Private industry is not always the superior solution.

[Toddsterpatriot]

… Thus in the USA, California’s higher standards for some products effectively became the national standard. That’s an example of California’s government’s regulations inducing an improvement of goods and service products. ...

Why do you feel California regulations induce an improvement?
Be as specific as you can.

Toddsterpatriot, I’m an old man and no longer crawl under cars. There were many cars built to comply with the more stringent California emissions regulations, but living on the East coast and not being a professional mechanic, I’m not surprised that I was never aware if I encountered one of those California vehicles.

I do logically speculate that if an emission component was required to be redesigned for California compliance, it would often be found less expensive to manufacture a single design for all the engines, rather than manufacturing and stocking two different designs of the same part. Because of this, vehicle manufactures would have been, (for their own benefit) induced to somewhat upgrade all their vehicles to more closely approach the California emissions standards.

I similarly speculate that if any state has more stringent standards for any product, manufactures will determine if it was more to their advantage to: (A) manufacture and stock two similar models of product. (B) Not compete within the state requiring the model more expensive to produce. (c) Produce a single model because particularly in mass production assembly lines, the economies of increased numbers produced and sold justify a comparatively small additional manufacturing cost per unit.

For many products, I speculate that the choice would be (C). Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, it does make more sense to build one model rather than a different one for every state.

But why is a model based on the California standard an improvement over one based on the national standard?

 

[Supposn]

Yes, it does make more sense to build one model rather than a different one for every state.
But why is a model based on the California standard an improvement over one based on the national standard?

Toddsterpatriot, if the California standard complies with the remainder of the USA, manufacturers need only produce one model that to sell nation-wide, and that model will comply with California’s higher standards. This is only feasible if any additional cost of producing the California model is justifiable for a nationally sold product.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it does make more sense to build one model rather than a different one for every state.
But why is a model based on the California standard an improvement over one based on the national standard?

Toddsterpatriot, if the California standard complies with the remainder of the USA, manufacturers need only produce one model that to sell nation-wide, and that model will comply with California’s higher standards. This is only feasible if any additional cost of producing the California model is justifiable for a nationally sold product.

Respectfully, Supposn

But why is a model based on the California standard an improvement over one based on the national standard?

 

[Supposn]

Yes, it does make more sense to build one model rather than a different one for every state. …

Toddsterpatriot, … This [more stringently manufactured California model] is only feasible if any additional cost of producing the California model is justifiable for a nationally sold product. …

But why is a model based on the California standard an improvement over one based on the national standard?

Toddsterpatriot, you correctly surmise that a California model need not necessarily be a superior product. But the motive of California’s legal requirement was to demand a safer product. If the California model didn’t satisfy both the remaining USA state’s governments’ regulations and their consumers, it wouldn’t be a commercially feasible choice of a model for national sales. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it does make more sense to build one model rather than a different one for every state. …

Toddsterpatriot, … This [more stringently manufactured California model] is only feasible if any additional cost of producing the California model is justifiable for a nationally sold product. …

But why is a model based on the California standard an improvement over one based on the national standard?

Toddsterpatriot, you correctly surmise that a California model need not necessarily be a superior product. But the motive of California’s legal requirement was to demand a safer product. If the California model didn’t satisfy both the remaining USA state’s governments’ regulations and their consumers, it wouldn’t be a commercially feasible choice of a model for national sales. Respectfully, Supposn

But the motive of California’s legal requirement was to demand a safer product.

If California decides that their requirement means an extra 5 MPG for passenger vehicles, does that make their product safer?

 

[Supposn]

But the motive of California’s legal requirement was to demand a safer product.
If California decides that their requirement means an extra 5 MPG for passenger vehicles, does that make their product safer?

Toddsterpatriot, aren’t you aware of what occurred in USA’s marketplaces? Why are you attempting to make a backward argument when the truth just as easily makes the makes whatever point you're aiming for? I suspect it's a point that you and I agree upon.

California’s more stringent auto emission standards’ purpose is the reduction of smog in their largest cities, rather than, (as you suggested), reduction of MPG. L.A. smog was a particularly severe health hazard. This did increase manufacturing costs and/or reduced MPG and/or reduced performances of new or late model cars registered in California.

For these reasons, although California emission compliant cars satisfy regulations in all USA’s states, they did not satisfy car purchasers in the remaining USA states.
That’s why the auto industry produced two similar species of most models of new vehicles sold in California. I’m sure out of state dealers are willing to sell a California compliant vehicle, but dealers generally do not choose to keep less popular species of vehicles in stock.

Additionally, later federal standards were more stringent, and some state influenced by California, legislated standards exceeded those federal standards. Consequentially, even new vehicles not meeting the California standards, were manufactured to meet standards more stringent than the federal standards.
I’m not aware of current markets for new vehicles, and if manufacturers are still producing two species of the same model cars.

Due to the California syndrome, all new cars sold in the USA did exceed the federal standards until and unless federal standards have been upgraded to meet California’s standard.
Refer to: Which states follow California's emission and zero-emission vehicle rules?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the motive of California’s legal requirement was to demand a safer product.
If California decides that their requirement means an extra 5 MPG for passenger vehicles, does that make their product safer?

Toddsterpatriot, aren’t you aware of what occurred in USA’s marketplaces? Why are you attempting to make a backward argument when the truth just as easily makes the makes whatever point you're aiming for? I suspect it's a point that you and I agree upon.

California’s more stringent auto emission standards’ purpose is the reduction of smog in their largest cities, rather than, (as you suggested), reduction of MPG. L.A. smog was a particularly severe health hazard. This did increase manufacturing costs and/or reduced MPG and/or reduced performances of new or late model cars registered in California.

For these reasons, although California emission compliant cars satisfy regulations in all USA’s states, they did not satisfy car purchasers in the remaining USA states.
That’s why the auto industry produced two similar species of most model vehicles that were sold in California. I’m sure out of state dealers are willing to sell a California compliant vehicle, but they do not choose less popular species of vehicles in stock.

Additionally, later federal standards were more stringent, and some state influenced by California, legislated standards exceeded those federal standards. Consequentially, even new vehicles not meeting the California standards, were manufactured to meet standards more stringent than the federal standards.
I’m not aware of current markets for new vehicles, and if manufacturers are still producing two species of the same model cars.

But due to the California syndrome, all new cars sold in the USA did exceed the federal standards until and unless federal standard was upgraded to meet California’s standard.
Refer to: Which states follow California's emission and zero-emission vehicle rules?

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, aren’t you aware of what occurred in USA’s marketplaces?

Enlighten me.

Why are you attempting to make a backward argument

I'm trying to find proof for your claims.

First you said California's standards were superior.
Then you said California's government regulations induced improvements in the goods.
Then you said the California products might not be superior, but were safer.
Now you're saying they're cleaner.

It's true, a car that is required to emit less NOx and SOx will be "cleaner" than one that emits more.

So are you giving up your previous claims that CA standards are superior?
That CA regulations improve goods?
That CA regulations result in safer products?

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, aren’t you aware of what occurred in USA’s marketplaces?
Enlighten me.

Why are you attempting to make a backward argument

I'm trying to find proof for your claims.
First you said California's standards were superior.
Then you said California's government regulations induced improvements in the goods.
Then you said the California products might not be superior, but were safer.
Now you're saying they're cleaner.

It's true, a car that is required to emit less NOx and SOx will be "cleaner" than one that emits more.
So are you giving up your previous claims that CA standards are superior?
That CA regulations improve goods?
That CA regulations result in safer products?

Toddsterpatriot, California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”; I won’t quibble regarding this point. California’s more stringent standards do generally accomplish their purposes and to that extent they’re superior to other USA standards.

What's the point you're trying (and failing) to make? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, aren’t you aware of what occurred in USA’s marketplaces?
Enlighten me.

Why are you attempting to make a backward argument

I'm trying to find proof for your claims.
First you said California's standards were superior.
Then you said California's government regulations induced improvements in the goods.
Then you said the California products might not be superior, but were safer.
Now you're saying they're cleaner.

It's true, a car that is required to emit less NOx and SOx will be "cleaner" than one that emits more.
So are you giving up your previous claims that CA standards are superior?
That CA regulations improve goods?
That CA regulations result in safer products?

Toddsterpatriot, California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”; I won’t quibble regarding this point. California’s more stringent standards do generally accomplish their purposes and to that extent they’re superior to other USA standards.

What's the point you're trying (and failing) to make? Respectfully, Supposn

California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

How does a 5 MPG higher CAFE standard, for example, protect the financial well-being of Californians?

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”;

"That’s an example of California’s government’s regulations inducing an improvement of goods and service products. …"

"one government’s regulations required superior standards for a product,"

Improved goods meeting a higher standard aren't "superior"? Are they inferior? Identical?

I won’t quibble regarding this point.

Wouldn't want to defend your claim......


What's the point you're trying (and failing) to make?

That you have 100% failed to provide backup for any of your claims in this thread.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”; I won’t quibble regarding this point. California’s more stringent standards do generally accomplish their purposes and to that extent they’re superior to other USA standards. …

California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.
How does a 5 MPG higher CAFE standard, for example, protect the financial well-being of Californians?

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”;
"That’s an example of California’s government’s regulations inducing an improvement of goods and service products. …"
"one government’s regulations required superior standards for a product,"
Improved goods meeting a higher standard aren't "superior"? Are they inferior? Identical?

I won’t quibble regarding this point.
Wouldn't want to defend your claim......

What's the point you're trying (and failing) to make?
That you have 100% failed to provide backup for any of your claims in this thread.

Toddsterpatriot, I do not think you’re stupid, but rather you’re pretending not to understand lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are of some contribution to the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”; I won’t quibble regarding this point. California’s more stringent standards do generally accomplish their purposes and to that extent they’re superior to other USA standards. …

California’s more stringent standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.
How does a 5 MPG higher CAFE standard, for example, protect the financial well-being of Californians?

I may or may not have posted products that meet those standards are “superior”;
"That’s an example of California’s government’s regulations inducing an improvement of goods and service products. …"
"one government’s regulations required superior standards for a product,"
Improved goods meeting a higher standard aren't "superior"? Are they inferior? Identical?

I won’t quibble regarding this point.
Wouldn't want to defend your claim......

What's the point you're trying (and failing) to make?
That you have 100% failed to provide backup for any of your claims in this thread.

Toddsterpatriot, I do not think you’re stupid, but rather you’re pretending not to understand lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are of some contribution to the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

Respectfully, Supposn

lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are of some contribution to the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population.

Are higher MPG vehicles cheaper or more expensive?
Safer in collisions or more dangerous?

As usual, you look at 1 level of an issue and fail to see levels 2-10.
I don't think your failure is because you're stupid, but I may be mistaken.

 

[Supposn]

Are higher MPG vehicles cheaper or more expensive?
Safer in collisions or more dangerous?

As usual, you look at 1 level of an issue and fail to see levels 2-10. I don't think your failure is because you're stupid, but I may be mistaken.

Toddsterpatriot, you’re still pretending to be stupid?
Lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are not of some contribution to the health and well-being of LA residents? Health isn’t to some extent a financially beneficial to those people that are not sick or sicker.

There are some people that are unable or unwilling to sacrifice money, or effort, or convenience in order to achieve or retain their health. I understand that. Degrees of those benefits' extents and priorities are matters of opinions, but undeniably, lesser air pollution is of some health and financial benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are higher MPG vehicles cheaper or more expensive?
Safer in collisions or more dangerous?

As usual, you look at 1 level of an issue and fail to see levels 2-10. I don't think your failure is because you're stupid, but I may be mistaken.

Toddsterpatriot, you’re still pretending to be stupid?
Lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are not of some contribution to the health and well-being of LA residents? Health isn’t to some extent a financially beneficial to those people that are not sick or sicker.

There are some people that are unable or unwilling to sacrifice money, or effort, or convenience in order to achieve or retain their health. I understand that. Degrees of those benefits' extents and priorities are matters of opinions, but undeniably, lesser air pollution is of some health and financial benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn

Lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are not of some contribution to the health and well-being of LA residents?

How much does it cost? How much is it worth?

You should look up...."cost-benefit analysis"

It might be hard for you to understand at first, but you'll sound less ignorant in the future.

 

[Supposn]

Lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are not of some contribution to the health and well-being of LA residents?

How much does it cost? How much is it worth?
You should look up...."cost-benefit analysis"
It might be hard for you to understand at first, but you'll sound less ignorant in the future.

Toddsterpatriot, the cost/benefit of those registering their vehicle in California, differ from those registering in other states. Based upon vehicle manufacturers’ individual senses of the their national and of their California markets, they determine if they should manufacture one or two species of any vehicle models.

I’m not a vehicle manufacturer and I need not “look up...."cost-benefit analysis".

With each of your additional responses to this thread, you increasingly appear more ignorant. Why do you pretend to disagree with the concept of the “California syndrome”? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lesser vehicles’ emissions’ pollutants in California are not of some contribution to the health and well-being of LA residents?

How much does it cost? How much is it worth?
You should look up...."cost-benefit analysis"
It might be hard for you to understand at first, but you'll sound less ignorant in the future.

Toddsterpatriot, the cost/benefit of those registering their vehicle in California, differ from those registering in other states. Based upon vehicle manufacturers’ individual senses of the their national and of their California markets, they determine if they should manufacture one or two species of any vehicle models.

I’m not a vehicle manufacturer and I need not “look up...."cost-benefit analysis".

With each of your additional responses to this thread, you increasingly appear more ignorant. Why do you pretend to disagree with the concept of the “California syndrome”? Respectfully, Supposn

It'd be quicker if you said "I feel the higher California standards are worth the extra cost, but have no proof".

Instead of pretending you don't understand what I was asking.

I’m not a vehicle manufacturer and I need not “look up...."cost-benefit analysis".

Manufacturers don't need to do that, because the consumer has no choice.
They must eat the extra cost passed on by the manufacturer.

 

[Supposn]

It'd be quicker if you said "I feel the higher California standards are worth the extra cost, but have no proof", instead of pretending you don't understand what I was asking.
Manufacturers don't need to [“look up...."cost-benefit analysis"], because the consumer has no choice.
They must eat the extra cost passed on by the manufacturer.

Toddsterpatriot, do you deny:
(1) California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population?
(2) Due to California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards, to some extent there’s less air pollution within California’s cities?
(3) Less air pollution is a of some health benefit, (and a health benefit is also of some financial benefit) to a state’s population?

Due to, or regardless of California’s emission standard’s cost-benefits, their government had the legal authority to pass and enact their more stringent vehicle emission standards. Unless and until those standards are repealed, or modified, or deemed federal or state unconstitutional, those standards are law in California.

Whatever your question or your point is with regard to “California syndrome”, yours or my opinions or answers are inconsequential to California syndrome's consequences.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It'd be quicker if you said "I feel the higher California standards are worth the extra cost, but have no proof", instead of pretending you don't understand what I was asking.
Manufacturers don't need to [“look up...."cost-benefit analysis"], because the consumer has no choice.
They must eat the extra cost passed on by the manufacturer.

Toddsterpatriot, do you deny:
(1) California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population?
(2) Due to California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards, to some extent there’s less air pollution within California’s cities?
(3) Less air pollution is a of some health benefit, (and a health benefit is also of some financial benefit) to a state’s population?

Due to, or regardless of California’s emission standard’s cost-benefits, their government had the legal authority to pass and enact their more stringent vehicle emission standards. Unless and until those standards are repealed, or modified, or deemed federal or state unconstitutional, those standards are law in California.

Whatever your question or your point is with regard to “California syndrome”, yours or my opinions or answers are inconsequential to California syndrome's consequences.
Respectfully, Supposn

(1) California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population?

If you have evidence that these more expensive cars are better for the financial well being of Californians, you shouldn't wait for me, you should just post it.

If you think the lighter cars that higher MPG standards require result in a net health benefit, show me your proof.

(2) Due to California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards, to some extent there’s less air pollution within California’s cities?

To some extent. And?

(3) Less air pollution is a of some health benefit, (and a health benefit is also of some financial benefit) to a state’s population?

This leads back to your ignorance of cost-benefit analysis

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

at lesser expense and in a manner superior to that of the United States.

This is largely true for some key goods and services and it is because they have more capitalism than we do. In Paris you will have 4 choices for your cell service for example, and thus it is more competitive and less expensive than in the USA. Europe is much more active in anti-trust than we are and apparently it is paying off.

Let's keep in mind though that on balance Europe has a libsocialist bent and so lives at about 60% of our per capital GDP. They would live at about 35% of our GDP if they had to invent things for themselves. Everything is invented here and quickly spreads there thanks to the natural distributive energy of Republican capitalism. Same with China, if they could not copy our inventions they would be living at 10% of where they are today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Private businesses do not set the rules of business nor do they determine what business is legal or illegal.

Capitalism or freedom is a natural right enshrined in the Constitution. Do you understand the basics of your country now? Government's role is to reinforce our natural right to interact freely. Their role is not to force people to interact in new ways at gunpoint the way Hitler Stalin and Mao did, and the way our Green New Deal libcommies would if ever given half the chance.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, do you deny:
(1) California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population?
(2) Due to California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards, to some extent there’s less air pollution within California’s cities?
(3) Less air pollution is a of some health benefit, (and a health benefit is also of some financial benefit) to a state’s population?

Due to, or regardless of California’s emission standard’s cost-benefits, their government had the legal authority to pass and enact their more stringent vehicle emission standards. Unless and until those standards are repealed, or modified, or deemed federal or state unconstitutional, those standards are law in California.

Whatever your question or your point is with regard to “California syndrome”, yours or my opinions or answers are inconsequential to California syndrome's consequences. ...

(1) California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards' purposes are to better protect the financial and/or health well-being of California’s population?
If you have evidence that these more expensive cars are better for the financial well being of Californians, you shouldn't wait for me, you should just post it.
If you think the lighter cars that higher MPG standards require result in a net health benefit, show me your proof.

(2) Due to California’s more stringent vehicle emission standards, to some extent there’s less air pollution within California’s cities?
To some extent. And?

(3) Less air pollution is a of some health benefit, (and a health benefit is also of some financial benefit) to a state’s population?
This leads back to your ignorance of cost-benefit analysis

Toddsterpatriot, maybe you’re not pretending, and you are stupid. I’m a very patient man, but you’ve exceeded my patience. Supposn