental effects, does that justify killing your fellow citizens by dooming the less affluent to drive older, less-safe cars?
    • YokoZar 13y ago
      Yes, economists will argue that gasoline taxes are a more efficient and effective way of getting what we want (an efficient amount of gasoline consumption that accounts for its external costs). Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons, so we have to do something else that's kinda like an indirect gas tax (reduces consumption, makes using it more expensive). I'm open to arguments about us going too far here, but at the same time I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good.
      • seunosewa 13y ago
        >> Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons What does that mean (in plain language)? Why should people accept it as an excuse for not choosing the more efficient solution?
        • repsilat 13y ago
          It isn't about what people should accept, it's about what they will accept. Voters aren't rational, and they're more likely to kick up a fuss about fuel taxes than vehicle taxes because it affects more of them in the short term. Maybe taxes on vehicles are more likely to be passed, and not much worse than taxes on fuel. In that case they may be worthwhile as a compromise solution. They're certainly not a better solution, though. Holding politicians to account for not being sensible is laudable, but more important is to make noise. Demonstrate that voters are rational in a way that they can recognise, and they might listen. Voting isn't enough, it just gets lost in the noise.
• andkore 13y ago
  >But I don't see Tesla's CEO fighting back against paternalistic governmental meddling that artificially raises the price of gas cars while producing artificial revenue for Tesla Tesla is benefiting from government intervention much more directly. I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned this yet. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/03/teslas-success-is-the-result-of-political-favoritism http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/20... Elon Musk is a hypocrite and no friend of free market capitalism.