This is fairly misleading - the change just allows for market forces to drive production more than regulafions. Its already heading toward EVs, this just means that artificial imposition of quotas dont need to make prices higher for consumers.
Im no fan of the Trump administration, but I actually agree with this move.
The only reason the market is heading toward EVs is because fuel efficiency regulations and incentives have pushed auto makers to start phasing out their ICE product lines in favor of EVs. The demand was clearly there, but nobody wanted to invest the R&D into providing a product. Market forces aren’t enough to drive change when it’s easier and more profitable for them to just keep the status quo.
Can you really not think of anything not included in quarterly profit-taking? Long term thinking? Externalities? Tragedy of the Commons?
This is government failing its duties yet again. Higher Short term profits for a few, at the expense of a livable climate, violence related to petrostates, higher costs for consumers, increased injuries and deaths, increased funding needs for military, infrastructure, etc …… including long term viability of the industry
Market regulations prevent abuses. Without them, it’s always a race to the bottom. The free market won’t save you, it just mindlessly pursues profits (it literally can’t do otherwise).
The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, reducing fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2 billion for drivers.
If the market was already behaving in the desired way, then removing the regulation does nothing.
If removing the regulation allows “market forces to drive production”, then the market was not behaving in the desired way and that’s probably why the regulation existed in the first place.
Fuel efficiency standards create a floor that would not be there otherwise.
While I’m generally pro regulation, that’s not true. You can absolutely over regulate an industry or put out regulations that are bad.
For example NIMBY regulations that prevent multi-family units from being constructed or in NJ breweries can’t sell food (due to weird alcohol laws/regulations).
Then you haven’t been looking very hard. The airline industry in the US is a good example. Your internet search terms could be “deregulation case study” and would also find negative cases
EDIT: you can downvote, but can you type three words into a search engine and click on one link that doesn’t align with your current opinions? IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE!!
This is fairly misleading - the change just allows for market forces to drive production more than regulafions. Its already heading toward EVs, this just means that artificial imposition of quotas dont need to make prices higher for consumers.
Im no fan of the Trump administration, but I actually agree with this move.
The only reason the market is heading toward EVs is because fuel efficiency regulations and incentives have pushed auto makers to start phasing out their ICE product lines in favor of EVs. The demand was clearly there, but nobody wanted to invest the R&D into providing a product. Market forces aren’t enough to drive change when it’s easier and more profitable for them to just keep the status quo.
Can you really not think of anything not included in quarterly profit-taking? Long term thinking? Externalities? Tragedy of the Commons?
This is government failing its duties yet again. Higher Short term profits for a few, at the expense of a livable climate, violence related to petrostates, higher costs for consumers, increased injuries and deaths, increased funding needs for military, infrastructure, etc …… including long term viability of the industry
“I feel better, so I don’t need the meds anymore”
Market regulations prevent abuses. Without them, it’s always a race to the bottom. The free market won’t save you, it just mindlessly pursues profits (it literally can’t do otherwise).
But the market cares about profit, not people. That’s why regulations exist!
Per the article:
Regulation guides market behavior.
If the market was already behaving in the desired way, then removing the regulation does nothing.
If removing the regulation allows “market forces to drive production”, then the market was not behaving in the desired way and that’s probably why the regulation existed in the first place.
Fuel efficiency standards create a floor that would not be there otherwise.
I have never once seen or heard of market deregulation resulting in an improvement in the health of that market.
While I’m generally pro regulation, that’s not true. You can absolutely over regulate an industry or put out regulations that are bad.
For example NIMBY regulations that prevent multi-family units from being constructed or in NJ breweries can’t sell food (due to weird alcohol laws/regulations).
I completely forgot about NIMBYism, that’s a perfectly good counter-example I will admit.
Then you haven’t been looking very hard. The airline industry in the US is a good example. Your internet search terms could be “deregulation case study” and would also find negative cases
EDIT: you can downvote, but can you type three words into a search engine and click on one link that doesn’t align with your current opinions? IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE!!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If only we removed lead from pain twenty years earlier maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess.
The market is not heading towards EVs in US.
Of course you do dude, you believe in the invisible handjob of the market.
Removed by mod