Replies

Trouble is, there are all sorts of other very costly regulations, aside from Unions, we have saddled manufacturing with...not to mention the taxes.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of those regulation are needed. You don't recall the time when GM sold cars that they did not treat the metal to prevent rust do you.

I have been driving GM vehicles myself since the late 60s (trucks in hay fields as a young boy) and buying them myslef since the 70s.

My parents, both born in the 1920s drove us around as kids in them in the 50s, in vehicvles made in the 40s.

Fact is, this nation (both libs and RINOs) have gone far, faroverboard with regulations for special interest groups that have driven manufacturers out of this country, not to mention the taxes.

I have never said that ALL regulations were bad...I did say that there were many, many bad ones that drive our manufacturers away.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of those regulation are needed. You don't recall the time when GM sold cars that they did not treat the metal to prevent rust do you.

This is an excellent example of why the nanny-state rules are the problem.

Cars rusted in the north due to the salt used on the highways in the winter. If you lived in such a place, you could pay extra and add some rust-proofing to your car. If you don't live in a such a place, you can skip it and save money.

Then, the gummint steps in with the most terrifying words in the english language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!"

Now, we all pay for rust-proofing to make the sheet metal last for 10+ years, when all the electrical systems are designed to last for about 4 years.

The same goes for a lot of the government-mandated "features" that all car have, and YOU pay for. Why do I need child safety seat anchors in my car if I don't have a child? A glow-in-the-dark trunk exit handle? Mandatory remote tire pressure sensing systems?

“Some of those regulation are needed.”

I doubt it.

“You don’t recall the time when GM sold cars that they did not treat the metal to prevent rust do you.”

Actually, I don’t recall the time when the MARKET AS A WHOLE purposely took actions over an extended period of time to hurt itself. Markets don’t do that.

Therefore, markets don’t need regulation.

Why, exactly, do we need regulations requiring that autos be treated for rust? You don't think consumers who live in parts of the country where rust is a problem are capable of asking their dealers whether the car is treated for rust and paying for that feature? Or checking out Consumer Reports to find that sort of information on any number of features that might affect the car's lifespan?

Do we really need a new government regulation every time we have any complaint about some product?

So you support nanny-state laws such as the one enforcing automakers to put rust-protection on their cars? This mindset is why the U.S. can no longer effectively compete in the world marketplace. Why should the government be involved in this? Let the law of supply and demand dictate whether automakers rust-proof their cars. For example, if Toyota decides to stop rust-proofing their cars and consumers feel strongly about it, then maybe they buy more Hondas and Nissans instead. This will force Toyota to rust-proof their cars again should the market demand it. Then again, maybe not having to rust-proof their cars makes Toyota more competitive in places like Phoenix, AZ and Southern California by getting to offer cheaper cars? So let the businesses decide, not the government.