I’m usually against any legislation for government interfering in a free marketplace but this I can get behind. It won’t be a loss for the vendor since they get their TV back, just teaches them a lesson to not fuck with my stuff.
One question though, “liking” something is subjective and ripe for abuse. Use the TV for 5 years and then return it back because consumer wants to take unfair advantage of the law.
I’m curious, why are you usually against government interference given that you’ve apparently managed to identify at least one instance in which it is a benefit to the consumer?
My own view on regulation of markets is that it is just an incorporation of externalities into the market (better reflecting the actual “costs”)
Because it usually leads to terrible implementation. Lawmakers have very little clue about technology, have you see our Congressmen (assuming you're American)?
No one thinks about externalities or loopholes. The entire house-of-cards is built for better polling and public approval, not about actually improving anything.
Ultimately public loses, politicians gain polling points, and corporations exploit loopholes that are designed into the system.
But HN usually never fails to have a kneejerk reaction to any discomfort with "let's legislate it".
Worth noting that a lot of HN lives in Europe which seems to manage to legislate these things a lot better. My own view is that the US failings in this area are in large part the fault of the “small government, no regulations” crowd hamstringing legislation and giving lobbying groups a chance to influence proceedings. If government jobs were considered higher status (a cultural issue) then there likely wouldn’t be nearly as much corruption.
Not to be that person, but the free marketplace doesn't exist. All markets are legislated, and government picks winners and losers all the time, and that's not inherently bad.
I am fine with legislation that improves competition. Usually safety as well but that is misused (California cancer warnings) and ulterior motives hides behind "It's for the children".
We should question anyone that wants to implement legistation without proper debate and vigilence. Instead, we are frothing for legislation at every opportunity, but I don't see solid public debate about it. Revolving door in DC is spinning faster by the day, but no one seems to care.
Unregulated markets are very rarely ‘free’. Without government interference we ussually end up with a monopoly/oligoply who do whatever they and basically start acting like the government.
Back in the early 70s (the Vietnam War was still on) my father was working for a glass company that made TV tubes (among other products).
He told me that TV manufacturers knew how to make TV screens so thin and light you could hang them on the wall like a picture. He said they weren't bringing them to market because they were making plenty of money selling cathode-ray tubes.
The first LCD laptops rolled along into shops about 1990, but it was at least 2000 before flat-panel TVs appeared.
TV manufacturers have been in cartel-mode for at least 50 years.
Laptop screens can get away with poor range of viewing angle because they typically aim directly at the viewer. The same isn't true for TV screens. I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy, but there also weren't good viewing angles in those 90s laptops.
One question though, “liking” something is subjective and ripe for abuse. Use the TV for 5 years and then return it back because consumer wants to take unfair advantage of the law.
It can grossly backfire.