As I mentioned in my last post, I hypothesize that auto manufacturers benefit from laws that support the perpetuation of the status-quo. Here is the federal National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration list of standards and regulations for building a road-legal vehicle.
It's a dizzying list for anyone who's not accustomed to reading the federal law code, which is most of us. From parts, to bumper specifications, to airbag features, to turn signals, there's pretty much no way to modify or improve your car without violating or risking violating something in the federal law code.
It's a little known fact that the automobiles being sold us today by the major manufacturers, Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, Ford, Jeep, Dodge, just about any other you can think of, are more of a product of legislators than innovative companies. That is to say, no matter how much those cliche car commercials boast about the rampant innovations of their newest model, the car itself--the end result--isn't an innovation built from the ground up to be the most efficient car possible. Rather it's innovations built with the hundreds of federal codes and restrictions to innovation in mind. Instead of being built from the ground-up, the ground up is established by the federal laws.
Major manufacturers have had decades to perfect their designs, and learn to manufacture parts in the cheapest and most efficient way possible. The federal list of standards and regulations for automobiles does not pose an economic problem for these manufacturers, because they've grown their companies in the system, they've been able to adjust to the laws one at a time and invest the money where, and when necessary to abide by the code.
Opponents of the free market often criticize it for allowing monopolies to exist. It's a fact that mom-pop shops and other business start-ups may have a hard time turning a profit if they can't sell as low as the other more established businesses can. It's ironic, then, that the same opponents of the free market also support the overlegislation of standards that hurt business startups arguably more than the monopolies themselves.
Haven't you ever wondered why the auto companies can sell basically the same cars year after year? Sure, there's some innovation, as far as features go, but it's pretty minimal as far as anything that's really out of the status-quo. Besides power windows, a few more MPG, heated seats, DVD players, and some differences in size, there's almost no difference between the cars being sold right now and the cars that were being sold in the 1960's. Some would say we've even devolved in terms of quality. They basically do the exact same thing, get us reliably from Point A to Point B, with maybe a few more bells and whistles than before.
So why is it the manufacturers can still stick a price tag well exceeding $10,000 on any new car, and we have no choice but to continue buying at that price? There's a hundred ways one could design a road-ready automobile for well below $10,000. There's more than a few inventors that have already done so. The only thing standing in their way is laws which are created for our presumed safety.
Why aren't these inventors allowed to challenge the crony stranglehold on the auto industry? There's only one reason--they are restricted from competing because they don't have the initial investment to bring their company up to speed with all the "safety" laws that already exist, or to perfect their manufacturing processes to efficiently and economically accommodate those laws.
You should be angry at the U.S. because the technology for viable electric cars has existed for decades, and we're only starting to see the first ones right now. You should be angry at the U.S. because big oil and big auto support legislation that allows them to continue to make imperfect and ineffective cars using outdated energy sources, and squash their competitors under the weight of their influence. Every time you pay $60 or more for a tank of gas, you should be angry at the U.S. government that their supposed laws for "safety" are actually jeopardizing millions of Americans who can barely afford to pay the bills, let alone pay hundreds of dollars in gas every month. You should be angry that the laws which are supposed to make us safe on the roads actually make us unsafe in our wallets.
You should free up the market. You and only you can do it. You're the voters of our nation, you can support the legislators who want to limit the extent of legislation, the governors who want to let us largely govern ourselves, and the innovators who genuinely want to create new and better ways to do things, rather than support the status-quo.
I only ask that you keep in mind that regulations on corporate production oftentimes backfire by simply extending the problems they try to solve out to a different place, rather than fixing them. It's noble of us to want safety for everyone, but we should be careful that we don't end up hurting more people than we are helping in the process. Unfortunately, regulations oftentimes have a tendency to create corporate advantages for companies that are already in the status-quo, and limit the market penetration ability of new inventors that have better ways to do things, and end up hurting the consumer in the long run.
In closing, I'd like to recommend a short 9-minute video by Milton Friedman addressing the topic of who protects the consumer in a free-market economy. Perhaps if we understand the safeguards to protect the consumer already in place within the free market, we can understand the results of our intentions when we attempt to pile on additional laws to add more safety than what is already there.
No comments:
Post a Comment