Hacker News Reader

Comment by pibechorro | Hacker News Reader

Top down economics like banning a whole industry never work. Solutions need to arise bottom up, its an emergent complex system requiering emergent solutions via voluntary desicions of all partys involved (end users,builders, etc). Let the market do its thing. I a generally against subcidies, but they would be a better carrot on a stick than an outright ban.

View on HN

>Top down economics like banning a whole industry never work.

However, there have been many industries that have been modified by top-down bans. Asbestos, various pesticides and lead additives (fuel and paint) have been banned due to the harm that they caused and there's a strong case that ICE vehicles cause a lot of problems through their emissions.

You mean like the ban on CFCs, incandescent light bulbs, plastic straws [1], etc.? Top-down bans work very well, they reward companies that were early movers towards better protection of the environment.

[1] https://business.gov.nl/running-your-business/environmental-...

You mean like going from harmless incandescent light bulbs to poisonous mercury filled CFL bulbs? That was really stupid move.

The EU banned incandescent bulbs.

It worked and the world is a better place because of it.

Also forcing USB C and it’s going to work. People who don’t believe these nation station regs work are ignoring reality.

It’s about systems thinking and pushing in the direction for desired outcomes. There will always be leaks or drag, but usually in de minimis amounts. Banning ICE in 2035 forces supply chain reconfiguration today, hopefully done in a way that locks in the changes (similar to turning down coal plants and demolishing them).

Only that LED bulbs are functionally equivalent while EVs are crappy crap compared to actual cars.

How does that explain the popularity of Tesla as a brand?

Rich people and geeks buying impractical things to show off has always been a thing.

I suggest a visit across street bazaars and flea markets, where people still use to hunt for them.

I don't know any people who still use them (aside from lights that haven't broken yet). LED lights have become much cheaper since the ban, last much longer, and with the current energy prices they are probably much cheaper over their lifetime.

The point of the policy was not to completely eradicate incandescent but to make the default choice LED. It succeeded.

Citation needed.

Regulation has done wonders in many cases where the market just can't adjust for externalized costs and dangers well enough.

For example, should DDT have not been banned but eliminated through a "bottom up" process?

if demand is there for a product, human creativity will find a way to meet that demand. it always has done and it always will do. this is the true power of the markets. they’re excellent at solving demand-meeting problems. they’re not excellent at fixing humanitarian problems. the misunderstanding that free marketers extoll is that demand somehow strongly reflects humanitarian good, as if people’s desire to move quickly and eat tasty and wear fancy will lead to the overall health and wellbeing of the species. of course, some part of demand does reflect that desire. the problem is that it’s almost never enough and even when it is it takes too long to solve time-limited problems like climate change. demand (read: enough people) will finally care once it’s too late. once the results are already here

problems like this need fixing—quickly—and the idea that a ban is unfeasible is simply propaganda for vested interests. perhaps not directly extolled, but a result of the free-market propaganda machine of Friedman et al set up in the 70s and 80s to disseminate these ideas at all of our expenses

Sure a carbon tax would be ideal but if you can’t accomplish that then outright ban might be needed in desperate times

Reply on news.ycombinator.com