1 Answer | Add Yours
Arguments like this are generally based on the idea that market forces will be more efficient and fair in creating policy than the government can be. When the government gets involved, it often creates rules that are too onerous for the businesses and which may go farther than consumers even want. In such cases, the rules end up harming consumers. They end up causing jobs to be lost (if business cannot succeed under the new rules). They end up causing prices to go up and they do so while giving consumers protections that they may not even want.
According to this line of thought, things would be better without regulation. The market would force businesses to provide adequate warranties because people would not buy from businesses that lacked them. The market would allow an equilibrium between strong warranties on the one hand and low prices on the other. This would be more equitable and more efficient than having government regulate warranties.
We’ve answered 319,203 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question