China Cell Phone Chargers -- Capitalist Market With Socialist Characteristics

I am generally sympathetic to your free market position. On this issue, however, I would have thought that the invisible hand deserves a good, hard slap and applaud the Chinese government for what sounds like an altogether sensible initiative.

I believe that most countries have only one size and shape of electric power socket. Why should we, therefore, have dozens of almost-but-not-quite identical plugs for our phones? Silly!

personally i think it's a good move. my wife and i both have motorolas but different models - with different plugs for the chargers. v silly. On the topic of needless waste, it also seems strange that the factories that produce soft-drink cans still manufacture them with the old fashioned ringpulls. Sure it's only a tiny bit of metal but if one adds up all the cans sold throughout China it soon mounts up.

There's plenty of precedent for this; the example that springs to mind is European countries forcing all mobile operators to use the GSM standard so that the different networks would play nicely with each other. Also, the USB charger standard is already mandated in South Korea (although over there the standardisation came from the mobile operators rather than the government).

I'd also like to say that I'm glad the MII has got its act together and gone for a proper international standard this time, rather than spending billions on a proprietary Chinese one that doesn't work properly like they did for 3G.

Chris --

I will ask you the same questions I asked Paul Woodward.

I bought a new Dell Latitude notebook for one of the attorneys in our firm, only to discover that its power cord was different from that of the other Latitudes we have. Should Dell be required to have the came cord for all its Latitude notebooks? Should all notebooks required to have the same power cord?

lee --

Good argument and I sort of agree. But weren't cell phones trending this way on their own, just due to the market?

In the midst of a food safety crisis, it's an odd thing to be asking "should governments intervene?"

Of course governments should intervene in the markets. Governments (and courts, applying the laws that governments make) prevent unsafe foods being sold and IPR being infringed. Government intervention is actually a necessary precondition of an efficient market.

What you're saying here is that you think having to buy many chargers is not a sufficiently important issue for the government to get involved in. I would agree that it's an odd choice, but in the end it's good for consumers, so I can't think of any good reason against it. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument when it's used about drugs, and I don't buy it here, either.

I don't share your faith in the invisible hand of the market. The Don Imus example in your link is a spectacularly bad one: so many people have risen to positions of prominence by spouting bile (gays burn in hell) that the downfall of one dimwitted reactionary joker only serves to highlight the trend.

More government intervention, I say - just make it fair intervention.

Phil --

I am certainly not saying governments should never intervene. If I believed that I would be a Libertarian and I most certainly am not. But for something as relatively unimportant as a cell phone cord? Come on, how can you compare that to food safety? Also, do you really trust your government for food safety over the top brands? I sure don't.

And Imus is a great example in that the market spoke and your only complaint seems to be that it did not speak soon enough. So in other words, you want the government removing talk show hosts? Again, come on.

I think this is fantastic. I know that big brother encroaching in is a bit scary, but this is something that industry should have recognized and fixed on their own.

Certainly part of this is about the public good, but this is also something that will be good for China as they look for ways to reduce their manufacturing based consumption (plastic, wood, land, electricity, etc) and waste.

computer power cables should be next..

and there is a list of other products that could follow that

It's a bit too much comparing a power cord to FDA. However, the slippery slope argument could go both ways. If it's ok for the state to regulate public goods, where does it stop? If we are to tell government to stop on the trivial like power cord, how many steps before it reach the food and drug?

The power cord regulation is a easy one for the Chinese government which is actually one of the few governments in the world who are not in the pocket of the MEN (Moto, Ericsson and Nokia). In fact, it's in quite a fight with MEN over the 3G at this point. Passing such regulation gives the government additional bargain chips on the table. It also solves some small annoyance to pander to the mass. The 400 millions cell phone users in China are exactly the more well off half of Chinese and those increases questioning the communist government.

There are not that many low hanging fruits for the government.

All Roads --

You are scaring me.

NT --

I just think the industry was going this way anyway.

And sorry, one on this:
"I just think the industry was going this way anyway."
They'd had more than ten years, and hadn't got there yet... I don't know if you have insider knowledge here. What makes you think they were moving towards standardized chargers?

1. Top brands like "our baby milk is good for your children" Nestle? Okay, good one. Nestle acted badly in Africa, I know. But it wasn't government that stopped them, it was the market. Also, with the internet today, what happened then is less likely to happen again.

2. Or do you mean "it was only a small e. coli contamination" Cadburies? e.coli happens, don't I know it. I represented one of the companies on the first big e.coli case 15 years ago and I have not had a bit of meat since. My choice, or would you prefer that the government ban meat? Anyway, how can the government stop e.coli? And do you really not think Caburies (I am NOT familiar with their e.coli problem) is not doing everything they can to prevent another incident?

3. Or perhaps "our crisps (chips to Americans) are sporty and good" Walkers? Don't know about it.

4. "It's a healthy part of a balanced diet" McDonalds? What do you propose the government do?

5. "the government is paid to look after me." Yes and no. The government is paid to look after you and if they do a bad job of it, some few people in the government might get voted out. Private business is also paid to look after you and if they fail at it they usually stop making money pretty quickly. I am not saying capitalism works perfectly, because it obviously doesn't. And, I am not saying there should be no government intervention, because there most certainly should be. But cell phone cords? Where's the health and safety in that.

6. "When companies act in responsible ways, it's because the law makes them." Sometimes yes, most of the time, no. When companies act in responsible ways it is because they know this is the absolute best way to build up a healthy and long-lasting business. Who cares if it is more expensive?

7. "If company A holds itself to standards higher than the law, then company B will hew exactly to the law, undercut company A, and company A will lose market share and die." You are so wrong. Take Starbucks as an example. It gives its employees surprisingly good benefits and by doing so it gets better employees who stay longer. It also gets me as an investor. So it pays out more but gets even more back by doing so. The same is true by acting responsibly. The only way to make a lot of money long term is to win over the confidence of the customer and the only lasting way to do that is to be honest and responsible. Again, read Seth Godin's book, "All Marketers Are Liars."

That's why governments must set and enforce standards, because companies literally can't do it for themselves.

As to Don Imus - it's a single example. You point to Don Imus, I point to Jerry Falwell, we haven't really gotten anywhere. I regard the laws that the US has passed and upheld preventing hate speech as being a much more important part of why America is able to conduct a very high level of civilized public dialogue today.

8. What hate speech laws in the US? We don't really have any. What about Jerry Falwell? Are you really saying the government should have shut him down? Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not believe in the marketplace of ideas? I sure do.

All Roads --

Scaring people into protecting themselves is a good thing and your earlier comment hopefully has scared even more people into doing what they can to keep government from telling us exactly what to buy and what not to buy.

Phil --

I'm a lawyer and this is my blog so I am going for the last words here.

You make some good points, with which I do not disagree. I absolutely think we need safety laws. Of course. Mobile chargers are not a safety issue. And, I am saying that the laws are not enough and I do not think government can do it alone and I for one will never trust them to do so.

The US does not really have hate speech laws. It has laws against telling lies that hurt people, but if I wanted to say the most hateful things possible against a race or a religion, I could do so without violating any laws (so long as I was not inciting violence, etc.)

You may now return to your blog.