One Regulation Could Have Stopped a Nationwide Car Theft Wave. Why Don't We Have It?
One Regulation Could Have Stopped a Nationwide Car Theft Wave. Why Don't We Have It?
In 2007, Canada started requiring all vehicles to have a cheap, effective anti-theft device. The U.S. didn't. Now, it is paying the price with a surge in Kia and Hyundai thefts.
In 2007, Canada started requiring all vehicles to have a cheap, effective anti-theft device. The U.S. didn't. Now, it is paying the price with a surge in Kia and Hyundai thefts.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why should the government have to mandate anti-theft devices? Surely the manufacturer should do the right thing regardless of legislation. Hyundai/Kia failed here, not the government (for once).
I would think this is a perfect example of why the government has to step in sometimes. Hyundai/Kia failed, and because there's no regulation in place here, consumers are left holding the bag with no penalty for the corporations.
Agreed. To add, Car loans in the US come standard minimum 60 months, often longer. It's not a liquid market where consumers can switch easily once they've made a buying decision. In my family, we keep cars roughly the same amount of time it takes to rear a newborn to college age. There is very little interaction with "the market".
A company has only one legal responsibility: To generate as much profit for their shareholders as possible.
If they are not forced to do something that will add costs, they will not do it.
The role of government is to pass laws to force companies to do what is in the best interest of the country's citizens.
To generate as much profit for their shareholders as possible.
Even that is not really their legal responsibility… if you’re thinking of their fiduciary duty, that means there is a responsibility to act in the best interests of the corporation & shareholders (rather than, eg, putting personal gain forefront). “Best interests” doesn’t necessarily mean “make the most money possible right now”, particularly if it can be argued that there would be long term damage to brand reputation etc by doing so.
You might not think so, but the profit margin on new cars is surprisingly thin. Execs will debate adding features that cost even a tiny amount per vehicle, because those costs add up. You can’t just say “well, fine, make the car more expensive, then” because soon you’ll price yourself out of reach of your target market. Competitors will rush to fill in the vacuum you’ve created, and then you’re screwed.
Manufacturers would cut every corner possible if they could, just to save a few cents per vehicle. That’s why things like safety regulations have to exist. Capitalism is utterly ruthless, amoral, and must always be kept in check. When corporations and money are involved, the “right thing” is not what you and I think it should be. The “right thing” is ALWAYS making more money.
Companies don't do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts, especially if doing the right thing hurts the bottom line. They need to be forced.
Capitalism forces companies to do the profitable thing, not the right thing. So let's abolish capitalism first and then we'll discuss how people who make cars should do the right thing
I mean... this story is exactly why. Which part of it didn't you understand?