• seeigel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    That’s a good argument but doesn’t fit the situation. The bad buying decisions can be corrected with market mechanisms. Allow people to finance the products over the entire expected lifetime. Then high quality goods are cheaper and people will choose them.

    Some people speculated that Britain left the EU because they believe in markets whereas many EU countries don’t. This could be one of many decisions that put the EU onto a different trajectory. We will see in 20 years if the EU can stay on top of its regulations.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Allow people to finance the products over the entire expected lifetime.

      So you want to capture regulation in the name of the banks and whatever presumably private (because markets!!!11) agency does the life expectancy rating while simultaneously letting the manufacturers off the hook warranty-wise. Got you.

      Some people speculated that Britain left the EU because they believe in markets whereas many EU countries don’t.

      Those people are stupid. At least in so far as “they” refers to Britons at large. If with “they” you mean certain nobs and posh folks and with “market” you mean “offshore tax havens” then you have a point.

      Brexit was pushed for by Atlas network members, notably against opposition from Atlas members from anywhere else in the world, right before the EU started tightening regulations on tax havens. Coincidence? You tell me. The rest of those neoliberal fucks rather pay taxes than burn the cake they’re eating.

      We will see in 20 years if the EU can stay on top of its regulations.

      The EU Commission, back then in the form of the ECSC High Authority, has been doing this stuff since 1952. All European post-war prosperity is based on this kind of approach. Details differ but by and large the European economical policy is ordoliberal.

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Manufacturers are not off the hook. If they are not reliable then the expected runtime is low and their monthly payments go up.

        the European economical policy is ordoliberal

        Without Britain, it could become more ordo than liberal.

        We don’t have to prevent this regulation. However we should prepare ourselves to prevent the appliance market to become like the housing market. Citizens are unable to make a change there. That shouldn’t be ignored when other markets are regulated more.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Manufacturers are not off the hook. If they are not reliable then the expected runtime is low and their monthly payments go up.

          If you’re a manufacturer and you’re not sure whether your product can last 10 years then you’re free to contact an insurer and hash something out with them. Still, the buck stops with the manufacturer everything else is pointless bureaucracy. Shit broke? Manufacturer is on the hook, replace it. Simple as that. Not “customer now has to deal with a bank and the manufacturer and a rating agency”.

          However we should prepare ourselves to prevent the appliance market to become like the housing market.

          I don’t see much speculative capital flowing into home appliance rentals and turning regular home appliance rentals into short-term high-profit rentals.

          There’s not even an oversupply of luxury appliances at the expense of reasonably-priced ones.

          Quite literally nothing about the housing market issue has anything to do with what’s going on on the home appliance one, or with overregulation. Sure, in places there’s regulations to re-think or even straight abolish, e.g. parking minimums, but generally building codes don’t make stuff more expensive. Least of all on a macroeconomic level. The issue, for a long time, were ROI expectations of investors. It’s a general problem in the economy: Too many rich fucks with too much money, not knowing what to do with it, where to invest it, but still wanting their 8% because… why. They’re already filthily rich. I totally get a starving artist rent-seeking, “then I can let go of my day job and focus on my art”, but a billionaire? Get the fuck out of here.

          • seeigel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The main bottleneck for the housing market is land in areas where people want to live. People have to pay whatever they can to live close to their work. If demand is so big, of course only housing with the highest margins is developed, which is the luxery market.

            The speculative capital is flowing because the high demand keeps prices stable. If there would be a surplus to the point that the speculative capital doesn’t find a buyer when selling, prices would be much lower. The backing for the high prices are the real tenants though who want to live where they work.

            Appliances don’t need the speculative capital to become expensive. It is enough if there is less competition. Then customers can’t ‘move’ to other products and have to pay whatever is demanded.

            If the requirements stay limited to an extended warranty then things can remain competitive but I doubt that the regulations will end there. This should take cheap Chinese brands off the market that don’t have a support network in Europe. That’s good for nature, but it removes the cheap options off the market which will allow the market to rise the prices for the cheapest durable goods.

    • tombrandis@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Britain (where I live) left the EU because lots of people where unhappy and Leave ran a much better campaign that Remain (and lied a couple of times). Racism probably also had something to do with it but that’s hard to prove.

      It wasn’t really about markets because most voters don’t know enough about them to decide based on them.

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Most voters rely on the campaign communications which was not equally good. Is it too far fetched to think that Remain was intentionally bad?