Xargos
Coal and oil are dirty energy but efficient. Over time manufacturers have found better ways to harvest coal and oil cleaner and leaving a far less footprint on the earth. That has been accomplished simply because that's what people like and thus the market moves naturally towards efficiency and cleanliness.
Wind and solar power is great; but reality is that the technology needed to use those forms of energy is vastly behind the technology needed to get energy from coal and oil.
We've heard time and time again that it'll "take ten years" to produce enough oil from reserve X so let's invest in clean energy instead. Well, (a) if they began producing oil from site X ten years ago, they'd be at full capacity by now; (b) remove the caps on oil wells in California and start pumping that oil out would take about 30 minutes.
More efficient cars have been made because of both regulations and the fact that high oil prices pushed consumers in that direction.
My main point is that when manufacturers achieved higher efficiency witout sacrificing performance (such as Ford placing a big engine in a smaller body, overhead camshafts, multi valves, etc.) people flood the market to buy such a product.
But what you said is very true, and it's when the market is used to achieve efficiency that costs are held down the most. There's economical cars on the market now, if you want one, you'll get one. It's that simple. By forcing manufacturers to produce only efficient cars you increase costs by forcing the company to retool and create massive uncertainty which results in less consumption and production. Why would a manufacturer retool for a model when the standards could very well change yet again? Why would people buy a product when in the near future they'll be told they can no longer by that product and be forced to buy a different one? Let the market sort things out.
We'll keep an eye on GM. The US government is clearly the new owner and clearly dictating what can be manufactured. My very simple prediction is that business model, which is exactly the end result of arguing for government regulations, will crash and burn. Toyota sales will continue to raise while GM falls. It's that simple.
Things like the BASH amplifier are products of the desire to reduce manufacturing costs.
BINGO!!! The market took care of it. And the BASH amplfier would NOT sell if the consumer determined it sucked. So a combination of manufacture self-interest AND consumer wants created the much more efficient BASH amplifier. Governemnt regulation need not apply.
The pure free market doesn't work. The removal of regulations is one of the big reasons why the world just saw that huge economic downturn.
I don't advocate laissez-faire marketing. Regulation is needed. I only strongly caution as to how far that regulation should go. The exact opposite of laissez-faire is total control of the market. That has not worket anywhere. Countries that have heavily regulated economies have far less production, less consumption, and much more waste.
Regulations could actually create jobs if companies choose to do the research and development necessary to meet them.
Investing in companies, allowing people to keep more of their earned money, and allowing people to be free to develope will do far more to create jobs than any regulation.
If California reduced taxes and regulation I could guarantee a boom in industrial growth in that state.
