This is why we should all leave the EU

[lapm]

Only problem on electricity point of view i see is that when we use less power, prioce of electricity goes up since power company will not accept less profits... In my country that happens all time... Use of power goes down, price goes up...

[Simon]

Has the EU regulated hand driers yet ? they surely get more use than vacum cleaners and i've seen some pitiful ones that range from a hot draft to reasonably high speed driers with heaters that were a total waste of time, a 800W heater with a 700W motor. There are 2-3KW hand driers

I designed and had built as part of a complete system a hand drier using a 1.1KW motor for a customer that wanted to compete with dyson's air blade. The comment when he saw it was "can it be turned down" the motor makes that much heat that additional heating is not required. So i'm sure a 900W motor would do the job fine. So why do we have public bathrooms with 3KW machines that are well over powered, I'm sure they get way more use than your average vacuum cleaner.

To be noted I did an earlier prototype with a cheap chinese copycat motor that was 1KW, it was good but not as good as the genuine ametek 1.1KW motor.

[Kjelt]

So the next step in this topic is: why do EU regulate product X why we clever engineers found other products Y and Z that they do not regulate?
Answer: a question of time and focus then they will probably also be regulated and absolutely a zero argument for this topic.

The whole question is: why does the government regulate a powered apparatus?
The answers have already be given numerous times but some people just do not want to hear them.
The same discussion why V12 motors running 5km on a litre petrol are forbidden. All multimiljonair dinosaurs were protesting.
Change is difficult but absolutely neccesary to go forward, you have to adapt.

[Kjelt]

Let's take another example of regulation from the EU, one which in the beginning I was personnally very pissed about: RoHs the removal of lead from solder.
It was esp. in the beginning a disaster since there were no good substitutes. We all know the crap that came out beginning 2000 where parts fell of the pcb due to the poor solder.
No more then a decade later there are no big problems anymore with the massproduction of leadfree products, a lot of good alternatives have been produced.
If the EU would not have made this mandatory we still would have only leadbased solder in our products, because if a company/industry has no good reason to change why would it change?

So making legislation mandatory can also be a very strong catalyst to come to better technical products or a solution to a technical challenge.
And to come back on topic if you can buy a vacuum of 900W with the same suckingpower of a 1500W machine what is your problem? You are just debating that this can never happen, the same arguments the lead solder lobby did 15 years ago (which I was one of them  )

[tom66]

RoHS not causing problems? Nope! There are still many BGA failures due to cracked solder joints, brittle solder and lots of heat = failures in the field.

[Kjelt]

Yeah well It has been far worse. Give it time they find a perfect replacement, if you never try you will never succeed and without cause no company will try, that is the message.

[zapta]

Problem is that every car manufacturer will want to be reviewed by Consumer Reports and other big testers. Testing cars is rather expensive and the magazine subscriptions are not going to cover it, so... Manufacturers will end up paying for testing, and we know what the result of that will be.

I don't need every car from every car manufacturer, just one car that had good reputation and review.

You keep coming with absurd arguments to push the weird agenda that free people are helpless without the government dictating every decision they make. You are a free man, start taking responsibility for you life and stop dictating to others what vacuums or soldering stations to use. Nobody owe you a thing.

[dannyf]

If the EU would not have made this mandatory we still would have only leadbased solder in our products, because if a company/industry has no good reason to change why would it change?

I am not sure. If the risk posed by lead is so significant, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine lead poisoning among people working with it, or people become reluctant working in a place that uses lead-based solder, etc.

Those things will likely raise the costs for companies using lead-based solder and in their self-interests, they would likely to have moved away from lead-based solder.

So in the scenario where lead does pose real risks, the EU mandate simply accelerates the switch -> whether it is helpful will depend on individual risk assessment.

In the scenario where lead does not pose real risks, the EU mandate simply imposes an incremental cost while achieving nothing.

Sounds like a no-win situation to me.

As to the V12 example: you simply need to realize that the mogul driving around in his V12 engined car is paying disproportionately the fuel tax, helping every other motorist in the process.

So it is pareto efficient to allow V12 engines on the market.

[nctnico]

It is not about paying more but preserving fuel which isn't a infinite resource 

[Kjelt]

A company will not do that on its own, even when their employees have a risk. I see examples dayly in the newspaper from asbestos to last weeks cancer inducing camouflage paint by the military with reports that it was toxic. Look at India how kids dismantle asbestos on shipyards and we continue the discussion or look at the Ford Pinto case in the  70s where Ford calculated the cost of compensation for the people to die from that deathtrap fueltank cardesign versus the costs of changing the design to make it safer. Every student that has an ethics class will see that example and know how rotten companies can become when the decisionmakers think that they are invulnerable themselves since they are a company without personal risk.

[zapta]

Every student that has an ethics class will see that example and know how rotten companies can become when the decisionmakers think that they are invulnerable themselves since they are a company without personal risk.

The fallacy of anecdotes.

Let me see.. hmm.. who killed more people in the 20th century, corporations or governments? Hmm,  ...

You got it wrong, it's the governments and bureaucracy that don't need to be accountable. Bank Of America for example just paid 17B fine, I am yet to see our government taking responsibility for it's financial shenanigans.

“Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem.”   RWR. 

Stay out of my vacuum purchase decisions.

[marshallh]

I have this hanging up above my desk:

[dannyf]

A company will not do that on its own,

There are plenty examples suggesting otherwise. Corporations are just like people - they are multivated by self-interests. The job of a policy maker is to mold the policies so that corporations find it in their self-interests to move in a direction desired by the public.

it was toxic.

Everyone day we use things that are toxic. As a matter of fact, we cannot live without things that are toxic - oxygen, for example, can be deadly. So are vitamines, and water, and food, and 100% of medicine.

Just because something is toxic doesn't mean we should avoid it.

we continue the discussion or look at the Ford Pinto case in the  70s where Ford calculated the cost of compensation for the people to die from that deathtrap fueltank cardesign versus the costs of changing the design to make it safer.

I don't know the India case, but each of us makes a calculated decision everyone on what risks to take - whether we will make ourselves safer. For example, when you walk outside, you get exposed to skin cancer risks. Some of us walk around covered in cloth, under an umbrella, or with hats, or sunscreen.

Many of us decided that the cost of action is not worth the benefits and do nothing to make it safer for ourselves.

Ford's decisioning may be inhumane, unwise, or even unethical. But that's no different from decisions we make every day.

Every student that has an ethics class will see that example and know how rotten companies can become when the decisionmakers think that they are invulnerable themselves since they are a company without personal risk.

It is OK to teach kids that in schools. But once you are faced with real life situations, it is far more complicated than that. and the line between right and wrong is not clear at all.

A policy maker's job is to device a framework that get people to move in the right direction with minimal distortion to the free market. Unfortunately, many of them does that poorly.

[nctnico]

@marshallh: And you are still sitting on your a*s and doing nothing but complaining... How long does it take for the people of the US to revolt and start the 'democratic republic of the united states'?

[miguelvp]

@marshallh: And you are still sitting on your a*s and doing nothing but complaining... How long does it take for the people of the US to revolt and start the 'democratic republic of the united states'?

Oh boy,

Our system is not perfect but it does work. Maybe you can point us to a system that fits utopia, I'm not sure I've seen one yet.

[zapta]

@marshallh: And you are still sitting on your a*s and doing nothing but complaining... How long does it take for the people of the US to revolt and start the 'democratic republic of the united states'?

We are working on it. It will be a democratic change via elections not a violent revolution. The main effort now is to stop the slippery slope the nanny state, though freedom is threaten not only by the socialists, the right, environmentalists, theocrats, and bureaucrats are just as dangerous. They can't just mind their own business.

Here is one positive example http://freestateproject.org/

[nctnico]

See the greatest brainwash ever in effect: J. Edgar Hoover has been dead for more than 40 years and the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. 

Note that creating artificial enemies is one of the instruments used by dictators.

[miguelvp]

See the greatest brainwash ever in effect: J. Edgar Hoover has been dead for more than 40 years and the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. 

Note that creating artificial enemies is one of the instruments used by dictators.

That might be your perception from the outside, from the inside no one cares other than the politicians and national agencies so that they can have things to do and a budget to do such things

[zapta]

... the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. 

You are making things up. Read my past again. Socialism is just one of the forms of oppression.

[Kremmen]

... the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. 

[...] Socialism is just one of the forms of oppression.

When taken to excess and practiced by a totalitarian administration, sure. But it often looks like any form of regulation by the society (ok, government if you must) is dumped into the same basket and labeled "communism". And that is just not the case. Some things are the better for a bit of control to keep the playing field level and prevent unscrupulous exploitation - whatever the nature of those might be. I know the "rugged outdoor types from Montana" consider any attempt at regulation to be pinko communism if nothing worse. The alternative just tends to be a society stratified into the haves and have-nots, with a side order of environment disasters.
Like it or not, every country is full of regulation. Personally, i could do with less taxes and cheaper gas but i am prepared to pay both to maintain law&order and equal opportunities, not to mention a world where the next generations can live without hazmat suits.
I know the US is supposed to be the land of opportunity where every man pursues his dream on his own. How that makes the Government a public enemy slightly escapes me. Sure, it is a pain in the ass but someone has to handle the common affairs.
A quick comment to the original topic: while regulating vacuum cleaner power might appear ridiculous at first sight, i did read the synopsis of the Directive and considered it to be quite rational reasoning. I mean we have strict pollution laws regulating car manufacture. How is this different in principle? When put to effect it will impact design, resulting in more efficient devices. Tis always happens but not if there is no incentive.
 

[zapta]

Some things are the better for a bit of control to keep the playing field level and prevent unscrupulous exploitation - whatever the nature of those might be.

Socialism is not about keeping the playing field level, it's about keeping the outcome level. If me and my neighbor opened restaurants and his succeeded and I failed, the government take money from him and passes to me. In other words, it punishes success and incentivise failure.

A quick comment to the original topic: while regulating vacuum cleaner power might appear ridiculous at first sight, i did read the synopsis of the Directive and considered it to be quite rational reasoning. I mean we have strict pollution laws regulating car manufacture. How is this different in principle?

Yes, when on a slippery slop, every inch looks just like the one before it.

It's sad that these days when public policies are discussed, the aspect of personal freedom is often ignored. People got conditioned with collectivism and the 'greater common good' ideology and every infringement on our freedom, like that EU regulation, looks a natural extension of the previous ones. Don't fall for it, it's just another form of oppression.

[Kremmen]

Some things are the better for a bit of control to keep the playing field level and prevent unscrupulous exploitation - whatever the nature of those might be.

Socialism is not about keeping the playing field level, it's about keeping the outcome level. If me and my neighbor opened restaurants and his succeeded and I failed, the government take money from him and passes to me. In other words, it punishes success and incentivise failure.

By your definition of socialism. And recall that i did not call the desirable state of government socialism - you do. (Or you suggest that i make that claim, maybe. Which i do not).
Also, your example of "socialism" is a fabrication to support you argument. The "government" has well established legislation regarding e.g. taxation and if you run a business, sure; you are expected to pay taxes according to the law. If you fail to run a business otoh, then there won't be any taxes either. If you expect the "government" to hand over money, you need to come up with a better reason than a  failure to do successful business.
At the same time there are aspects of leveling the outcome in the form of progressive taxation. I can see how that is poison to all socialism-haters and i admit i am personally not that fond of the concept either.

A quick comment to the original topic: while regulating vacuum cleaner power might appear ridiculous at first sight, i did read the synopsis of the Directive and considered it to be quite rational reasoning. I mean we have strict pollution laws regulating car manufacture. How is this different in principle?

Yes, when on a slippery slop, every inch looks just like the one before it.

This is a fallacious argument and you should know better. If there is an issue then there needs to be a solution as well. The world moves on; new issues, new solutions. That you don't acknowledge there is an issue doesn't mean there isn't one. We can and should discuss whether issues exist and whether they merit action. This should happen on a suitable forum / level. I leave it an exercise to you to suggest a suitable forum.

It's sad that these days when public policies are discussed, the aspect of personal freedom is often ignored. People got conditioned with collectivism and the 'greater common good' ideology and every infringement on our freedom, like that EU regulation, looks a natural extension of the previous ones. Don't fall for it, it's just another form of oppression.

You do have a point. You don't know me but if you did you would know that i am probably equally staunch supporter of the rights of an individual as any flag waving 'merkin. I just can't be bothered to feel that oppressed about regulation that, while appearing faintly ridiculous, do have a solid rationale behind it and don't really tread on the rights of an individual. In this particular case sure, the world would keep on turning never mind how powerful domestic appliances we had. But if we can lose a few coal firing plants here and there just by making our frigging vacuums a bit more efficient then by all means have a go at it.
For my part i am prepared to sacrifice _some_ "rights" to promote the common good. What i have in mind have mostly to do with regulating consumption of non-renewable resources and preserving the environment and an equal opportunity society. Mostly such regulation would not infringe with the rights of the individual, except indirectly which i can live with.

Let me take an example where i also am strictly opposed to regulation and intend to take action in case it comes to pass: Recently the Finnish government came up with the brilliant idea that technology could be used to support taxation of car usage. For your information, the car is the #1 milking cow for taxes here. We pay ridiculous prices compared to almost anyone else. So, the gov't set up a study group led by Jorma Ollila, the ex-chairman of Nokia to investigate usage of GPS technology in monitoring car mileage and levying yet another tax on that. So everyone would be required to install a GPS logger at their own expense and have it regularly report the car movements to some central authority. Now this does qualify as oppressive socialism in my book, and did so for nearly every "ordinary" citizen as well. It really is not anyone's business where i drive my car and when. Those involved tried to assure that the info would only be used to collect mileage info but it is obvious what will happen. There is no promise the gov't can make that would be credible in assuring the privacy of people's movements. That would really be the starting point of a slippery slope towards total control. So if the law is passed my receiver will be permanently temporarily out of order. And so will most others' i gather. So hopefully that brainfart is quietly buried in the archives and never heard of again.

[Kjelt]

Let me see.. hmm.. who killed more people in the 20th century, corporations or governments? Hmm,  ...

Who thought of created and build all the apparatus that did the actual killing?

You got it wrong, it's the governments and bureaucracy that don't need to be accountable.

They are accountable, each election and if someone really blunders he is sent away directly , at least in our country some politicians blunder and are "fired" from office within weeks when it's politician friends distance themselves.

Bank Of America for example just paid 17B fine

Finally after how long and how much rotten and dirty "business" practices, how many devistated lives?
The government should sue and sentence the responsible CEO's and not a money fine since that means nothing for those people, no directly to jail.
There should be a clear definition of what is allowed and not. 
In our country the government bailed out the banks by buying them, they should have let them go bankrupt because that is the way business works, if you screw up you go bankrupt and it is game over. Now they are again starting their bonus (bogus) culture.
One good thing happened, we see a differentiation between customer savings banks and business banks, only the latter may take investment risks.

Concerning you anti trust to your government, I would also not trust a government that let's the difference between incomes and the have and have not's grow so huge as in the USA. That american dream is only for a few % of the people and the rest are paying for it while never ever getting a glimpse of it. Sounds to socialist to you? Wait till you need something (medical care or loose your job) and see it from the other side. Here in Holland it is not perfect either we pay a lot of taxes and own risks for medicare but you can see it as together we stand as one, we all pay for eachother and be happy if you are so lucky that you do not need it. That is how I now look at it and gladly pay my 52% income tax and hundreds of $ each month on a mandatory insurance I do not use at all.

[zapta]

Hi guys, I don't have anything new to add to the topic. My advise to you is be mindful of your freedom and don't let it slip away. Cheers.

[lewis]

gladly pay my 52% income tax

Jesus fricking Christ! You do like giving your money away.