Chronicles in West Coast Socialism - the strict California Energy Building Codes have failed

[Loren Pechtel]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

If central planning is so dumb then why is it the model used in 99.9% of corporations?

Man, corporations must have a dim view of the human species.

But we have a marketplace of corporations all competing against each other. The ones with bad rules reform or die.

 

[ksen]

If central planning is so dumb then why is it the model used in 99.9% of corporations?

Man, corporations must have a dim view of the human species.

But we have a marketplace of corporations all competing against each other. The ones with bad rules reform or die.

And nearly all of them use central planning.

 

[ronburgundy]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

First, how do suppose homebuyers are going to verify that the concrete slab currently underground and under their potential home met specs before being covered up? Same goes for wiring and plumbing and insulation, and framing, and the 75% of any building that is not visible and inspectable to the end consumer.

Second, it its a established fact, based on far better science than the OP study, that many humans are too stupid or too cognitively lazy to realize they will save more money in the long run by paying for efficiency up front. It is also an established fact that even if they realize it, many people will still make the self-harming and other-harming decision to pay less now because their mental calculus almost always underweights future savings.
Second only to the immense moral failing of the free-market faith is its intellectual failing in resting on the assumption of human rationality, which ironically is itself to epitome of irrationality, definitively falsified by 75 years of cognitive science.

Third, the regulations are not just to protect consumers against fraud but to protect the species against the harms of reckless waste of polluting energy. Even if the contractor and consumer were in full agreement on creating energy inefficient homes, the rest of us have an interest and a right to prevent them from doing things that harm the rest of us.

 

[ronburgundy]

If central planning is so dumb then why is it the model used in 99.9% of corporations?

Man, corporations must have a dim view of the human species.

But we have a marketplace of corporations all competing against each other. The ones with bad rules reform or die.

You are free to join the Mayans and the Romans to form a society based on rules that cause the society to perish, but the rest of us are interested in preventing that outcome.

 

[zorq]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

What if I could prove to you that the human species is "dim?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

[maxparrish]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

First, how do suppose homebuyers are going to verify that the concrete slab currently underground and under their potential home met specs before being covered up? Same goes for wiring and plumbing and insulation, and framing, and the 75% of any building that is not visible and inspectable to the end consumer.

There are many ways, some used long before their were significant prescriptive building codes. Consumers, in a free society, can choose a product based on:

- Certification during building by an independent, business, (or governmental) inspection/testing agency. (As, for example, U.L. does).
- Contractor inspection before purchase (sampling, x-ray of foundation, etc.).
- Purchase of insurance by seller or buyer, to guarantee performance.
- Reliance on brand name quality.

For example, long before the regulatory era Sears and Roebuck, and Gordon-Van Tine (among others), produced nationally distributed kit homes of equal or better quality; hardwood floors, solid oversized timber, etc. And people bought them because of the suppliers reputation and references, not because of some City building inspector.

Second, it its a established fact, based on far better science than the OP study, that many humans are too stupid or too cognitively lazy to realize they will save more money in the long run by paying for efficiency up front. It is also an established fact that even if they realize it, many people will still make the self-harming and other-harming decision to pay less now because their mental calculus almost always underweights future savings.

False. The desire to save more now, than later, is purely based on subjective and (more importantly) individual time preferences.

Second only to the immense moral failing of the free-market faith is its intellectual failing in resting on the assumption of human rationality, which ironically is itself to epitome of irrationality, definitively falsified by 75 years of cognitive science.

Unless you are proposing rule by a non-human entity, then all decision makers are subject to "intellectual failing" - including government. Telling us that ALL agents of action have a degree of irrationality is irrelevant.

Third, the regulations are not just to protect consumers against fraud but to protect the species against the harms of reckless waste of polluting energy. Even if the contractor and consumer were in full agreement on creating energy inefficient homes, the rest of us have an interest and a right to prevent them from doing things that harm the rest of us.

Depends on what you mean by "doing things" and "harming the rest of us".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But we have a marketplace of corporations all competing against each other. The ones with bad rules reform or die.

And nearly all of them use central planning.

The point is the competition acts as a check on the problems that would otherwise result.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, how do suppose homebuyers are going to verify that the concrete slab currently underground and under their potential home met specs before being covered up? Same goes for wiring and plumbing and insulation, and framing, and the 75% of any building that is not visible and inspectable to the end consumer.

Actually, we could have a good system without a building code or it's enforcement. The same function could be provided by an accreditation agency. Look at how universities work.

 

[zorq]

And nearly all of them use central planning.

The point is the competition acts as a check on the problems that would otherwise result.

And democracy, seperation of powers, and federalization acts as a checks on the problems that result in government.

What makes the threat of death by competition (which incidentally also applies to nations) better than democratic reform when it comes to reducing problems?

 

[laughing dog]

First, how do suppose homebuyers are going to verify that the concrete slab currently underground and under their potential home met specs before being covered up? Same goes for wiring and plumbing and insulation, and framing, and the 75% of any building that is not visible and inspectable to the end consumer.

Actually, we could have a good system without a building code or it's enforcement. The same function could be provided by an accreditation agency. Look at how universities work.

Having gone through a number of accreditations, I would not want to replace building codes with something similar to accreditation.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Everything that is is bad and/or does not work correctly is socialism.

 

[bilby]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Everything that is is bad and/or does not work correctly is socialism.

Everything that restricts my ability to do whatever I want, and ignore the rest of you, is socialism.

 

[untermensche]

Please, let's do away with all those government central planners.

As we all know, corporate central planners would never cause any problems.

 

[maxparrish]

Please, let's do away with all those government central planners.

As we all know, corporate central planners would never cause any problems.

Business planners plan how to manage and spend their own capital, land, and labor to meet consumer demand.

Government planners plan how to manage and spend everyone else's capital, land, and labor to meet their politician demands.

One tends to do a lot better managing one's own spending, rather than 300,000,000 neighbor's spending in the nation.

 

[untermensche]

Please, let's do away with all those government central planners.

As we all know, corporate central planners would never cause any problems.

Business planners plan how to manage and spend their own capital, land, and labor to meet consumer demand.

Government planners plan how to manage and spend everyone else's capital, land, and labor to meet their politician demands.

One tends to do a lot better managing one's own spending, rather than 300,000,000 neighbor's spending in the nation.

I believe the bankers who caused the Housing Crisis were business planners.

The people who saved them and the economic system were government planners.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Please, let's do away with all those government central planners.

As we all know, corporate central planners would never cause any problems.

Business planners plan how to manage and spend their own capital, land, and labor to meet consumer demand.

Government planners plan how to manage and spend everyone else's capital, land, and labor to meet their politician demands.

One tends to do a lot better managing one's own spending, rather than 300,000,000 neighbor's spending in the nation.

Interesting since it has been pointed out at length that building codes are set by members of industry, not central government planners.

 

[maxparrish]

Business planners plan how to manage and spend their own capital, land, and labor to meet consumer demand.

Government planners plan how to manage and spend everyone else's capital, land, and labor to meet their politician demands.

One tends to do a lot better managing one's own spending, rather than 300,000,000 neighbor's spending in the nation.

I believe the bankers who caused the Housing Crisis were business planners.

The people who saved them and the economic system were government planners.

You mean the government planners and regulators that promoted easy money, failed to regulate appropriately, and who were no better than the market? The bubble and crash was as much a failure of government to do their job, as it was of a benighted financial industry. HECK, they even promoted by buying up 50 percent of the secondary market through Freddie and Fannie (while Barney was defending them).

 

[arkirk]

Libertarianism rests on "natural rights". A completely incoherent argument. IMHO it's just as arbitrary as the state just seizing stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Socialism is only those government policies (and regulation) specifically put into place to alleviate the unfair advantages of the wealthier.

On what grounds do you call "natural rights" an incoherent argument, and then turn around and call the advantages of the wealthier "unfair"? What's the semantic difference between a socialist saying it's unfair for a rich guy to have an advantage over a poor guy, and saying the poor guy has a natural right not to be at a disadvantage? Conversely, when a nonsocialist says people have a natural right to property, in what substantive way is that different from saying that taking away people's stuff is unfair to them? You appear to be de facto judging moral judgment itself to be incoherent per se, except when you agree with it.

Fairness is not a matter of nature. It is something people figure out for themselves, debate and decide on. You can argue till the cows come home, there is no such a thing as a natural right. Natural laws are things like physics and chemistry. If we are to get along without terrible friction there needs to be some sort of determination that consensus will rule and that we attempt to avoid negatively affecting other people's lives. The more people there are, the more important it is that we share and moderate our appetites for material consumption. This kind of thinking only makes sense when one has a commitment to humanistic values. "Natural law" can be used as a justification for anybody to do anything to anybody and anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

Fairness is not a matter of nature. It is something people figure out for themselves, debate and decide on.

And yet chimpanzees somehow managed to have a sense of fairness without people ever figuring out, debating, or deciding on it for them.

You can argue till the cows come home, there is no such a thing as a natural right. Natural laws are things like physics and chemistry.

And biology isn't a thing like physics and chemistry?

If we are to get along without terrible friction there needs to be some sort of determination that consensus will rule and that we attempt to avoid negatively affecting other people's lives. The more people there are, the more important it is that we share and moderate our appetites for material consumption. This kind of thinking only makes sense when one has a commitment to humanistic values. "Natural law" can be used as a justification for anybody to do anything to anybody and anything.

"Humanistic values" can be used as a justification for anybody to do anything to anybody and anything. It doesn't matter what we call it; what matters is what we do to one another. You typed that post on a computer. Whose computer is it, yours? If so, then according to you, you got that computer by aggressively seizing it from the commons and making it private, didn't you? Well then, suppose we the people form a consensus to moderate your appetite for material consumption by taking it away from you. Do you think that would help us get along without terrible friction?

 

[Axulus]

Business planners plan how to manage and spend their own capital, land, and labor to meet consumer demand.

Government planners plan how to manage and spend everyone else's capital, land, and labor to meet their politician demands.

One tends to do a lot better managing one's own spending, rather than 300,000,000 neighbor's spending in the nation.

I believe the bankers who caused the Housing Crisis were business planners.

The people who saved them and the economic system were government planners.

You think no money down (or very tiny % down) mortgages would've been a real thing without government meddling and promotion of such, with implicit guarantees that turned out to be well founded? What planet are you living on?