Cars are better today and more affordable than ever. Safer, more fuel efficient, stylish(arguable), and more reliable than they have ever been in history. All this despite the terrible regulations stifling the poor automotive business, who are selling more cars than EVER. We have never been in a better position as automotive consumers than we are today. Convince me that regulations didn't help us get here...
As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras.
Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with.
Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years.
It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...).
Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them.
And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance.
Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now.
Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?
Ehh, make 'em cost 20% more than they do now. People buy too many cars already. I'm not sure why buying a new car is seen as a good thing when most people are discarding a perfectly usable car to do it. I like buying older cars, fixing them, then selling them a year or two later in better shape than I bought them in. If new cars were more expensive maybe more people would maintain the ones they've got. So I'm not going to lament the hypothetical loss of dealership sales.
Regulations seem to work pretty well, we've got cleaner air than at any other time in my life. We've got safer , more efficient cars and safer roads. Why would we back off of it then? Give me a reason other than so we can employ more blood sucking car salesmen and pillage what little is left of the middle classes wealth even more.
The regulations do cost a lot of money and the cost gets passed to consumers, but, we benefit from it. The 20% of cost per vehicle they quote includes things like crash testing, emissions testing, fuel economy testing, airbags, safety belts, not dumping oil into the ocean, etc.
When you say "many can be done away with", I don't agree. There are some stupid ones for sure, but not most. If they were not to sensationalize the story and actually list the regulations they are talking about and the actual cost of implementing them, we would agree that most are good.
OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras....
You confusion is justified. The article is pretty crappy. It claims to be how regulations are costing car dealers, shows a picture / video at the top of car being manufactured (!), then uses an example of water drainage regulations (certainly not a dealer only law). If this is an article about the general cost of regulations, why do they title it as to being about dealerships?
It then somehow wanders into manufacturer regulations and how expensive those are.... again, a very unfocused, poorly executed article.
I may have made some fairly inciteful (HAH PUNS) posts on GRM but i sure as hell never linked to Fox News!
On the other hand, even Fox News carried an article about how Tesla payed off their goverment startup loan 9 years early...
Is that the same great Tesla model of business that requires the government to give them HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of tax payers dollars just to keep building cars?
Wait, did you say hundreds of BILLIONS? Loooooool
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Flight Service: Who exactly are you referring to as "they"?
Every conservative pundit, or GOP talking head on the boob tube.
OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras. Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with. Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years. It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...). Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them. And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance. Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now. Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?
YOU EARTH POISONER!!! YOU WANT TOXIC AIR AND WATER!!!!
I'll be your huckleberry.
Yeah some of the regs from a manufacturers side has caused the cost of cars to jump up, purchase, maintenance, and operating.
But what costs could a dealer incure? Are they talking about F&I, the disclaimer sticers, or all the documentation that they have to give you if you read will let you catch them lying?
Personally I think it is an inflated number, as most of these are.
In reply to Flight Service:
Pundits, conservative or liberal, express opinions. Unfortunately many people mistake these opinion shows for news. Its not, it's entertainment. I have never heard an actual news program on Fox or anywhere else advocate eliminating regulations. To say so, which is what your statement sounded like, just adds to the vast amount of mis-information on the internet.
dculberson wrote: Ehh, make 'em cost 20% more than they do now. People buy too many cars already. I'm not sure why buying a new car is seen as a good thing when most people are discarding a perfectly usable car to do it. I like buying older cars, fixing them, then selling them a year or two later in better shape than I bought them in. If new cars were more expensive maybe more people would maintain the ones they've got. So I'm not going to lament the hypothetical loss of dealership sales. Regulations seem to work pretty well, we've got cleaner air than at any other time in my life. We've got safer , more efficient cars and safer roads. Why would we back off of it then? Give me a reason other than so we can employ more blood sucking car salesmen and pillage what little is left of the middle classes wealth even more.
I too enjoy tinkering with old cars, as do we all on this board.
But, why would you arbitrarily decide that 20% more for a car is a good thing? You are deciding what happens with your neighbor's budget, and that's not your call to make.
People who aren't mechanically inclined and who want to get to work reliably buy new cars (and for a host of other reasons, surely) - and manufacturing produces more wealth than simply maintaining old cars.
If you wish to expand the middle class, buy something. It creates jobs.
And, the march of technology, driven by the profit motive to produce a better product at the same cost as a competitor is always going to be a driver, and produce some great resutls in terms of efficiencis. Cars or smart phones, same deal.
Why does everyone assume that to be anti-OVERregulation incompatible with wanting to take good care of the world we live in?
There is a way to do it and a way not to. Ask the farmers in central California about their financial ruin, the reduced food supply/increase in consumer pricing because they can't produce goods, all becaues environmental regulations have cut the water supply they depend on to prouce crops? Is some "endagnered" sucker fish or frog or pigmy owl really more important than that? There's your "middle class squeeze" right there.
From the article, does it really make sense to spend a few thousand bucks to re-whicker building downspouts so the water flows slower? Or certifying mechanics for suspension products that are really no longer used?
Willing to bet if the money was coming out of your pocket, you'd say no.
Flight Service wrote:OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras. Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with. Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years. It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...). Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them. And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance. Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now. Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?YOU EARTH POISONER!!! YOU WANT TOXIC AIR AND WATER!!!! I'll be your huckleberry.
Beautifully done.
You creep. 
bigfoot21075 wrote: Is that the same great Tesla model of business that requires the government to give them HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of tax payers dollars just to keep building cars?irish44j wrote: I have no pity for most car dealers, sorry. And NADA can suck it. Car dealers exist (seemingly) solely to screw their customers both on the sales and the service side, and to make profits off of shady repairs that aren't needed, sales add-ons that aren't needed, and taking advantage of the general populace's ignorance of cars. Granted there are certainly dealers who don't do this stuff (or, at least, do less of it than others), and some sales/service people who aren't shady. But in my experience that's not the majority. If all car dealers changed to the Tesla model, the world would be a far, far better place, at very least on the sales side. They'd probably make more money too, in the end. As to Fox News screaming about over-regulation.....what else is new? I'd like it if all Fox News employees were forced to buy and service their cars at a dealer that was totally unregulated regarding fraud, safety, and environmental standards. I'm sure it would be a great, great place....
hundreds of billions of dollars 
Exaggerate much? Tesla got a $465 million government LOAN (which has been repaid), and yes there are tax credits for Tesla buyers (as there are for buyers of other electric cars, so I guess Toyota and GM have bad business models too by that logic).
I guess you could count the "zero-emissions" credits that it sells to other car companies (which get about $50 million a year), but that's actually a good part of a business model if you can profit off your competition, even if it is a government-mandated program.
Add it all up, and maybe you get to a billion dollars total. Not "hundreds of billions," mr. dramatic.
in any case, I was referring to the no-pressure, store-style dealers as the positive.....I know 3 people with Teslas. Each one of them loves their car dealer. I can't say I know ANYONE else who loves THEIR car dealer, lol.
OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras. Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with. Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years. It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...). Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them. And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance. Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now. Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?
Look, it's not that I like all regs. Hell, I was just bitching the other day about the stupid backup-camera one (does a Miata really need one?). I can think of plenty of things on cars that I don't personally need (blind spot warning, for example), but plenty of people probably both need and want.
But let's be honest....most new car technology (especially in the safety aspect) is derided at first by the "purists" but then turns out to be a pretty good idea. Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure that "regulation" is why we have ABS, airbags, mandatory stability control, etc. Again, not things that ALL of us want, but things that are positives for the general populace who otherwise would cheap out and not get them if they didn't have to.
As to building codes and stuff.....cry me a river. When I modify my house I have to get permits and respect the property code. NOt sure that his building drainage is a "regulation abuse" ..... probably just a standard building code item.
And Geoff Pohanka (local dealer, and his brothers also own local dealers) sells cars in a highly affluent area (Fairfax County, look it up). And trust me when I say he is certainly not hurting for money. The Pohanka dealers are constantly upgrading their facilities, their showrooms, and his brother has a nice huge yacht out on the Chesapeake that guzzles more gas in a day fishing trip than my car does in a year....
This isn't about "consumer freedom" or "helping the consumer." This deregulation thing is just about makign more profits for the dealers. It's not like they're going to lower the price of the cars 20% if regulation goes away. They're just going to make 20% more profit selling for the same price as before. You know this ;)
irish44j wrote:OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras. Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with. Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years. It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...). Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them. And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance. Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now. Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?Look, it's not that I like all regs. Hell, I was just bitching the other day about the stupid backup-camera one (does a Miata really need one?). I can think of plenty of things on cars that I don't personally need (blind spot warning, for example), but plenty of people probably both need and want. But let's be honest....most new car technology (especially in the safety aspect) is derided at first by the "purists" but then turns out to be a pretty good idea. Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure that "regulation" is why we have ABS, airbags, mandatory stability control, etc. Again, not things that ALL of us want, but things that are positives for the general populace who otherwise would cheap out and not get them if they didn't have to. As to building codes and stuff.....cry me a river. When I modify my house I have to get permits and respect the property code. NOt sure that his building drainage is a "regulation abuse" ..... probably just a standard building code item. And Geoff Pohanka (local dealer, and his brothers also own local dealers) sells cars in a highly affluent area (Fairfax County, look it up). And trust me when I say he is certainly not hurting for money. The Pohanka dealers are constantly upgrading their facilities, their showrooms, and his brother has a nice huge yacht out on the Chesapeake that guzzles more gas in a day fishing trip than my car does in a year.... This isn't about "consumer freedom" or "helping the consumer." This deregulation thing is just about makign more profits for the dealers. It's not like they're going to lower the price of the cars 20% if regulation goes away. They're just going to make 20% more profit selling for the same price as before. You know this ;)
"cheapout" - yes, and why should we tell them they must? Are all those safety features great? Absolutely. Knew a lady who sold her 240Z for a Volvo because she wanted the safety (I was offered the Z, excellent car, at a fair price, and didn't buy it - feel free to shoot me now...). I'd have prefered the Z. Should we then take all the Z's off the road because they're unsafe? Can I not take that risk if I choose?
Let each buyer decide.
Building codes - see City of Tucson. City stupidity costs people opening businesses thousands - saw projects delayed when inspectors said "no it wasn't" and the NEC said "yes it was" (and installed by professional electrical contractors who knew their stuff backwards and forwards).
Yes, we should meet codes, safe for all of us - but a water spout with a specified flow rate? Really?
20% more profit - If the dealer down the street has the same car and takes your deal at 18% or 15%, rates drop until supply/demand reaches equalibrium - you save 3 or 5% on a car you're willing to part with your money to acquire, dealer makes a profit - is this bad?
Dealer buys boat - boat maker makes a profit, and employs boat maintenace people, boat sales people, they buy cars/gas/groceries/movies, economy grows, etc... - is this bad?
Horse dead, I shall whip it more... 
OldGray320i wrote:irish44j wrote:"cheapout" - yes, and why should we tell them they must? Are all those safety features great? Absolutely. Knew a lady who sold her 240Z for a Volvo because she wanted the safety (I was offered the Z, excellent car, at a fair price, and didn't buy it - feel free to shoot me now...). I'd have prefered the Z. Should we then take all the Z's off the road because they're unsafe? Can I not take that risk if I choose?OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras. Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with. Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years. It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...). Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them. And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance. Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now. Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?Look, it's not that I like all regs. Hell, I was just bitching the other day about the stupid backup-camera one (does a Miata really need one?). I can think of plenty of things on cars that I don't personally need (blind spot warning, for example), but plenty of people probably both need and want. But let's be honest....most new car technology (especially in the safety aspect) is derided at first by the "purists" but then turns out to be a pretty good idea. Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure that "regulation" is why we have ABS, airbags, mandatory stability control, etc. Again, not things that ALL of us want, but things that are positives for the general populace who otherwise would cheap out and not get them if they didn't have to. As to building codes and stuff.....cry me a river. When I modify my house I have to get permits and respect the property code. NOt sure that his building drainage is a "regulation abuse" ..... probably just a standard building code item. And Geoff Pohanka (local dealer, and his brothers also own local dealers) sells cars in a highly affluent area (Fairfax County, look it up). And trust me when I say he is certainly not hurting for money. The Pohanka dealers are constantly upgrading their facilities, their showrooms, and his brother has a nice huge yacht out on the Chesapeake that guzzles more gas in a day fishing trip than my car does in a year.... This isn't about "consumer freedom" or "helping the consumer." This deregulation thing is just about makign more profits for the dealers. It's not like they're going to lower the price of the cars 20% if regulation goes away. They're just going to make 20% more profit selling for the same price as before. You know this ;)
We're the wrong community here, because we are the very few who probably can fix our cars and do pay attention when driving (maybe...). But I don't want the general "cheap" consumer to be able to buy a car with lap belts, no airbags, and no ABS. Why? Because they'll wreck more, be more unsafe on the road, and cause my insurance rates to go up. Should consumers be required to use radial tires? Third brake light? The "cheap" buy probably thinks he's fine without all this stuff. He didn't have them in 1965 after all, and he survived that fine, right? lol....
Pretty much moot anyhow, since dealers will still put all that crap in "option packages" and force you to buy them anyhow, since the great majority of buyers want safety items anyhow, and dealers buy what sells the best (see: automatic transmissions and "save the stick")
Building codes - see City of Tucson. City stupidity costs people opening businesses thousands - saw projects delayed when inspectors said "no it wasn't" and the NEC said "yes it was" (and installed by professional electrical contractors who knew their stuff backwards and forwards).
I'm not disagreeing about bureaucracy screwing things up sometimes. But as someone who used to renovate and build houses, I can tell you that without strong code enforcement you'd see a lot of shoddy houses putting residents in danger. Homebuilders don't self-police on that stuff. They build as cheap as they are legally able to, to maximize profit.
Yes, we should meet codes, safe for all of us - but a water spout with a specified flow rate? Really?
That's pretty standard in construction, so you don't have wildwater rapids pouring off the top of tall buildings in a downpour. Pohanka showrooms aren't short buildings, lol. If the roof is leaking, that's because the builder/roofer didn't do it right, not because of the building code or "flow rate is too slow." His complaint should be with whomever designed and/or built his building. High-rises have ultra-slow flow rates and flat roofs, but aren't complaining. IDK, that's an argument I've never heard during the time I worked in that industry (I asked my brother about it just now, who is a civil engineer and he didn't seem to think that there is any problem with slowing the flow rate. YMMV).
20% more profit - If the dealer down the street has the same car and takes your deal at 18% or 15%, rates drop until supply/demand reaches equalibrium - you save 3 or 5% on a car you're willing to part with your money to acquire, dealer makes a profit - is this bad?
You're assuming that NADA would let its member dealers get into a price war like that. NADA doesn't like competition, which is why GM had so much trouble closing down under-performing dealers. The dealer unions treat dealers like a jobs program and are all "in it together" I would bet.
Dealer buys boat - boat maker makes a profit, and employs boat maintenace people, boat sales people, they buy cars/gas/groceries/movies, economy grows, etc... - is this bad?
Not arguing that it's bad. I was just pointing out that he isn't hurting for money due to excessive regulation. By that logic, they should raise the prices on all cars 10% so he can buy a BIGGER boat "to help the economy." Trickle-down economics has some truth to it, but is overall a fallacy created by those with at the top of the trickle.
Horse dead, I shall whip it more...
The horse is never dead on the interwebs, when it's raining outside and it's a boring Wednesday evening.
And don't take any of that personally....I like to debate things, that's all. After all, you own an e21, so you're clearly a cool dude in person
In reply to OldGray320i:
I think you're missing the point. The water situation in California is restricted because there is a record drought going on. The health of fish species was part of the decision, I don't know what the long term impacts of killing that species is, that's why we have regulators and scientists. What if the sucker fish dies which affects some other industry?
As mentioned, without regulation, common consumers don't understand mechanics enough to make good safety decisions. With our litigious society, they'll choose not to get airbags and when they die in an accident, their family will sue.
All this is very short sighted, putting profit in front of all else. Go live in China for a while, you'll catch a glimpse of what light regulation and unbridled capitalism looks like, it's not great.
irish44j wrote:OldGray320i wrote:We're the wrong community here, because we are the very few who probably can fix our cars and do pay attention when driving (maybe...). But I don't want the general "cheap" consumer to be able to buy a car with lap belts, no airbags, and no ABS. Why? Because they'll wreck more, be more unsafe on the road, and cause my insurance rates to go up. Should consumers be required to use radial tires? Third brake light? The "cheap" buy probably thinks he's fine without all this stuff. He didn't have them in 1965 after all, and he survived that fine, right? lol.... Pretty much moot anyhow, since dealers will still put all that crap in "option packages" and force you to buy them anyhow, since the great majority of buyers want safety items anyhow, and dealers buy what sells the best (see: automatic transmissions and "save the stick")irish44j wrote:"cheapout" - yes, and why should we tell them they must? Are all those safety features great? Absolutely. Knew a lady who sold her 240Z for a Volvo because she wanted the safety (I was offered the Z, excellent car, at a fair price, and didn't buy it - feel free to shoot me now...). I'd have prefered the Z. Should we then take all the Z's off the road because they're unsafe? Can I not take that risk if I choose?OldGray320i wrote: As someone pointed out in the thread, it is hard for me to read; the article was dealer regs, not mfg regs, and my mind jumped to the stupid mandate for back up cameras. Point being, regs cost a lot of money, and many of them I think can be done away with. Before some idiot thinks I want polluted air and toxic waste water to drink, no, (and what an assenine comment to make anyway... I digress) but the regulations and mandates for so many things are out of control - and I belive many of them impact what kind of new car I can go out and buy, be it every 8-10 years or not. And at this point in my life, that interval would shrink because my income has increased over the years. It impacts the price, and the figure in the article was substantial, on average (if you think $180K and isn't a lot of money, send it to me...). Skimming the article, I can't believe anyone here wouldn't agree with them. And it does mention that 20% of the Mfg's cost is compliance. Yes, cars today are better/faster/more reliable/safer, and they could be so at less cost than we pay now. Again, why would moving a few more cars in to circulation be a bad thing, or for dealers to make a profit by selling a few more?Look, it's not that I like all regs. Hell, I was just bitching the other day about the stupid backup-camera one (does a Miata really need one?). I can think of plenty of things on cars that I don't personally need (blind spot warning, for example), but plenty of people probably both need and want. But let's be honest....most new car technology (especially in the safety aspect) is derided at first by the "purists" but then turns out to be a pretty good idea. Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure that "regulation" is why we have ABS, airbags, mandatory stability control, etc. Again, not things that ALL of us want, but things that are positives for the general populace who otherwise would cheap out and not get them if they didn't have to. As to building codes and stuff.....cry me a river. When I modify my house I have to get permits and respect the property code. NOt sure that his building drainage is a "regulation abuse" ..... probably just a standard building code item. And Geoff Pohanka (local dealer, and his brothers also own local dealers) sells cars in a highly affluent area (Fairfax County, look it up). And trust me when I say he is certainly not hurting for money. The Pohanka dealers are constantly upgrading their facilities, their showrooms, and his brother has a nice huge yacht out on the Chesapeake that guzzles more gas in a day fishing trip than my car does in a year.... This isn't about "consumer freedom" or "helping the consumer." This deregulation thing is just about makign more profits for the dealers. It's not like they're going to lower the price of the cars 20% if regulation goes away. They're just going to make 20% more profit selling for the same price as before. You know this ;)Building codes - see City of Tucson. City stupidity costs people opening businesses thousands - saw projects delayed when inspectors said "no it wasn't" and the NEC said "yes it was" (and installed by professional electrical contractors who knew their stuff backwards and forwards).I'm not disagreeing about bureaucracy screwing things up sometimes. But as someone who used to renovate and build houses, I can tell you that without strong code enforcement you'd see a lot of shoddy houses putting residents in danger. Homebuilders don't self-police on that stuff. They build as cheap as they are legally able to, to maximize profit.
Yes, we should meet codes, safe for all of us - but a water spout with a specified flow rate? Really?
That's pretty standard in construction, so you don't have wildwater rapids pouring off the top of tall buildings in a downpour. Pohanka showrooms aren't short buildings, lol. If the roof is leaking, that's because the builder/roofer didn't do it right, not because of the building code or "flow rate is too slow." His complaint should be with whomever designed and/or built his building. High-rises have ultra-slow flow rates and flat roofs, but aren't complaining. IDK, that's an argument I've never heard during the time I worked in that industry (I asked my brother about it just now, who is a civil engineer and he didn't seem to think that there is any problem with slowing the flow rate. YMMV).
20% more profit - If the dealer down the street has the same car and takes your deal at 18% or 15%, rates drop until supply/demand reaches equalibrium - you save 3 or 5% on a car you're willing to part with your money to acquire, dealer makes a profit - is this bad?
You're assuming that NADA would let its member dealers get into a price war like that. NADA doesn't like competition, which is why GM had so much trouble closing down under-performing dealers. The dealer unions treat dealers like a jobs program and are all "in it together" I would bet.
Dealer buys boat - boat maker makes a profit, and employs boat maintenace people, boat sales people, they buy cars/gas/groceries/movies, economy grows, etc... - is this bad?
Not arguing that it's bad. I was just pointing out that he isn't hurting for money due to excessive regulation. By that logic, they should raise the prices on all cars 10% so he can buy a BIGGER boat "to help the economy." Trickle-down economics has some truth to it, but is overall a fallacy created by those with at the top of the trickle.
Horse dead, I shall whip it more...
The horse is never dead on the interwebs, when it's raining outside and it's a boring Wednesday evening.
And don't take any of that personally....I like to debate things, that's all. After all, you own an e21, so you're clearly a cool dude in person
Oh, no, the debate is outstanding - some don't enjoy it, but I do. Good for the soul, or something like that. I think it's a bit of a lost art/pastime.
Indeed, the market has determined some things, and at this point, changing some of the regulated things now accepted might be a task nigh impossible. Extreme market conditions or cost savings globally might yield some changes, like seeing some of the neat Euro cars/hatches etc... over here, but that's fair bit of speculation. And what the net is for!
In the interest of preserving some right of the market to determine what we get next, I push for all to consider, do we REALLY need this doodad or that, and call our elected officials in the vain hope staving off, or more accurately, slowing the perpetual growth of the nanny state.
To bmwbav, the Cali deal started years ago, still some drought, but for a couple of those years, there was ample water from the SNV snowpack. In the 12 second news cycle, the citizenry is spoon fed an emotionally appealing argument as to why we must save the sucker fish, without ever hearing another side to said effects of same. Then Fox News (or advocates for poison water and air, such as myself) gets blamed, when they shout from the roof tops the stupidity such an effort, of being as whacky as their left wing counter parts. 12 seconds in our information saturted age doesn't go far.
The Chinese phenomenon to me is a different animal - they use the economy to fund the despotic system, further their territorial/geopolitical ambitions. Let's not forget, it' still the government that killed, what, 80 million of their own people.
We may be greedy, but we pay pretty good lip service to individual freedoms. They're looking do away with them.
Oh, and long live the E21!!!!!
In reply to OldGray320i:
The GOP only gives lip service to individual freedom and has done nothing to support it.
Regulations do not tread on individual freedoms as they, for the majority, deal with major corporations and people who deal with mega cash transfers.
The guy that thinks his individual freedom is being trounced because someone passed a law that says he has to be checked out to by an AR15 with only a 7 round clip isn't nearly as important to the big business that wants to buy an election so his company doesn't have to clean up the toxic waste dump they are being tried for hiding. But that same candidate will scream Liberty all day long to create fear and to get them to ignore their voting record or the intent of their actions.
Serious question here.
What individual freedom has been imposed on? Patriot Act is the only one I can think of and we know which party created and passed that one.
Back to the point of the thread, back up cameras and everything are manufacturers requirements not dealers.
What regs are costing dealers all this money?
The article listed several, some of which Irish addressed above, for example.
And nobody argues that some regulation is required for basic health and safety.
The point is that the cumulative effort of all these regulations directly affect, and limit, in some degree, what gets produced and at what price.
Oddly, manufacturers, dealers, and even we are out to make a certain amount of profit. The profit by definition cannot go below a certain level, so the cost goes up.
I would argue that air bags, anti-lock brakes, and back up cameras, and front end designs for human impact need not be mandated. The first two are excellent safety devices, and now so widely accepted by the market that the manufacturers would lose profit as buyers chose cars with them as opposed to without them. To Irish's point, the market determined. I love roll up windows, nobody else does, I'm not getting them.
However, my need for anti-lock brakes is far less than someone in the northeast - but initially, a regulator forced additional cost on me the car buyer since they were mandated.
Air bags, excellent safety device, but they deploy only in an accident. I believe stats have shown the severity of injuries is significantly less in air bag equipped cars, so I might acquiesce that cars produced should have them. But by the same token, I also readily choose to drive a car without them, and would drive it daily if I hadn't sacrificed a barely-effetive AC system for lightness - but I have the LUXURY of a second car to be able to do that. I went newer when I thought I'd be commuting 200mi a day.
What about those that do not have said luxury, and could really use a new car, but prices are a bit steep?
Yes, cars today are more reliable than ever, blah blah blah - but when they break, they're hella more expensive to fix, too, etc...
The point of the other refrences is that regulation is creeping in everywhere, and I think in terms of economic vitality, there are greater daily impacts beyond all the explanations given.
As to back up cameras and pedestrian injury design standards, the number of events is really small as a percentage of miles driven, but somebody has decided that every new car buyer pay hundreds or thousands more to solve a largely "non-existant" problem.
If you get run over by somebody backing out, or get hit by a car, it certainly is existant, and painful. By why does everybody else have to pay extra because I'm too stupid to look both ways before crossing the street?
Prices aren't steep, you can buy a brand new car for around 12K, with all of the "crazy" regulations included, a range of cars start under 15K.
ABS isn't mandated apparently.
The pedestrian safety design standards indirectly drive the need for backup camera's, higher hood = higher trunk/rear window relative to the roof height, you can't see directly behind your car anymore.
"and I think in terms of economic vitality, there are greater daily impacts beyond all the explanations given. "
OK, how about this literal "daily impacts" explanation from the CDC.
In 2010, 4,280 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the United States, and another 70,000 pedestrians were injured.1 This averages to one crash-related pedestrian death every 2 hours, and a pedestrian injury every 8 minutes.1 Pedestrians are 1.5 times more likely than passenger vehicle occupants to be killed in a car crash on each trip.
Is this "daily impact" of a pedestrian dying every 2 hours less than the "economic vitality" that's so important?
Again, very short sighted view.
We have regulations because experts study the effects of various scenarios. I agree there are some regulations that don't make sense, are archaic, or don't serve the purpose intended. However, the majority of them are for the greater good of consumers and our society as a whole.
We have a duty as a mature nation and culture to look out for other people and our impacts on the earth. There isn't a broad conspiracy to halt economic progress with regulation, seriously.
OldGray320i wrote: If you wish to expand the middle class, buy something. It creates jobs.
So to save money, go spend a ton of money? If the rest of your logic and reasoning runs that way then no wonder you have trouble grasping good reasons for regulation. Buying new cars every 2-3 years is the single biggest destroyer of middle class wealth in America. Break that habit and you have millions of wealthier people.
Ask the farmers in central California about their financial ruin, the reduced food supply/increase in consumer pricing because they can't produce goods, all becaues environmental regulations have cut the water supply they depend on to prouce crops? Is some "endagnered" sucker fish or frog or pigmy owl really more important than that? There's your "middle class squeeze" right there.
And it has nothing to do with 36 million people, half of whom live in a desert, moving into a limited geographical area? It has nothing to do with irrigating desert for decades to make arable farm land out of it? The only reason they're having trouble with water shortages is because of regulation? That's very insightful, tell that to Vegas as Lake Mead dries up. If they reduce regulation maybe it'll fill back up.
Every issue is complex, you try to simplify it and you are avoiding reality. Regulation is not put in place for no reason, it's a response to a problem. Not always the right response, but removing regulation is also not always the right response.
bmwbav:
Not to be insensitive, every one of those 4,280 people were somebody's loved one.
In a nation of 300M people, thats .0014%
What would cars cost without the regs? $8K, $10K?
I'm not talking about broad economic conspiracy, it's a nanny state mentality (and not responsibility as a mature nation) that can limit choice and raise the cost of goods unnecessarily.
We all want it better cheaper faster - and then say "back up cameras are a great idea - EVERYTHING must have them", which as you point out are begotten by the raised heights for pedestrian standards for the .000014.
What's next, can't drive my 320i because it has no air bags, isn't designed for pedestrian impact, and has no back up camera?
dculberson:
That's non-sensical; your point was "help the middle class". The middle class is helped by lower prices and expanded choice.
The very regulation you seem to embrace exacerbates financial pressures.
For economies to grow, goods need to be produced. Profit made in that production encourages others to join and make money, and competition means the dealer down the street will drop her price so you'll buy from her as opposed to that snakeoil salesman up the street. Supply goes up, price comes down, but it only happens in an economy where people buy things. Thus my statement.
The California thing is a problem on top of a problem - no arguing with the point they're in a desert, and perhaps growing there shouldn't have been encouraged - but the sucker fish thing (or whatever it is) I'm willing to bet is a lot like the Pigmy Owl thing was here in the desert - it's endangered! It'll go extinct! Only to find out years later there never was an issue, it was a thriving population, but green earthers opposed the housing growth which is how it got enacted. Housing costs (both rent and own) went up. Who in the middle class did that help?
"Not always the right response, but removing regulation is also not always the right response."
The point of the argument, I suppose, for all of us.
Tell me, what regulations do you think could be done away with?
Any?
Wow. Really? I don't know where to start. Sure, it's .0014% of our population, DYING each year. How many people do you think that affects? Not just the .0014% that die, but all their loved ones. No one is trying to regulate out old cars, but if we can make new cars safer for the .0014%, and still make them affordable, why not? The cost for pedestrian safety regulations is only a fraction of the numbers they quote. I'll pay, I'll vote that you have to pay too, every time. I'll pay what, a few hundred dollars? So, if you don't pay attention crossing the street one day, you have a better chance to live.
Nanny state and personal responsibility. Some of these regulations make responsibility a requirement. The flow rate of the drainage system is regulated because the city designed the sewer systems to serve a community, each person or building has a responsibility to not overtax the system, so the streets don't flood.
We also have personal responsibility to not harm the environment or my fellow society, how about that?
You'll need to log in to post.
