A DIFFERING VIEW: Put the invisible hand in the driver's seat
Justin Blackman, Denver
Published August 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
A recent Rocky editorial ("Slow down the ethanol juggernaut," July 24) correctly identified that Washington's mandates on biofuel production have created unintended problems for consumers.
The editorial stated that "consumer choice" would fix these problems and advocated yet another government mandate (the Open Fuel Standard Act) to "put motorists in the driver's seat." This piece of legislation would force automakers to manufacture flex-fuel vehicles.
Normally, "consumer choice" tells automakers what to sell.
Motorists will never be "in the driver's seat" as long as the command-economy mentality persists, and there will always be unintended consequences when the government restricts the freedom of individual consumers to choose what goods and services work best for them.
The solution to energy supply problems is to leave consumers alone and let us decide for ourselves where our money should go. After all, if flex-fuel vehicles are good products, wouldn't we buy them of our own free will?
Justin Blackman is a resident of Denver.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Through Your Lens
Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
August 1, 2008
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
paulhsiehmd writes:
I completely agree with Mr. Blackman. History has shown that the "command economy" doesn't work, because it stops people from using their own rational minds to decide what's best for themselves. Just compare South Korea vs. North Korea, or (before 1989) West Germany vs. East Germany. Thank you, Justin, for injecting some much-needed common sense into this debate.
August 1, 2008
7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Never mind that the history of pollution controls and safety features on cars completely skewers Blackman's argument. For years Detroit said airbags were "too expensive" and "the market didn't want them" and they would threaten the existence of the industry due to their cost. Yet who today would buy a car that did not have seat belts and airbags? Who does not appreciate the improved air quality in all of our major cities versus in the 60's and 70's? Who wants to save a few $$ on pollution equipment to return to that smog? The market is a great tool but a lousy religion Mr. Blackwell.
August 1, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
SASQUATCH - "The government simply can't intelligently explain their 47 cent tariff on the stuff." - The "explanation" is ADM - Archer Daniels Midland.
August 1, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
davis_x_machina writes:
One day I'm sure should I live long enough bigfoot is actually going to propose a solution beyond mindlessly echoing wingnut blathering points and that in addition to his usual sniveling and mean-spirited carping it might even show the faintest glimmer of original thought.You'd think that were the "free market" such an efficient mechanism we'd not be in the trouble we find ourselves in on so many fronts. I've always thought that the major problem with the "free market" is that it's a strictly reactive apparatus always a least a step or two behind the current state of development in any economic area. This deficiency is not helped by "free market" participants whose only planning consists of how to maximize short term profits, keep the shareholders happy and quiet, and screw the consumer.
August 1, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
In my opinion, the big problem with "Free Market" thinking is that it makes the assumption that the consumer is smarter than the marketing department.
The consumer does not make the "smart" decision in the market place, they buy what the marketers tell them to buy.
August 1, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
davis_x_machina: Reading your post makes me think of the pot calling the kettle black.
Just what in Sasquatch's post was sniveling or mean-spirited and what in your post is "original thought"? Unless we are absolute "free-thinkers", most of what we all post is not original thought, but thought based upon information that we glean from many sources.
August 1, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"For years Detroit said airbags were "too expensive" and "the market didn't want them" and they would threaten the existence of the industry due to their cost. Yet who today would buy a car that did not have seat belts and airbags?" - Sheik
Who invented the air bag system? And, your rhetorical question regarding who would buy a car without air bags is self-defeating. If the demand is there, why wouldn't car manufacturers account for that demand?
"I've always thought that the major problem with the "free market" is that it's a strictly reactive apparatus always a least a step or two behind the current state of development in any economic area." - Davis
It is both reactive and proactive. Sometimes, entrepreneurs anticipate a future need; other times an existing need is addressed. I see both methods as beneficial, especially when compared to a command-driven system.
"You'd think that were the "free market" such an efficient mechanism we'd not be in the trouble we find ourselves in on so many fronts." - Davis
What trouble are you referring to?
"The consumer does not make the "smart" decision in the market place, they buy what the marketers tell them to buy." - Danchan
Really? I suppose you mean all consumers with the exception of yourself.
August 1, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Speaking of original thought and lack thereof, davis_x_machina attributes all the blame to the corporate chase for profit. Well, if there were no profit, there would be no reason for anyone to make cars and you would walk everywhere you wanted to go.
And of course, Danchan is completely incapable of any thought at all, because, as a consumer, he freely admits that he only buys what the "marketers" tell him to buy.
All of these arguments are complete crap. Automakers fight things like airbags, pollution controls, and mandated higher fuel efficiency, because it drives up the cost of the cars they make and they have to pass that cost along to the consumer. That raises the price on their cars, which decreases demand, which means they sell less cars and make less money.
But then again, automakers only care about selling cars. If you make it harder for them to sell cars, what do you expect them to do? Shake your hand and plant a kiss on your forehead?
And consumers decide what's important to them. They weigh all kinds of factors, safety, fuel economy, room for half the neighborhood and it's gear, looks, color, the ability to pick up chicks in it because it's cool. Whatever. Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't make it important to someone else.
But mandates come with a cost and take away choices. Airbags initially cost over $1000 per vehicle. And if you as a consumer were presented with two identical and identically priced cars today, one with airbags, and one without airbags AND $1000 in the glovebox. Be honest and tell me which one you would take.
And sure, now airbags are down to $100. You might ask yourself which car you'd take now if the one without airbags if it only had $100 in the glovebox.
But the point is decreasing the cost is the genius of a competitive economy. Corporations are always looking for an advantage, and are relentless in finding ways to do things cheaper.
So is that search for the evil "short-term profit" such a bad thing?
But even though its ten times cheaper to put airbags in cars, they still cost $100 per vehicle. There are roughly 10 million vehicles sold in this country today, which means $1 billion a year is spent on airbags. And everyone that buys a vehicle is forced to spend that money.
Is that money well spent?
A mandate means no one gets a choice. They buy a vehicle with an airbag whether they want to or not. If that extra $100 they have to spend on the airbag pushes the price out of their ability to pay, they go without a car. Period. And even if it doesn't, that $100 spent on an airbag is $100 they can't give to davis_x_machina to go take an economics class or to Danchan to grow a spine and stop paying so much attention to advertisements.
August 1, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
John_II - "Who invented the air bag system?" Who cares???
"And, your rhetorical question regarding who would buy a car without air bags is self-defeating. If the demand is there, why wouldn't car manufacturers account for that demand?" Because the market lacks competition and the auto makers can therefore control what is offered. In a perfectly competitive market, market forces alone might have driven out dangerous, non-airbag-equipped cars. In our imperfect market however, outside intervention (BIg, oppresive government) is needed to make up for market failings and imperfections.
August 1, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Sheik,
How does the auto market lack competition? You mean to say that Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Saab are not competing with each other.
You are a fool.
"In a perfectly competitive market, market forces alone might have driven out dangerous, non-airbag-equipped cars. In our imperfect market however, outside intervention (BIg, oppresive government) is needed to make up for market failings and imperfections." - Sheik
Again, you are a fool. Government intrusion in the name of safety simply makes things more expensive. People like you make products more expensive for the poor. But, then, because products are more expensive, you turn around and blame capitalism. In other words, you piss on the poor and then tell them its raining.
The latest example of this is in Los Angeles where the oh-so-wise liberals have banned affordable fast-food restaurants from poor neighborhoods. Of course, it is all for their own good.
My old truck does not have airbags. I dare you to come and tell me I should not be able to drive it. If you do, you may find a safety feature that I did choose to purchase: a 12-gauge Mossberg.
August 1, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
John_II - I am in awe of your name-calling skills.
There is of course competitiveness in the auto market - but the level of competitiveness is less than perfect, i.e. less than complete (by definition in fact) and to that extent there is a "lack of competitiveness." This lack of competitiveness allowed the auto makers to not incur the expense of developing airbags, and then, since they didn't exist or existed in only such small numbers that their marginal cost was very high, car makers could assert that there was "no demand" for them. It was a classic case of Says Law (exercise for you: look that up) in action. I apologize for getting academic and thereby kind of cutting you out of the discussion.
Drive your truck all you want. Speed. Tailgate. Run stop signs. See what I care. How will your Mossberg help you in a crash? If that's a joke, it went over my head.
Actually, the presence of airbags was **partially** driven by consumer choice. The history of that deal was that the gov't mandated passive restraints, and the industry came up with 2 systems: self-locking seat belts and airbags. Consumers in droves opted for the (then) more expensive air bags. In fact, with that government proding, the airbag market took of and now surpasses what the law requires. Sorry to get wrapped up in "elitist" facts, sometimes I just can't help myself.
Maybe it's part of being what you might call a "fool."
August 1, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Sheik,
Your posts are straying farther and farther from reality. How is auto competitiveness "less than perfect"? What would make it perfect?
Auto manufacturers developed the air bag. Why would they do that? Obviously, they were looking for an advantage in the marketplace for consumers who demanded more safety.
Your Say's Law reference is bogus. Are you actually suggesting that we would not have cars with airbags if the government did not call for it? Consumers want safety; manufacturers will address that need.
"In fact, with that government proding, the airbag market took of and now surpasses what the law requires." - Sheik
Why would private business surpass what the law requires according to your logic?
August 1, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
pjlopez writes:
It's not a free market. As long as oil and gas companies enjoy huge subsidies and tax breaks, alternative energy is at a disadvantage. First we need to *really* level the playing field, only then can we begin to understand what our policies should be.
August 1, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
"Your Say's Law reference is bogus. Are you actually suggesting that we would not have cars with airbags if the government did not call for it? " Yup. Automakers long said it was unnecessary and too expensive. Driver deaths and injury were "operator error" only per Detroit.
"Auto manufacturers developed the air bag. Why would they do that?" Because they saw the regulations coming. They tried to get away with cheap automatic seat belts, but consumers hated them and only then (with passive restraints required by law and shown to be effective in initial deployments) did airbags take off. W/o gov't prodding, there is no supply, and w/o supply there is no demand. The auto makers explloited that reverse chicken and egg to say there was no connsumer demand, when in fact there was.
"Why would private business surpass what the law requires according to your logic?" Because when a little supply (driver-side airbags) came on line, demand for all the others (passenger-side, side-collision, rear-seat ABs, etc) could no longer be denied.
August 1, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
You guys forget about the insurance companies influence on washington? They pay out less if their driver injures rather than kills, if it's their fault. Don't tell me people wanted seats belts, cause when one state passed the seat belt law, citizens got it on the ballot and 92 of 93 counties in that state voted it down. The state waited a few years and passed it again. Insurance companies spend millions on lobbying to protect those billions they have in reserve.
August 1, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
Danchan wrote, "The consumer does not make the 'smart' decision in the market place, they buy what the marketers tell them to buy."
Hmmm. Then you must have a garage full of tampons, deodorants, Viagra, and pizza since that's what marketers tell people like you what to buy all the time.
SheikYurBooty wrote, "Never mind that the history of pollution controls"
Like catalytic converters, I suppose. They turn the car's exhaust into CO2 -- the very gas that the enviros who demanded the installation of those converters in the first place are now saying is a problem.
"lack of competitiveness allowed the auto makers to not incur the expense of developing airbags, and then, since they didn't exist or existed in only such small numbers that their marginal cost"
By your reasoning, they also wouldn't have installed anything else (bucket seats, air conditioners, stereos, ...) that didn't previously exist. If what you claim is true, cars would not have evolved beyond the Model-T Ford, with the exception of airbags and catalytic converters, without a government mandate.