Slashdot Mirror
Legal Loophole Offers Volkswagen Criminal Immunity
An anonymous reader writes: According to the Wall Street Journal (paywalled) a loophole in the 1970 Clean Air Act could make it impossible for U.S. prosecutors to subject Volkswagen to criminal charges over its use of standards-dodging 'defeat devices' in its emissions-testing software. Prosecutors are now reported to be considering alternative methods, including (considerably lesser) charges that Volkswagen lied to regulation authorities.
So long as the evil sociopaths who run the company are able to evade any meaningful censure, all is well! Doubtless some simpering worthless patsies will be found to take the blame while the real instigators are not only allowed to go free, but doubtless profit immeasurably.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
None of which explain what exactly is the loophole.
"There's a loophole there" - is all I could get. the WSJ article is paywalled.
Any ideas? IANAL so, to me, it's a mystery.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Who's worming their way out?
Sounds like the prosecutors are trying to make a case that won't get thrown out.
You can't just make up law as you go along because it's morally wrong.
If the rulebook says "When we plug in our testing machine, your car needs to be emitting X, Y and Z", then they were totally within the rules.
you mean following the law is "worming out of it"?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"the clause in the act indemnifies car manufacturers against criminal penalties". A non-paywalled linked with a bit more info: http://www.wsj.com/articles/vo...
It would have been more helpful if the summary had at least... you know... summarized what loophole actually was.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I still don't understand the furor about Volkswagen outsmarting the EPA. As I understand it, Volkswagen figured out a way to pass the EPAs bullshit tests (keep in mind, their cars are 100% legal in the much stricter European market) in such a way that they actually get better fuel economy (which is what we're going for, right?) than they would if they followed the EPAs regulations.
So now the EPA wants to make them burn EVEN MORE gas and waste EVEN MORE fuel.
And we all know the real reason the US government is going after Volkswagen: to give struggling US car companies a leg up. This is just the US trying to punish foreign companies for being more successful than US companies.
Beyond the emissions stuff what about their claims to the public?
Mileage. Emissions. All those consumers have valid legal claims that they were lied to. Regardless of cheating the emissions test, the consumers were told something that it turns out VW knew was a complete lie.
part of the deal to get the CAA passed was to eliminate criminal consequences for the car manufacturers. it was ALREADY known.
I knew that bull would never happen...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I'll bet l that California and the dozen or so other CARB states could still prosecute. At minimum they could change the smog test methodogy to defeat the defeat so that the cars cannot get a smog cert and could not be registered. This would open the door to civil suits for sure.
So charge them with fraud if they can't be charged under the clean air act. They deliberately misrepresented their product to customers to make greater profits, seems like a textbook case of fraud to me. Of course, since they are a large corporation they will probably skate with a small fine. You get the government you voted for, I hope all the people who vote for the corporatists each election are happy with the outcome.
Enigma
And is a VW emitting significantly more than any other car? Is it polluting more? No one is saying, even the "scientists" who made the original claim. No article I have read states how bad this is. Just that one of the world's best is not quite as good as they originally claimed. So what. Would you give up your car for a replacement that cannot achieve the original claim either? There is no point.
Indeed. It's just awful that people who didn't break the law can't be punished for not doing so.
If an individual did this, they would have manufactured a list of charges a mile long by now based on the craziest of legal theories.
Here, fraud presents itself quite naturally and they can't seem to find it.
They committed a few million counts of fraud.
I know you're trolling, but if that's the case the law needs to be fixed first and then you punish people for violating it. Otherwise rule of law means nothing and you can be punished for violating rules that someone just made up.
Also, this whole story seems to be that the newspaper asked a lawyer about the case and found that criminal penalties would be really hard to apply here. I'm not aware of a case having been filed yet, let alone their lawyers having any opportunity to argue their case.
Well... if there's no crime to charge them with, they're not technically guilty of anything.
Except for being lying asshats.
Seriously though, they already admitted to what they did. They're not trying to hide it, everyone knows they're guilty of something, it's just that what they are guilty appears to be not as serious a breach of the law as people thought it would be. Sort of like finding out that if you're caught doing 100 mph in a school zone, the ticket is the same as if you'd done 5 over. Oops.
Who wrote the software and who told him to write the software?
I'm not sure about the precise legal definition of racketeering, but the Wikipedia definition of a racket is:
That sounds a lot like what Volkswagen did to me. And RICO is often used to go after organizations that weasel out of responsibility for their misdeeds through loopholes. And, of course, there's the second part: Corrupt Organizations. And that fits Volkswagen to the tee... corrupt as hell and rotten to the core.
Imagine all the people...
Fraud can be very hard to prove. There is already a lot of small text when it comes to emissions, even when they aren't blatantly installing cheating devices.
Who's worming their way out?
Sounds like the prosecutors are trying to make a case that won't get thrown out.
You can't just make up law as you go along because it's morally wrong.
The RCMP do this all the time...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
If these so-called "loopholes" exist in the Clean Air Act, they are probably there because people didn't want to taint the act with draconian criminal penalties and all the problems that brings with it.
The EPA used stupid testing procedures, and Volkswagen took advantage of that. VW should be shamed for that, and maybe even pay a fine. But the correct solution is simply for the EPA to use less stupid testing procedures.
And not because it lets the car companies get away with something.
The prosecutor is considering prosecuting Volkswagen for "lying to the authorities". "They lied to the authorities" is a catchall crime that the government often brings when it finds itself unable to convict someone for an actual crime. This is a bad, bad, thing because you can't just refuse to speak to the government, and pretty much anyone is going to say something when questioned by the government that can be spun as a "lie", even if they just forgot, were misheard, or told an actual lie but one that has no bearing on the case.
The people cheering for this are really cheering for the idea that the government can put anyone in jail at a whim, because that's what the crime of "lying to the government" amounts to. It makes a mockery of the idea of a fair trial, and the fact that in this case the government decided to use this trick on a deserving target doesn't make it any less horrible.
You indicate that they made "greater profits".
Do you know the names of the other companies that import their diesels for Americans to pick from ?
Prior to VW doing so ?
VW has the diesel car market 100% to themselves and most of their customers ( I own 3 VWs and have had diesels since the 1996 Passat sedan) would buy every possible one they could if it were not for the fact that VWs last 10, 20 years or more. My 2004 diesel Passat wagon is just getting broken in and I expect another 200K miles from it. VW won't sell me another car for 10 more years so there is no more profit from me or my family until 2024.
Yes, recently Mercedes and BMW have entered the market but in an entirely different price point.
.
Sorry, which political party aren't full of corporatists again?
The assumption is you bought it because of it's pep and mileage. VW "fixes" the problem, both take a huge hit. Do you still want the car? Will VW buy it back? How about resale value? The Kelly Blue Book value just took a huge hit as the pep and mileage went way down. Who pays for that?
I for one am glad I didn't buy a diesel car in the last 10 years, sounds like a nightmare for those who did.
Who's worming their way out?
Sounds like the prosecutors are trying to make a case that won't get thrown out.
You can't just make up law as you go along because it's morally wrong.
You could send them to jail if you wanted to. Fraud, false statements to government, criminal conspiracy, etc...
Just maybe not under the clean air act.
Here, fraud presents itself quite naturally and they can't seem to find it.
Perhaps they are worried that the US government could be charged with fraud too since it seems they passed an act which they said would make it illegal for car manufacturers to make highly polluting cars but which, it appears, does nothing of the sort.
Congress has immunity from lying. No, really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Huh. That's a weird statement to make considering the obvious and overwhelming improvement to air quality since big government started regulating car (and other) emissions, and in the case of one exception which was discovered after a handful of years.
You know that nobody expects laws to be 100% effective right? I can't even think of a law that is 100% effective.
I downmod people who accuse others of being paid shills. dont like it? stop with the ad hominem attacks
Just out of curiosity - why don't you don't you just down mod ad-hom attacks?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, no, you don't understand how the system is rigged to work. See, VW is a big, wealthy, powerful company. Therefore they can't be punished. It would be like punishing a friend! That can't be allowed to happen.
Now if the perp were you or I, or a small company that doesn't make big campaign contributions or doesn't play ball with Big Government, well there would be hundreds of laws They could use to put us away for as long as They wanted.
They need to do a Sesame Street episode that explains this to the kids. Maybe people would wise up to how corrupted the system has become and finally get angry enough to do something about it.
VW is a rich corporation so all that will happen is a fine and you are bad don't do it again and poof it all goes away.
The classical purpose and function of US government regulatory agencies is to indemnify the industries which they are charged with regulating from any legal repercussions resulting from egregious and outlandish acts of greed and irresponsibility.
This is just another case.
You don't have to vote for a party. You are fee to vote for anyone you want in any election.
They are definitely guilty of something. It just might not be a criminal offense. Just like how speeding tickets are not criminal offenses. That doesn't mean they are not guilty of breaking any laws.
who didn't see this one coming?
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
this was more of a joke than anything, i tend not to waste my mods on downvotes, i feel i can contribute better by modding up. I am sick and tired of all the ad hom attakcs and paid shill claims going on lately though so i thought id have fun with it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
a legal loophole?
found by corporate lawyers?
I'm shocked. SHOCKED.
I'm going to go home, re-evaluate my life, and stop selling death sticks.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They are definitely guilty of something. It just might not be a criminal offense. Just like how speeding tickets are not criminal offenses. That doesn't mean they are not guilty of breaking any laws.
They are guilty of meeting the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
But section 203(a)3(B) of the Clear Air Act is the one that mentions defeat devices.
and the punishment for violating that,
SEC. 205. CIVIL PENALTIES. .....
any person who violates section
203(a)(3)(B) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than
$2,500
No criminal charges, only $2,500 per car.
The Clean Air Act specifically describes that they did and outlines that it is a civil liability of $2500 per vehicle.
If the prosecution tried to go after then for fraud, their lawyers will turn around and say "Sorry, we broke this law, not that one."
The judge will then have to say "Case closed, next please"
Germany is starting a criminal investigation of the former CEO : http://www.wsj.com/articles/ge...
They might be protected in teh US, but german politician and other german firms are hating right now to be associated with cheaters. Germany is a big exporting country. And VW is making them look very very bad. I am just guessing and a bit making a CT here but I would say the german prosecutor WILL have carte blanche to investigate this thoroughly and show the world they will not stand for it. Thus protecting the rest of their export industry. I am betting within a few month indictments will start falling onto folks at VW and associated.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
One of the sticking points though is the individual doesn't have an army of lawyers to argue their case.
Nope, this is systematic of getting the best justice money can buy, and governments having to grapple with the fact that some pockets are deeper than theirs, and weighing the pros and cons of funding they can extract now through fines relative to tax revenue that could be had later on (certainly don't want to kill the golden goose in this case).
But let's not forget that it was the purse of government that caused this problem, even as they meander through without anything approaching judicial reform.
When the EPA tested the vehicles they did not assume that there would be this level of overt lying and manipulation. There have been other instances of bad behavior in the past, but these were caught in the normal course of events. This was deliberately intended to evade regulations, and VW has already admitted as much. So if management admits they were breaking the rules, how can you try and blame the EPA?
If the EPA or other government agencies did their job correctly, they would start with the assumption that the companies they deal with are run by degenerate psychopaths who will do anything, up to and including mass murder to make a buck. That certainly describes Ford and their failing key ignition switch, which by Ford's own estimate killed around 200 people. It is certain that the death toll is higher; given the money at stake, why should they stop lying now if they can get away with it? And previous to that there was Toyota and the cover-up of their sudden acceleration problem. So it's not like WV is that exceptional.
But when the regulators try and do a thorough job then business interests start squealing like stuck pigs and scream about how "ebil gomment is distroying the free interprize". Then they go out and buy a few more congress critters, and keep on lying and stealing for profit. And asshats like you are always there to cheer them on. Too bad you didn't die in a defective Ford or Toyota; it might have taught you something about how the world really works.
Why is Snark Required?
Not surprised,
This is how this went down.. someone high up did the math.
A = Revenue selling cars in North America
B = potential liability under clean energy act for cheating emmissions
C = Percentage chance they would be caught and called out
A was far greater than B * C so the only wildcard remaining was the chance that some executives could go to jail. They had their lawyers check it out and were informed that they were in the clear so it was a simple business decision.
People who think corporations are driven by ANYTHING OTHER THAN PROFIT are stupid.
It's just what they do.
Not pretty, or elegant or sensible, let alone honourable what VW did. I wish for a better environment. VW sort of cheated and I'm not happy about it.
In a legal sense however VW committed crimes when and if they acted against the law. We know that law and common sense do not always coincide.
The questions I have not seen yet are to establish whether case will actually stick. Was it unlawful of VW to rig the tests the way they did? Did laws make make provisions for such rigging? Or did the law provide testing conditions that were actually all met by VW?
Don't want to blindly defend VW. But the lawmakers must also be scrutinised. Crappy laws lead to crappy cases. And in this case I can't see why laws were not there for random testing in normal, day to day circumstances. I mean even a kid could have come up with this.
And then apparently there's might be a loophole.
Everywhere around the world we the people pay lawmakers. We can expect of them that they do their work. No, demand!
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
In our system of government, it is Congress that determines whether something is a felony or not. In this case, Congress decided this ought not to be a felony. Regulators shouldn't be able to change that, and they certainly shouldn't be able to change it retroactively. That has nothing to do with whether VW executives deserve it or not, or whether it is good or bad rule making, it has to do with not giving the executive branch that kind of power, because it will invariably be abused sooner or later.
Too bad you have never lived in a fascist or socialist country, because you'd recognize that companies run by degenerate psychopaths are a minor evil compared to what you are advocating.
Big bird here, VW has tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of thousands of small investors who had fuck all to do with this. Sure, vigorously pursue and punish the people who were knowingly involved, but for fuck's sake leave the rest of them alone to get on with their lives.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Is it really necessary to include in every test the phrase "Your test results are not invalid if you cheat on this test"? I would say this is implied.
You know, Mercedes doesn't really sell many of their diesel passenger cars in the US like they do in Europe. I suspect the obstacle is the stringent EPA regulations limiting their ability to deliver a vehicle in the US with compelling gas mileage AND performance.
Mercedes management needs to be scrutinized by shareholders right now. While Volkswagen has been selling dozens of thousands of diesel vehicles in the US, Mercedes management should have been demanding their engineers create similar products. When the engineers shrugged their shoulders saying, "It can't be done without cheating the tests," Mercedes management should have conducted independent tests on Volkswagen TDI cars and alerted the EPA of the fraud. Where's the competitive research?!?!? Mercedes really has dropped the ball here.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The classical purpose and function of US government regulatory agencies is to indemnify the industries which they are charged with regulating from any legal repercussions resulting from egregious and outlandish acts of greed and irresponsibility.
This is just another case.
Actually, in this case the US government seems to have failed in it's primary purpose. Now that this loop hole has been used it will have to be closed because of public outrage and I'm pretty sure the senators who created this loop hole intended that it should be used by a US car manufacturer, not a European one. Heads must be rolling on capitol hill.
But also makes law makers look extremely corrupt.
A lot of laws have loopholes and some are also inconclusive in their writing where punctuation can change the meaning of the law entirely. Realize that in some cases the law that was registered may have been changed by a clerk around the time of the voting of the law so that what the voters think they vote for isn't what they really vote for. (See another article about the need for signing of proposed law texts to prevent this)
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Punish the shareholders, if the shareholders know it's going to be painful to their wallet then they also take a greater interest in protecting their assets.
Also bring high level management to court, convict them and fine them enough to ensure that any bail-out money from the company will be toast.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
This is what happens when those who made the law receive hard money from the industry.
It's called lobbying, some countries accept it as normal, other countries consider it as a form of corruption.
Either way, it's the majority of citizens who lose.
Don't count out the fact that if you are satisfied with your car then it may be the deciding point for your neighbor or friend for their next car.
But this really have hurt VW, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are additional models coming up as well on this - even gasoline and hybrids.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Won't happen. In a couple of months the public opinion will have forgotten all the hoopla was about. This loophole is way too useful to be closed. Business will proceed as usual. Feel free to protest and write to your local representative, though I would advise against it.
Yeah - I know what you mean, /. has got really narky as the UID count has gone up.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Utter bullshit.
You could blame the EPA if their testing procedures were faulty, e.g. they only test the car at low speed or with special fuel or whatever.
In this case, the only problem with the test procedure was that it was known to the manufacturer. In fact, that the testing procedure is consistent (i.e. always the same) is an absolute requirement because you want consistent, i.e. comparable, results. Maybe you could have kept the exact conditions a secret, but even then they would be fairly easy to guess correctly.
Heck, without reading any in-depth articles I've glanced that they used speed as one indicator. Basically, the code said "if wheels are turning but you're not moving, assume you are on a test rig". That's not rocket science. And not the EPAs fault.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
VW has tens of thousands of employees
..that didn't prevent this fraud..
and hundreds of thousands of small investors
..who know that the value of shares can go up as well as down, took the risk and should understand that sometimes it doesn't work out.
who had fuck all to do with this
If you're arguing against a stupidly large fine, you're disregarding that this is the primary mechanism governments use to make it clear to large businesses that it's not sensible to disregard law.
Hopefully you're not arguing against VW providing restitution to the people whose cars do not match the advertised and stated performance characteristics that were implicit within their purchase decision.
Why should they lose out and not employees or investors? We should continue to run non-viable businesses just to keep people in employment? We should fund non-viable businesses sufficiently to provide returns to shareholders?
Actually I can think of many examples where that does happen :(
rather than evil intent
Too many people have been sacked already to believe that one.
Pfft... So says the paid shill for the marijuana industry. ;)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I agree. A lot.
See, I want you to drive VW stock down to almost nothing. Why? I have complete faith that they'll recover. I don't own any shares yet but you can bet your ass that I'll be buying at least 1000 shares just as they start to make a recovery. I'm going to make a mint. Thanks. I don't even need the money but hey, it's pretty much free money by letting someone use what I wasn't using.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But this really have hurt VW, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are additional models coming up as well on this - even gasoline and hybrids.
This issue is 100% diesel, and there is no way it crosses over to gasoline engines.
VW's low-cost system for reducing NOx requires extra fuel to be burned, keeping the engine at higher temperature, reducing both engine life and fuel economy. Gasoline engines carefully control the fuel/air mix such that NOx are efficiently scrubbed by the catalytic converter. The high-cost clean diesel system used in Audi/Mercedes injects additional chemicals into the exhaust gas to decompose NOx.
So, only VW (among passenger cars), and only diesel has an incentive to turn off the NOx scavenging system: VW's low-end NOx scavenging defeats their reputation for reliability and fuel economy.
Surely if they used the results of these tests in any form of sales promotion they are guilty of fraud
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
for which VW is facing civil and criminal charges.
bwahahahahaha
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Fraud is not illegal in off iself. Fraud is a class of laws covering types of crime or civil laws. Basically, fraud is just a type of crime and the crime itself needs defined by law.
I see a lot of people who do not understand this. But ask yourself, does a magician face criminal penalties for doing tricks? That's fraud by definition. How about a 12 year old who tricks her brother into doing the dishes by saying her parents told her to tell him that.
Now something that is fraud is your ISP saying your service will be up to a speed then limiting i w to a slower speed. (Up to 5m and limiting it to up to 2m.) But no one seemed to be able to find any law making it illegal.
Making pecuniary gain by false pretenses (AKA fraud) is considered a crime in most countries. As for the Magician you're paying to see the show. If he tricks you into buying anything other than tickets to his show he's liable for prosecution. Obviously this will differ depending on jurisdiction but basically in most parts of the world if you make false claims about the product you're selling then you're liable for prosecution as soon as money exchanges hands. And yes those ISP's are guilty so where are the class actions
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Only if I was having unwanted sex with a hot fudge sundae with extra chocolate sauce at the time of the indecent. (intentional misspelling on my part, to match yours)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
There don't have to be "exact test conditions"; the testing procedure can simply consist of measuring actual emissions in real world driving. Manufacturers can deal with the resulting uncertainty in conditions by designing in a safety margin.
What you implicitly suggest, namely escalating criminal penalties until the behavior stops, doesn't work. The rewards of cheating on such tests are so high that no criminal penalty will deter companies from engaging in such behaviors. The only way such tests can ever work is if the EPA treats its relationships with manufacturers as adversarial and designs tests so that they are cheat-proof.
Faulty reasoning like yours, namely that if we just pass enough laws and make the enforcement and penalties tough enough, crime will stop, is responsible for the sky high prison population and police violations of civil liberties.
the testing procedure can simply consist of measuring actual emissions in real world driving.
No, they can't. Re: consistency.
You could add such a test to check if real-world conditions are within the margin of error of the test results, but I guess nobody suspected such an illegal rigging until now.
The rewards of cheating on such tests are so high that no criminal penalty will deter companies from engaging in such behaviors
I disagree, but since we haven't even tried, there is no evidence to support either your or my claim. So let's revoke a few corporate charters and see what happens. We certainly have enough corporations on the list for death penalty crimes.
The only way such tests can ever work is if the EPA treats its relationships with manufacturers as adversarial and designs tests so that they are cheat-proof.
There is no such thing as a cheat-proof test. You can make it more difficult, that's all. Going this way means entering an arms race.
Of course the EPA should assume a more critical position. But in principle, the testing itself is absolutely fine. What you have here is the equivalent of someone submitting a software to the QA department that specifically behaves differently when running on the QA departments computers. How you can blame the QA department is beyond me.
Faulty reasoning like yours, namely that if we just pass enough laws and make the enforcement and penalties tough enough, crime will stop, is responsible for the sky high prison population and police violations of civil liberties.
I wonder where you get that strange conclusion from that is nowhere in anything I wrote.
I argue that we should apply at least the same if not tougher standards to corporations as we already apply to humans. I argue we should jail (temporary shutdown) or execute (revoke corporate charter) them if their crimes justify it.
And I argue that monetary fines against corporations don't work, and for extreme cases of criminal activity, those responsible ought to be jailed. Yeah, that would raise prison population. By maybe 100 CEOs - about 0.005% of the current USA prison population.
By all means, set a million non-violent drug-users free and take that military equipment back from the police. All that is not the point here.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That was GM, not Ford.
love is just extroverted narcissism
You could blame the EPA if their testing procedures were faulty, e.g. they only test the car at low speed or with special fuel or whatever.
OK, by your standards we can blame the EPA. They only test the car while not moving. There's a whole lot of sensors in the vehicle which can detect that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry, which political party aren't full of corporatists again?
Neither. The problem is the voting system in the US, which pretty much guarantees a two party system. Both the major parties have completely sold out to the corporations, and there isn't anything we can do because the system is rigged to prefer two parties, and only two parties. Both parties are authoritarian corporatists and it will never change because the people who would need to act to change it are the very people who would lose power by changing it. It's the same reason term limits or campaign finance reform never get passed.
Enigma
I don't see any legal, moral, or logical principle that says that these tests have to be exactly reproducible. I mean, heck, the driver's license test itself takes place on real streets and isn't exactly reproducible either.
No, that's simply a fact: once billions of dollars are involved, you're into the territory where pretty much any kind of criminal conduct becomes worthwhile.
Nonsense. The EPA can buy production automobiles at random and test them by driving them on the street. There is no "arms race".
That is not a power we should hand to the executive branch because it's going to be massively abused by government to bully and blackmail companies. I'm not talking about forcing companies to do things that are for the benefit of society, I'm talking about forcing companies to do things that are in the interests of politicians and administrations.
Quite to the contrary: we should abolish most criminal penalties and prosecutions, in particular at the federal level. They should be replaced by far tougher civil liability standards. Sufficiently stiff civil penalties are just as effective as "corporate death penalties", but much less prone to political or prosecutorial abuse.
You keep arguing for an expansion of governmental powers and penalties as the solution to problems. You happen to have certain preferences about how those massive executive powers are wielded, but guess what, your preferences (or mine) about the details of those powers don't count for shit in the real world. In the real world, if you give government more power to take property or penalize groups, that power will invariably be abused for political and personal purposes. Regulations that you think of being regulations of big corporations end up infringing on everyday liberties of individuals: their ability to bank, to get mortgages, to buy hookahs, to watch pornography, to voice their political opinions. The distinction you're trying to make between regulating corporations and limiting individual liberties doesn't exist in the real world.
Because we need some government, some level of that kind of abuse and corruption is inevitable, but it needs to be kept to a minimum, and the only way of doing that is to keep governmental power to an absolute minimum.
Oh my, will you look at that? I'm getting modded down to something like pond scum again for daring to speak my mind. Trolls and haters, when will they learn? You're not going to silence me, ever, so why bother trying?
If Volkswagen (and German automakers in general for that matter) want to salvage their reputation, they need to adopt an attitude of mea culpa, take their punishment, and move on towards playing by the rules instead of cheating. Again: Trying to worm their way out of criminal charges against them isn't going to accomplish that. Take your punishment with some dignity and grace, Volkswagen, then go forth and transgress no more.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I've yet to meet anyone in normal, every day life that is even remotely mad at VW for this.
I think many overestimate how many people really give much a crap about the "green" issues today.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I doubt anyone's head is rolling since it's unlikely anyone who was involved in the original regulation is still around on Capitol Hill some 45 years after the regulation was passed.
Did they meet the letter of the law? People are still looking into that. They scooted through the loophole in one law, but what they did might be illegal on others.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The legal, moral, and utilitarian reason for consistent tests is to let manufacturers know what they have to do to pass the test. Inconsistent tests would mean that a manufacturer might get lucky or unlucky, and that has some pretty major consequences. Should we allow manufacturers to keep demanding tests until they get lucky? (We do do something like that for driver's licenses.)
What we need to do, and what the EPA is doing, is providing a consistent, predictable test such that it will give the same readings anywhere, within a small margin of error. This allows manufacturers to run their own tests to see whether their cars will pass, and design accordingly.
The EPA certainly could extend its testing regime, but that may not be the best solution. Having a standardized test with heavy penalties for cheaters works, and is usually cheaper.
And, no, the corporate death penalty should not be a tool of the executive branch. It should be a tool of the judiciary branch. In many cases, civil liability just won't cut it. In this case, if the cars affected are allowed to stay on the streets, no individual person is seriously affected by additional pollution, meaning no individual will bother suing, but the impact can be high. If a breach of law does about $10 worth of harm to most of the people in the country, the total harm will be about $3 billion. There has to be some way to aggregate this, and class action lawsuits don't seem to do it effectively. Direct government regulation and enforcement is much more efficient, and if the charges have to be proven in court there's no more prosecutorial abuse than civil attorney abuse.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Do you know, that the 2 statements :
1. "The EPA used stupid testing procedures" and
2. "VW are criminals"
could both be correct ? Or should I start telling you to "stop making excuses for corrupt / inept regulatory agencies" ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
50 states each charging the individual corporate decision-makers for "inducement to commit fraud" on the grounds that individual car-owners were innocently duped into defrauding the state by faking "passing grades" with their cars should get some attention.
The difficulty will be one of jurisdiction: Unless those decision-makers were in the US or US residents at the time, or in most cases, in the particular state or a legal resident of that state at the time, the state may lack jurisdiction unless it can prove that at least one non-innocent person was within its jurisdiction and it can prove a conspiracy between that person and those who weren't in its jurisdiction. Even then, dragging "extra-jurisdictional" defendants into a conspiracy where there is at least one "in-the-jurisdiction" defendant will be harder than if they were all within the jurisdiction.
In other words, if this had been Ford or GM and the state of Michigan wanted to prosecute for "inducing customers to defraud the state of Michigan" in Michigan state courts, the executives who lived in Michigan at the time couldn't claim "lack of jurisdiction."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Your diesel cars are polluting the environment with extra NOx at a rate that, under cap-and-trade regulations which have established a market price of about $50 per ton, comes to about ten cents per mile driven on the road. If you're getting 50 miles per gallon, the pollution you are causing has a market price of about $5 per gallon. The conclusion to be drawn here is that you are saving money for yourself only by stealing from the environment. When the price for the excess pollution is paid (at "free market" rates, mind you), these cars are more expensive to operate than any other car on the market.
You have a fundamentally wrong understanding of how these tests function. It's not that manufacturers design cars and then some pass and some don't. Instead, manufacturers make rational decisions about risk and benefits. If you randomize the tests (and that's what we are talking about), they are going to design their cars so that they pass with high probability. Most government licensing and regulatory enforcement has a significant component of randomness. It is bizarre to argue that somehow EPA clean air standards must function differently.
Since environmental regulations are made by the executive branch and prosecutions happen at the discretion of the executive branch, the corporate death penalty would be primarily a tool of the executive branch to use as a threat; whether the judicial branch gets involved in the final decision is irrelevant.
Seems pretty effective to me. The main problem with civil lawsuits is that government and government regulations protect companies against many such lawsuits.
Yes, in the same way that central planning is theoretically much more efficient than a market economy; unfortunately, in the real world, it is a lot worse.
Civil attorneys can't abuse their power because they don't have any; all they can do is stand up in court and talk. And they have to demonstrate actual harm, not merely failure to comply with arbitrary regulations.
Regulators and prosecutors, on the other hand, do have power: they can go to companies and say "play ball with the president on policy X or we are going to charge you with violations of regulation Y".
The real problem is not so much with VW, but with the lazy government regulators that used the car computer results instead of doing their own tests.
They should not even be connecting to the test socket! 8-(
In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
easy enough for you?
in either of the cases you sighted, has unlawful gain occurred? and if you say something like "unlawfully gained TV time from avoiding dish duty", you should be slapped.
Sorry, but you're an idiot. You are blaming the victim for the crime.
Yes, guilty you. You only kept your wallet in your pocket while nobody was pointing a gun at you. Your fault that you lost your money. Should have considered all circumstances.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I don't see any legal, moral, or logical principle that says that these tests have to be exactly reproducible.
Can't explain colour to a blind man, sorry.
No, that's simply a fact: once billions of dollars are involved, you're into the territory where pretty much any kind of criminal conduct becomes worthwhile.
Which is why we have jail time for serious crimes, because with just fines, exactly this would happen. You are proving my argument for me, thanks.
That is not a power we should hand to the executive branch
I didn't say we should. When I use the word "sentence" in a legal context, it should be clear that I'm speaking about the judicial branch.
You keep arguing for an expansion of governmental powers and penalties as the solution to problems.
In a very, very narrow sense, yes. I'm arguing that since we understand serious crimes need a higher punishment than fines when it comes to humans, why are we so stupid to think that fines are enough of a deterence for corporations? Even blind people see it doesn't work.
Regulations that you think of being regulations of big corporations end up infringing on everyday liberties of individuals
The inverse is true. I'm asking that the regulations already in existence for individuals are also applied to corporations.
The distinction you're trying to make between regulating corporations and limiting individual liberties doesn't exist in the real world.
Sadly, they do: There is no equivalent of jail time for corporations.
Because we need some government, some level of that kind of abuse and corruption is inevitable, but it needs to be kept to a minimum, and the only way of doing that is to keep governmental power to an absolute minimum.
That is a philosophical argument I disagree with, but that's a different topic.
(I want to see power of government reduced, not government itself. We need public servants and administrative bodies. What we don't need are politicians.)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Ok. So i will believe your presumption for the sake of argument. Why are all used car salesman not in jail? Yup, it's a good car. You buy it and it needs towed two months later with a hefty repair bill.
Maybe it would be easier if you point to an actual statute in law saying what you have said.
First, It is cited not sighted.
No, that is not enough for me. Try reading further down the page under the section for criminal offense . It is substantially different than the pretext offered.
Not all fraud is illegal - even if it should be
Perhaps you could assist the prosecutors by finding the specific law that was broken.
They can't say "You committed fraud, because what you did matches this description"
Start looking here
Sorry, but you're an idiot. You are blaming the victim for the crime.
No, that's you. Those were your standards, not mine. I just applied your stated logic.
You only kept your wallet in your pocket while nobody was pointing a gun at you.
The VWs produce more NOx than allowed, but the allowable numbers are so low as to be arguably worse than useless given that diesels use less fuel and thus produce less particulates and CO2. (We discussed here how gassers produce just as much carbon soot as diesels per gallon, and almost all of it is ultra-fine particulates.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Burden of proof.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If VW is heavily fined, the stock price will fall, which is a punishment to the stockholders. Any direct legal prosecution of the stockholders would be enormously expensive and in violation of the concept of limited liability that corporations are mean to provide. Changing the latter is post facto, a violation of law much more egregious and damaging than piddling concerns like diesel emissions.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The people buying the high polluting VW vehicles were not specifically harmed. If there was any harm, it occurred to the general air-breathing populace. The best way to pay people for that harm is to lower general taxes by the money that VW is fined, any other mechanism would have administration costs on the order of $500 million.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Citation needed.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
First, if you wish to be understood, stop referring to Volkswagen as plural.
Second, Volkswagen is not its corporate officers and administrators. If they have behaved criminally, they might be jailed. Volkswagen cannot be jailed.
Third, if some Volkswagen people are jailed, they can't be simultaneously operating the company. They are no longer part of Volkswagen. If you clarify the portions of your post that conflate Volkswagen with its personnel, your suggestions lose even the appearance of making sense.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
They are if VW patch the engines to meet the emissions standards all of the time - loss of power and fuel economy.
They are if VW don't patch the engines to meet the emissions standards, and they're forced to take the car off the road.
They are if VW don't patch the engines to meet the emissions standards and their tax goes up (e.g. in the UK).
Plenty of ways the people that bought the cars can lose out directly, let alone the obvious health implications and loss of resale value.
Except in Bill Clinton's administration, when the income tax was increased on income already earned.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You're being way, way too literal, and coming off as more than a little pedantic. Please stop that.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
that would be an example of the terrible overreach of the tyrannical EPA that every Republican hates to the breadth and depth of his or her soul, that's killing jobs in America.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The VWs produce more NOx than allowed, but the allowable numbers are so low as to be arguably worse than useless given that diesels use less fuel and thus produce less particulates and CO2. (We discussed here how gassers produce just as much carbon soot as diesels per gallon, and almost all of it is ultra-fine particulates.)
If you don't like the rules, there are democratic (or, sadly, undemocratic lobbying) procedures for changing the rules. Cheating isn't one of them.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Actually, why don't we impose the corporate death penalty on VW and its parent company, Porsche?
As much as the outrage is justified, I think there are companies much higher on that list. But yes, why don't we at least have a corporate death penalty? Just its existence would help a lot.
Of course, that sort of thing is never going to happen in Germany, because the Piechs are politically well connected wealthy industrialists, the unions are extremely powerful, and the state has had its fingers in VW management too.
Sadly, yes. But that is not just true of VW and Germany, it is true of almost every multinational corporation.
The unions are "extremely powerful"? Wow, that's news and I lived all my life in Germany. No, they are not, unless you compare it to the ultra-capitalist USA which for all practical purposes doesn't even have unions.
Besides, if the death penalty is done in a proper way, the unions would not even object. Look, if you kill a corporation you have to ask yourself what to do with all its assets. If you revoke the charter, who owns everything? The shareholders? Uh, no? Because if you do it that way, a lot of the deterence goes away. One idea I've read about is to take the corporation away from its owners and turn it into a collective, owned by its workers.
Executive and judicial branches without politicians: that's roughly the system that existed under Bismarck, under Marxism, and under fascism.
In which fantasy parallel reality? I said less power, not higher concentration of power by putting it into fewer hands.
What I meant with "less politicians" and "less power" was that the government should implement the will of the people, not have a will of its own. As long as they are public servants and administrators, it doesn't matter how big or small the government is. The problem is not the size in square feet or employees, but the amount of power they wield.
the only political ideas you recognized are the totalitarian ideas you have been raised with.
You have no idea how I was raised, you're just making an ad hominem argument to cover up that you have no content to argue with. Free hint: When you argue with a german and you want to attack how he was raised, make sure you know first if he was raised in East or in West Germany. It's a very big difference, still noticeable today, 25 years after the reunification.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It may be in conflict with the current laws - in some cases - but not in all cases and not in all countries.
Today it's too easy to hide behind the current legislation.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You only kept your wallet in your pocket while nobody was pointing a gun at you.
The VWs produce more NOx than allowed, but the allowable numbers are so low as to be arguably worse than useless given that diesels use less fuel and thus produce less particulates and CO2. (We discussed here how gassers produce just as much carbon soot as diesels per gallon, and almost all of it is ultra-fine particulates.)
I was specifically addressing your "loaded gun" FUD, and not the legality of simply bypassing the law. Because I am not the child that you appear to be based on your simplistic view of the situation, I object to that level of bullshit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just couldn't take that bullshit seriously. People who blame the victim of a crime usually have an agenda or they are very stupid. I don't think you're stupid, so what's your agenda?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I don't think you're stupid, so what's your agenda?
Just fighting FUD. If you have a valid point, you don't need to use FUD to make it. Just make your damn point.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't understand how the tests function? I would assume manufacturers design to them, and make sure during development that the engines and cars will pass. Considering the costs and commitments involved in making a new model of car, I'd also assume that the manufacturers would like to have very high confidence that, if they do things right, the car will pass the tests. If they can be 95% sure that a properly designed vehicle will pass the tests, which seems like high probability, we'd have car designs getting unlucky and being banned for no good reason every year.
Class action lawsuits do not adequately deter corporate misconduct, for whatever reason. The usual outcome for big cases, when successful, is that the sued corporation has to pay out significantly less than what they profited from, the lawyers for the class make good money, and the affected class gets peanuts. This is when there are no regulations protecting the company. Right now, they don't work.
There are situations where centralizing and regulating make sense, and situations where they don't. It isn't a matter of government is bad because the market economy works better than central planning. Shall I argue that corporations should be abolished because of the British East India Company?
Civil attorneys have power. One of them could drag me into a long, expensive, ruinous lawsuit. If we put enough teeth into class action suits so they're really useful, then they could threaten large corporations.
Do you actually think that civil lawsuits are quick, painless, and, well, civil? You really want to stay out of them.
As far as actual harm goes, suppose a company releases known carcinogens into the air. Since we're talking about the civil suit as corporate deterrence, the corporation argues that the carcinogens didn't actually harm anyone. Several years later, the cancer rate in the area goes up. The corporation argues that it was natural statistical variation or, if it's bigger than that, that other factors played a part. Eventually, the weight of evidence goes against the corporation, and after a great deal of litigation the corporation is forced to pay out.
What's the proper payout for somebody who's dead or dying of inoperable cancer? What monetary amount will remove their pain and suffering and return them to life? The corporation will presumably pay whatever weregild is set to people who did get cancer, which may or may not be more than what they saved from not preventing the carcinogens from polluting the neighborhood.
It makes sense to take action against the corporation for releasing the carcinogens in the first place, without demonstrating actual harm to anyone, because that avoids the need for people to start dying before any legal remedies are possible. Given that, it makes sense for some central body to establish some sort of standards for how much is emitted, so that corporations know what they can and cannot do, and to protect them from frivolous lawsuits. At that point, the central body may as well do its own prosecution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Whether it's 95% or 99% or 99.9% is entirely under their control, even when the testing is randomized.
The British East India Company isn't an example of market economies; the British East India Company was a government-established monopoly.
About $9 million right now, according to EPA regulators.
You talk as if the two opposing forces here were a clean environment vs corporate profits, but that's nonsense. Corporate profits ultimately depend little on environmental regulations; the costs of such regulations are simply passed on to people who buy these products, who then have fewer resources to spend on their health and well being. Overall, erring on the side of mandating too much safety is just as deadly as mandating too little.
Oh, indeed it does. That is what private contractual agreements accomplish. It is not what government regulation accomplishes.
The body doesn't have to be "central", any more than economic planning decisions have to be "central". Furthermore, the body doesn't have to be governmental, i.e., subject to politics and lobbying. The problem with making this central and governmental is that politics and lobbying ends up corrupting the process in both directions, for the simple reason that the people who do the lobbying don't have to bear the costs. That is, the EPA both needlessly outlaws things that are harmless and permits things that are harmful due to political lobbying.
Sure, if you want to live in a totalitarian world, you can centralize all decision making and then you "might as well" just add police and judicial powers to that decision making body too. It creates a miserable, impoverished country, but you "may as well" do it, right?
A much better system is to replace environmental regulations with a system of private interests and private contracts, primarily enforced through mediation and arbitration.
I made it ten postings ago. I don't get paid for explaining things ten times, so if some readers don't get the point, I don't care much.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
With a consistent test, the auto manufacturer can come within, say, 5% of the emission limits. With random tests, the manufacturer has to come in way low to beat the odds on the test. Assuming that the emission limits are reasonable, and that reducing emissions further will cost somehow, it's much better to have a consistent test.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate profits. Corporations cannot simply decree how much revenue they get; they have to sell products or services or something to customers, and that's their revenue. This means that it's governed by laws of supply and demand. When selling a given product, there is a price that will bring in the most profit, based on the individual production cost of something and the demand curve. There will be other expenses that don't depend on how many items the corp makes, and those determine whether the corporation is profitable or not. If fixed expenses go up, they come out of corporate profits because there's no way to change the item price to make more money (if the corp could have changed prices to make more money, it would have). If individual unit expenses go up, the price will go up, but that means fewer units will be sold, and the price will almost certainly stabilize at a point where there's less per-unit profit.
Therefore, imposing costs due to environmental regulation, or anything else, cuts into corporate profits.
Further, some things have significant externalities that are not accounted for in the price. Since we're talking about the environment, assume that a certain product produces a lot of pollution in its manufacture (gold) or use (cars). This pollution imposes costs on people, which are not accounted for in the manufacture, buying, or selling, and therefore which distort the market. This results in more polluting stuff being produced and bought than is optimum. This is a version of the Tragedy of the Commons.
I'm also not sure what you think contractual obligations will do to deal with pollution, say. I don't sign contracts with people saying how much pollution I'm going to allow them. The contractual obligations are going to be between the manufacturer and suppliers or manufacturers and customers, and it's to the immediate financial interest of all three of those to disregard externalities. Who's going to sign a contract with whom limiting pollution?
If you want a totalitarian economy, mandate that all disputes be settled through binding arbitration. The arbitrators look for return business, and so will tend to deliver decisions that favor their best customers, which will be the corps. Moreover, the damages or whatever they can award are typically limited by contract. Private arbitration is no substitute for a good public court system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well, and that can be taken into account when setting emissions limits. Besides, the effect can be reduced by averaging multiple tests and allowing limited retesting.
Yes, an increase in price will decrease demand, but decreased demand by itself has no effect on per-unit profit. Given that demand for cars appears to be fairly inelastic, the decrease in demand is also likely to be fairly small. Usually, a decrease in demand actually leads to increase in per unit profits; the reason is that people who invest their time and money in a factory to produce something will want a certain return on their investment no matter what, and a large chunk of their investment is independent of the number of units sold, so in order to maintain their desired return when unit sales decrease, they need to increase their profit margin. If they can't sell at that increased per unit profit, they will get out of the business altogether and do something else with their money.
As we have just seen, that is wrong. In fact, many companies favor environmental regulations because they increase the cost of entry for competitors.
Environmental regulations also have significant costs to society. When you tighten clean air standards or declare a species endangered, that costs someone money, and that money translates into a lower standard of living and lives lost. Right now, the tradeoffs are driven by politics and lobbying: that is, the executive branch optimizes benefits to politically powerful lobbying groups while imposing costs on people without powerful lobbying groups (often, the rest of society). The reason is that the environment is managed by the government as a political resource, not an economic resource. (In fact, governmental environmental regulations often set up perverse incentives, where property owners rather quietly kill endangered species and destroy habitats instead of conserving them.)
The contracts ought to be between polluters and the owners of the resources being polluted. Organizations like the Nature Conservancy are an example of such an approach. Such private approaches force polluters and environmentalists to sit down at the same table and actually negotiate over costs and benefits, instead of engaging in political lobbying.
I didn't say anything about "mandating binding arbitration". And don't get hung up on my mention of arbitration and mediation, it's unrelated to the core issue we are discussing, namely that governmental regulation is inferior to environmental protection through private contracts; I happen to think arbitration is better and more efficient, but if you don't understand why, just substitute your favorite form of dispute resolution between two private parties (civil litigation?).
But whatever you may think of arbitration, by definition, it isn't "totalitarian", because totalitarianism refers to st
lol
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The demand for cars is not completely inelastic. Given rising costs, people will make do with old cars longer, decreasing new car sales, and will buy cheaper cars, and there's less profit on them. Therefore, if the cost of producing and selling cars goes up, car manufacturer profits go down. The law of supply and demand means that there is an optimum price, based on unit cost and demand, that will make the most money. Increasing the price to maintain profit margins means less sales, and actually results in less profit. This is basic microeconomics.
To put it another way, if car manufacturers could raise prices to get more profit, why haven't they? Investors don't get into a business to make a certain fixed level of profit, and refuse to take any more profits. Large companies are out to get what profit they can, and not making a profit does not make them go bankrupt. There are some very high barriers to entry in automobile manufacturing, and any manufacturer has the physical plant to make stuff. This is not going to go away, and if an auto manufacturer goes bankrupt people will pick up that physical plant and use it.
As far as externalities, if my air is polluted I've got a lessened quality of life. If there are pollution regulations that clean up my air, that means somebody isn't making the same profit, and somebody else gets a lessened quality of life. There is a balance here, and the proper way to resolve a balance is political. It can't be through individual contracts, because each polluting industry would have to have a valid contract with each and every landowner in the vicinity in order to proceed. Moreover, what incentive would I, as a landowner, have to sign contracts? People will require much larger amounts of money than are warranted, partly to cover the overhead, and partly as safety. How do you intend to ensure that a factory can open without crippling costs? It seems to me this would be a worse economic drag than pollution regulations.
We could institute a landowners' cooperative that would do the negotiation, but factory proprietors would still have to deal with landowners not in the cooperative. If we force people into the cooperative, we've got a government.
When market economics doesn't work (which is frequently), the best way to solve conflicts is political. This is a flawed process, but it's what we've got.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You claimed that "per unit profit" went down. Your argument is now about total profit. You really need to decide what argument you want to make.
Because car manufacturers are in competition with each other. The effect is that all of them set prices at cost plus a small profit margin (about 3-5%) reflecting the return on investment that owners expect. If the costs are raised for everybody through regulation, their profits increase slightly and demand decreases slightly.
You're right that there is a balance here. You're wrong that the "proper way" is to resolve this political. A political resolution of these issues is entirely divorced from actual costs and benefits, and dominated by lobbying, rent seeking, and demagoguery.
People aren't "forced into" anything. They buy their land already encumbered by various easements and rights, and as part of various associations. Furthermore, even though such associations may look like government and use various forms of government-like structures, they are not government. The crucial difference is that all the accounting (costs and benefits) takes place within them; the cost and benefits of making decisions are all born by the people actually affected by the decisions. That's in contrast to government, where the EPA can make decisions to make some lobby groups happy while imposing high costs on others.
We have never tried market economics for air and water pollution, so you have no basis for such an assertion. In those areas where we have actually tried free markets, they pretty much always work better than government.