Related posts

• September 2 roundup (1)
• October 22 roundup (0)
• October 12 roundup (4)
• Nancy Grace (& lawprofs) on the Duke case (2)
• June 22 roundup (0)

Related posts

• Obama puts MADD chief in charge of highway-safety agency (22)
• Why Toyota stock rose after yesterday’s recall (0)
• Whoops: “DUI attorney explains her own DUI charge” (10)
• Update: My mother, the car (6)
• U.S. News: Toyota death toll rises! (0)

P.S. At Forbes, Dan Gerstein wonders why Chrysler’s rich parent Cerberus deserves bailing out.

Related posts

• Asphyxiating Detroit, the UAW way (1)
• Wisconsin: a frisky-union vignette (1)
• Why would a union favor its own decertification? (3)
• Welcome National Journal readers (0)
• Update: GM settles Malibu case (0)

P.S. Of course the actual legislative responses we’re in for will probably be very different. Mickey Kaus: “So the UAW wants a $25 billion bailout and an end to the secret ballot … Because Wagner Act unionism clearly worked out so well for Detroit.”

Related posts

• Update: GM settles Malibu case (0)
• The Richard Mraz case: $55M in Los Angeles Dodge Dakota trial (12)
• The Chrysler haircut (1)
• Sudden acceleration: litigation springs eternal (0)
• Not with an Explorer, you don’t (0)

Your editorial opposing fuel economy standards (”Not So Grande CAFE,” May that the standards amount “to the government dictating the kind of cars Americans will be able drive, even if those cars aren’t safe on the road.” This is wrong.

First, the goal of fuel economy standards is to enable Americans to drive the cars they want — but that the automakers aren’t producing. And what Americans want is the full range of vehicles available now, including SUVs, but with greater gas mileage. The technology exists to create those vehicles affordably, car buyers want them, and the nation needs them. The fact that they are not on sale is a classic market failure.

…..

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R., N.Y.)
Chairman
House Committee on Science
Washington

…………………………………………………..

Rep. Boehlert whips the term “market failure” about too cavalierly. The believable existence of genuine market failure requires an institutional setting in which a significant number of individual decision-makers each bears too few of the consequences of his or her choices — such as when, for example, an owner of a factory upstream pollutes a river in ways that harm downstream owners of riverside land because downstream owners have no effective way to enforce their property rights to an unpolluted river.

But the situation decried by Rep. Boehlert has none of the institutional prerequisites for “classic market failure.” If a sufficient number of consumers truly are willing to pay for more-fuel-efficient cars (as Rep. Boehlert asserts), surely at least one of the 20-plus automakers now supplying new cars to the U.S. market would discern this fact — and, out of pure self-interest, act to satisfy this consumer demand. After all, if increasing a car’s fuel-efficiency would cost an automaker $X and if consumers are willing to pay $X+Y for such a car, then profits are to be had satisfying this consumer demand.

Rep. Boehlert doesn’t divulge in this letter his source of information about this alleged consumer demand, but surely now that he’s unearthed this valuable information, automakers will act on it voluntarily — assuming, of course, that the information’s source is credible.

Alas, I suspect that Rep. Boehlert’s source of information on this point is not credible — for, again, if Rep. Boehlert’s claim were credible, automakers wouldn’t have to be forced by government to satisfy their customers’ demands.

The arrogance and conceits of Rep. Boehlert and his ilk make me want to vomit.

Related posts

• July 16 roundup (4)
• Asphyxiating Detroit, the UAW way (1)
• Answer to Mickey Kaus (4)
• “Enviros Forced NHTSA Nominee To Withdraw” (2)