Milton Friedman Puts A Young (and skinny) Michael Moore In His Place

Quote from Mav88:

Who are you to tell a car company what makes cost sense?
More...

1st. If you wouldn't eat 13 bucks, per car, to save an estimated 180 lives per year on a defective gas-tank, you're a psychopath.

2nd. Ford defrauded consumers by withholding relevant safety data on the Pinto.

If Ford disclosed upfront the Pinto sometimes blows up, consumers would have no recourse. Because Ford hid that information, they were liable.

Actually, *think* about what you're arguing here...
 
Quote from achilles28:

1st. If you wouldn't eat 13 bucks, per car, to save an estimated 180 lives per year on a defective gas-tank, you're a psychopath.

2nd. Ford defrauded consumers by withholding relevant safety data on the Pinto.

If Ford disclosed upfront the Pinto sometimes blows up, consumers would have no recourse. Because Ford hid that information, they were liable.

Actually, *think* about what you're arguing here...
More...

But then you wouldn't have great movie scenes:

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dT0J0rcJTLo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
1st. If you wouldn't eat 13 bucks, per car, to save an estimated 180 lives per year on a defective gas-tank, you're a psychopath.

2nd. Ford defrauded consumers by withholding relevant safety data on the Pinto.

If Ford disclosed upfront the Pinto sometimes blows up, consumers would have no recourse. Because Ford hid that information, they were liable.

Actually, *think* about what you're arguing here...
More...

You didn't think about what you said I am supposed to think about. I said cost decisions, I didn't say 'withholding information decisions'.


Of course it is despicable to not publish the safety info. I however find Moore's positions equally despicable.
 
MARGINAL COST VS. MARGINAL BENEFITS.

This is the golden rule to all business decisions. That's what we are told in the beginning of BUS 101 and at the end of BUS-498.

Example:
It cost ford 25 Million to put a safety device.

Not doing it would cost for 15 million in sues and other loses. But 100 lives would be lost.

Do the math. What would Ford do?? It would obviously chose the 15 million one and call this lost plus the 100 lives it would take "COST OF DOING BUSINESS".

I wonder......When such a business decision is taken how different is it when SS met over the "FINAL SOLUTION" issue???

THINK. Human life is priceless and must never be given a price or cost.

ITS THE 3RD MILLENIUM PEOPLE. WAKE UP!!! USE YOUR HEAD AND EVOLVE INTO A BETTER SOMETHING.
 
nobody here seems to get Friedman's point which is not that much of a surprise.
----------------------

I second this motion. Fucking Morons on this site. They can't follow the logic, or listen to what he is saying.

yet, this is not a surprise as most of the people in this country, regardless of their position on a subject, do not follow logic nor do they really listen. EMOTION dictates, and logic never follows.
 
Quote from achilles28:

I get Friedmans point. I just don't agree with it. 13 bucks is not a lot, to save lives.

Friedmans argument only makes sense when the cost of safety erases profit or competitiveness.

To suggest an additional 13 bucks on the Pintos sticker price would have bankrupted Ford or tanked the Pinto, is nonsense.
More...

You're in the "didn't get the point" group.

-burn8
 
The point is that there is (or can be) an actuarial analysis applied to every product, service or situation that exists on this earth.

Friedman's question is "what is the right price?". Obviously with hindsight, $13/car was a minimal cost to save the 2,000 lives that were lost because of this flaw. What if the number killed would have been 12? Would it have made sense then? Probably not.

Certainly it would suck for the family of anyone of those 12 killed, but it still wouldn't make fiscal sense to increase the cost?

Another example is in the agriculture business. Let's say hypothetically that there are 100 deaths/yr in the US due to food borne illness that are a result of lettuce that is contaminated.

Often the lettuce is tainted because of field workers hygiene, such as defecating in the field or not washing their hands.

If the lettuce grower hired very highly skilled workers with excellent hygiene and instituted a number of controls such as weekly health screenings, etc the risk would go down significantly for his lettuce being tainted.

That would come at a great cost however. Would shopper in a supermarket two states away buy this guy's lettuce because it had a lower risk of contamination if it were 3x the cost? No, of course not. So this producer would either revert back to a slightly more dangerous business practice, or he would go out of business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top