1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11054/the-market-can-regulate-automobiles/

The Market Can Regulate Automobiles

November 18, 2009 by

The free market possesses the means to regulate itself. Automobiles are not too important to be left to the free market to manage. They are too important to be left to government. FULL ARTICLE by Daniel Hewitt


Free Market November 18, 2009 at 9:12 am

In a free market for cars, there would be more opportunities to buy cars.

The market would produce small and cheap entry level cars for small urban trips and produce high quality luxury cruise cars for trips around the nation and in rough terrain.

We would have electric cars, hydrogen cars, gasoline cars etc.

We would have more choices and more opportunities, more competition and more people would own a car.

The governement regulations places burdens on car making so cars cannot get cheaper than a certain level which prohibits a lot of individuals from owning cars.

Look at India with it’s Tata nano. There is less regulations in India and they succeeded at producing the most for the least.

In America, we’re still stuck with old tech gas guzzlers. The governement won’t approve any innovation.

The government needs to get out of the way and let the market decide.

Harry Valentine November 18, 2009 at 9:50 am

The big mistake of governments is their involvement in politically motivated road building programs that destroyed viable, privately-owned and operated mass transportation systems. Governments made the mistake of imposing unproductive regulation on suchproviders, as well as on the railroads. Perhaps the first step in rectifying this state-caused debacle would the total economic deregulation of railways. This would be followed by the deregulation of float plane operations, where airplanes land on and take off from bodies of water. There are several transportation technologies that can readily operate in such an environment. Road privatization and private building of private toll roads would greatly reduce traffic congestion. Government control of transportation caused a debacle. It would take several decades of unregulated private initiative to rectify the state-contrived mess.

Winfield Scott November 18, 2009 at 9:58 am

Oh yes, the free market does such an excellent job of regulating itself. Witness the financial-market meltdown of last year, the rampant abuses in the health insurance industry, and the wholesale offshoring of US jobs overseas. I can’t wait to put my family’s safety in the hands of auto company boardrooms and their stockholders. I’m sure they’ll respond to safety issues the way Toyota did to reports of lethal, runaway cars–by ignoring them.

Richie November 18, 2009 at 10:05 am

Hey Winfield,

You’re right, because as EVERYONE knows, every industry you cited is purely a free market. Indeed, the health insurance industry is not regulated at all.


Richie November 18, 2009 at 10:10 am

And one more thing Winfield, try to be a bit more original. The non-sense you stated has been heard before. Did you copy and paste?

Mike November 18, 2009 at 10:15 am

I wouldn’t dismiss someone as a troll just because he’s a member of the ignorant masses. He sounds to me like he’s deluded by the usual socialist lines that America has a free market and that all social problems are caused by the free market and cured by government. Most people today are completely clueless about the fact that government interference in the economy is the cause of the vast majority of the major problems we’re facing in our time.

So with that being said, Winfield, you’re wrong. Spend some more time on this site and enlighten yourself before engaging in more embarrassing displays of ignorance.

Peter November 18, 2009 at 10:37 am

Of course the market can regulate this. It´s just a question of the price of the several suitable energies.

If for example prices are higher (as due to taxes f.e. in europe) the cars consume less gas.
And if you´re free to drive faster than 50mph – there do appear even cars that run over 100mph and still consume quite little gas.

The problem is the interest groups – Those made the governement in the US to regulate max speeds – to ensure low taxes on gas… why? To avoid expencive devellopment! American cars did just change their outside quite frequently – but the techniques did not really change. If you take f.e. a Mercedes – you cannot compare a 300D from 82 with a 300D from today – except from the Star…

Jerry Wells November 18, 2009 at 10:47 am

In regards to Consumer Reports magazine, yes, it does provide a service to most consumers. However, in my observation, its solution to the problems in the products it reviews is almost always more government regulation, not free market choices.

Mike November 18, 2009 at 10:57 am

Of course that will be the solution. In our current zeitgeist, people cannot fathom any solution to any problem that does not involve government fiat. You kinda have to compartmentalize these days, use your own reason to take the good out of what you read and discard the bad.

izdelava spletnih strani November 18, 2009 at 11:42 am

I think that car industry is to powerfull to let free market rules take over.

We had example just know when Obama gave up to the pressure of the industry.

greg November 18, 2009 at 12:02 pm

The US automakers can blame all of their problems on regulations in their industry and the truth of their problem is that they don’t listen to what the market wants and is failing every step of the way. I can’t see a single US automaker surviving if they operated within a free market. And maybe that would be a good thing!

On the consumer end, most purchases are on impulse. Very few buyers go through all the test results and engineering of the cars. This is the prime reason you actually see an Aztec on the road.

Shay November 18, 2009 at 12:08 pm

izdelava spletnih strani, the solution is to eliminate government involvement, so there’s nothing for anyone in the market to pressure. It’s similar in all areas, but people tend to ignore the government and focus on other things that interact with it, considering them the problem.

Free Man November 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm


The companies can’t listen to the customers when they are already forced by the government to listen only to the United Auto Workers union.

Free Man November 18, 2009 at 12:45 pm

When Barack Obama said that the unions were part of the solution, this is when I knew he was pandering to the left and that he is nothing but yet another corrupt politician.

Inquisitor November 18, 2009 at 12:46 pm

“Oh yes, the free market does such an excellent job of regulating itself. Witness the financial-market meltdown of last year, the rampant abuses in the health insurance industry, and the wholesale offshoring of US jobs overseas. I can’t wait to put my family’s safety in the hands of auto company boardrooms and their stockholders. I’m sure they’ll respond to safety issues the way Toyota did to reports of lethal, runaway cars–by ignoring them.”

Life is hard being ignorant, isn’t it?

JD November 18, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Regarding a business being too powerful??? Well, didn’t you all read Rothbard’s article “Origins of the Fed” a few days ago. Pretty much splains it all for me. That is the framework for today by which we live by today, but even more complex and colluded.

The problem with anything is govt. forces technology that maybe isn’t really there or even economically viable. Fairy tale, perfection, which isn’t in this world.

For me personally, K.I.S.S. regarding cars….Thats why I have a ’93 LX Musstang heavily modified. (Not just Stickers). You can’t get me in the new over-weight heavy regulated garbage…(This is long as the combustion engine is still the predominant power plant, by the way).

It’s still a matter of weight, gearing, etc. regarding efficiency. Or just plain old keeping your foot out of it. What happened to Choice?

free market November 18, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Even if finance was a free market, so what? That doesn’t mean that the dow goes up one day and up more the next. It means that companies can actually go out of business and their stock can drop to 0 if they outlive their usefulness.

insurance November 18, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Insurance is a zero-sum game. If you get the insurance company to pay $100000 for something, that’s your gain but insurance company’s loss. The insurance company has to consider the probabilities of things like that happening and give you a premium based on those probabilities. And those probabilities can be different for different people, so premiums can be different.

Offshoring November 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Offshoring is good for everyone. Jobs are costs, not benefits.

Offshoring November 19, 2009 at 3:46 am

How can “offshoring” be bad? Every time you buy food, you outsource that work to a farmer. Every time you buy a computer, you outsource that work to a computer maker. Every time you buy clothes, you outsource that work to a clothes maker. Every time you go to the hospital, you outsource that work to doctors. Why do you outsource all these things? Because you probably specialize in something and these people specialize in other things. If you did all these things yourself, you would have to do things you didn’t know as well so you wouldn’t produce as mich.

T. Ralph Kays November 19, 2009 at 3:51 am


You only made one mistake, it isn’t spelled mich, its much. Perfect otherwise.

Gil November 19, 2009 at 5:30 am

Really Free Market? What’s stopping people from buying small, efficient four-cyclinder cars right now? For most people fun starts at six cylinders.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: