Governmental regulation can be good

Dodge Dart Grille, courtesy of Autoweek MagazineBack in the 1970s, air pol­lu­tion was really bad. The aver­age car back then put out lit­er­ally 20 times the amount of harm­ful emis­sions than today’s aver­age car. If the gov­ern­ment had not stepped in and made laws that forced car man­u­fac­tur­ers to clean up what was com­ing out of tailpipes, I am sure we’d have dirt­ier air today.

I haven’t been to China, but I under­stand the air in Bei­jing is a lot worse than the air in any Amer­i­can city. Why? A lack of gov­ern­men­tal regulation.

I fully under­stand that not all gov­ern­men­tal inter­ven­tions in life and pub­lic pol­icy are ben­e­fi­cial. But some are.

I chal­lenge you to argue with me on this one.

The photo is an enlarge­ment of a shot from Autoweek Mag­a­zine. Their May 14, 2012 issue has an arti­cle about the new Dodge Dart. Its front grille shuts at cer­tain speeds to improve fuel econ­omy — because of gov­ern­men­tal reg­u­la­tions for car man­u­fac­tur­ers to increase fuel econ­omy. I think that’s awesome.

Comments

  1. Reg­u­la­tion becomes polit­i­cal, so it’s never about a log­i­cal look at the actual issue. It’s a win/lose bat­tle of emo­tion vs. money, and we tend to go to the extreme of the winner.

    Nobody likes air polu­tion, but you still know peo­ple who say the evil gov­ern­ment shouldn’t ever mess with pri­vate enter­prise even when it poi­sons the envi­ron­ment. Every­one wants eco­nomic devel­op­ment, but some folks will argue for block­ing a project that dis­places a few prairie dogs.

  2. Hmmm — first I’ve heard of the Dart being “reborn”. Can’t say I find the design espe­cially ground­break­ing, but maybe that’s just me. They didn’t make any effort to con­nect it with the car of the 60s/70s, as they did with the new Challenger.

    I’m not con­vinced it’s really pos­si­ble to find true bal­ance, con­sid­er­ing the num­ber of peo­ple in this coun­try, each with their own opin­ion. Some­one is always going to feel slighted. But what Rick says is true — gov­ern­ment seems to have become more about which party wins rather than what’s best for the country.

  3. I have a friend who is rabidly lib­er­tar­ian and decries all gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion, but I doubt he spends much time think­ing about the qual­ity of his drink­ing water or of the med­i­cines his daughter’s pedi­a­tri­cian pre­scribes; or the dif­fer­ence there would be in acci­dent rates if speed lim­its didn’t exist. I didn’t see indus­try mak­ing much effort to con­tain pol­lu­tion until they were forced to do it, back in the 1970s.

    US auto man­u­fac­tur­ers were still mak­ing huge clunky cars into the late 1970s, long after peo­ple had been mak­ing noise about pol­lu­tion and fuel econ­omy. If it hadn’t been for hav­ing to com­pete with Japan­ese econ­omy cars, they prob­a­bly would have kept putting V-6s and V-8s into every­thing for another decade.

    On the other hand, there are reg­u­la­tions that are pro­tec­tion­is­tic for inter­est groups, like the require­ment in Illi­nois that con­struc­tion work be done by union mem­bers. This increases the price and length­ens the response time and does noth­ing to improve qual­ity of work done.

    Build­ing inspec­tions, on the other hand, some­times save lives and the prop­erty owner’s money. There are enough hor­ror sto­ries already in the world of remod­el­ing and con­struc­tion. I can’t imag­ine how many more peo­ple would get screwed if city build­ing inspec­tions didn’t hap­pen. A pri­vate inspec­tion pro­vides no enforce­ment authority.

  4. Deb — agreed. How­ever, I like the new Dart’s style. It’s some­how less bul­bous and bulky than the Challenger.

    Tim — some great illus­tra­tions & points. Gov’t inter­ven­tion can go too far — and when it’s not there, lives can be in peril.

Speak Your Mind

*