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

[jem]

This is interesting.

Because even though the system is based on the idea of efficiency and risk reward analysis...

by leaving the decision up to jury... we wind up have a much safer society. Companies will have to err to the side of avoiding looking bad in front of jury.

So our tort system had put a higher wildcard value on human life.
Which is a good thing. Because I note when I travel in third world countries... you can see life if cheaper... that can be seen with simple observations such as the lack of guard rails on the roads.

 

[bigarrow]

Jem how come you have to call the young man a boy ?

 

[Sandybestdog]

Quote from nutmeg:
Have you checked out the number of people killed and maimed with air bags? I suppose that death from safety devices warrants different economic calculations.

Have you checked out the number of people saved by air bags? I suppose that smashing your head in the windshield is preferred over being hurt by an air bag.

Arguments like yours are the speed bumps on the road to progress.

 

[oraclewizard77]

Another issue is like this with guns. Its hidden from the public, but some guns will automatically shoot.

I do know of one letter sent to gun owners of a model of hand gun, where the safety did not work, and it could still fire.

So you may hear of accidents where a gun owner shot himself or committed suicide, but in fact the gun might have just gone off by itself.

http://www.predatortalk.com/topic/9816-remington-700-safety-issues/

 

[Mercor]

If the goal is to reduce risk of injury/death then there are many other things that can be done.

Solid steel doors, two foot thick bumpers, Indy type gas tanks...etc.

They consumer is not asking for that. Generally the consumer is happy with the risk levels that come with buying this product.

After a death, thoughts naturally flow to what could have been done.
If one is concerned about surviving an automobile crash a Pinto is not the solution.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigarrow:

Jem how come you have to call the young man a boy ?

I was distinguishing from Friedman who was clearly older.

 

[Lights]

friedman's logic is basically one of a man with no morals hidden under the veil of academic theory and empiricism. car companies have no obligation yet people have the right to sue. who gets rich.. his lawyer and broker middle man friends who produce absolutely nothing, take no sides and simply wait for the glass to break. that's the basis of his economic principles. it worked for 50 years but the invisible tax ponzi is coming to an end now as people wake up to their theft.

Quote from Sandybestdog:

I thought the kid did pretty good. I think it's funny how Friedman thinks it's ok for corporations to be sued in court for knowingly making a faulty product but not be required to fix a faulty product in the first place that would have prevented such lawsuits and deaths.

However, isn't it funny how car company's now strive to make the safest of cars and point it out as one of their selling points? Some cars have 10 air bags now. Or maybe it's just because the judgement amounts of these kind of lawsuits have risen so much that it is now worth it to make safe cars.

 

[Lights]

friedman was just a satan worshipping lawyer propogating the way of taxing the herd by blurring reality. the real world doesn't live in stupid hypotheticals. If a part cost $2 million dollars, there would be no production of this car. again, hiding under the veil of academia for a deeper evil purpose discounting morality and emotions, projection of their very own psychopathy onto society.

Quote from chaykapwr:

Actually everyday you put a price on someone elses life. For example, when you make the choice to drive to work you know there is a chance you might hit a person who chooses to cross the street with no signal or crosswalk. By making the conscious decision to drive you are saying that the benefit of driving outweighs the risk of killing someone--you are putting a small marginal price on another persons life. When you bought an Ipod off a production which directly resulted in tens of suicides you are putting a price on someone elses life.

If that persons life was priceless, as you seem to imply, then the moral cost of the ipod would be infinite and unaffordable to any person at any time in the history/future of the planet.

Again, you seem to stray away from the question. If the part cost 2,000,000 would you advise Ford to recall every car? If the answer is no, then you are agreeing with Milton. If the answer is yes, then nothing would ever got done in your economy due to the infinite cost that every product would command. If life is priceless, than marginal cost is non-existent and everything would be infinite dollars.

I think we both agree that Ford had the duty to inform all buyers that they had an increased risk of dying by buying the Pinto. That i agree with, what we appear to disagree on is Milton's argument against the kid's wording.

 

[Sandybestdog]

Quote from Lights:
friedman's logic is basically one of a man with no morals hidden under the veil of academic theory and empiricism. car companies have no obligation yet people have the right to sue. who gets rich.. his lawyer and broker middle man friends who produce absolutely nothing, take no sides and simply wait for the glass to break. that's the basis of his economic principles. it worked for 50 years but the invisible tax ponzi is coming to an end now as people wake up to their theft.

Exactly. I certainly have a lot of "Libertarian principles" if you will. But it seems a lot of these theory's and idea's were thought up one day and in reality have very little practical application. They are just theory's.

Take trickle down economics (supply side) for instance. Sounds great on paper. Give rich business owners tax breaks and they will invest in their business and hire more people. But in reality it's rediculous. Business owners hire people when DEMAND dictates that they do. If you want to give tax cuts to the rich, then just say you do. But don't try to twist it into jobs for the middle class.

 

[Lucrum]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cD0dmRJ0oWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The FAA uses a similar formula, as the Pinto example, for determining whether or not to force the airlines to implement safety improvements. Last I heard they consider a human life to be worth $2,000,000. That figure may or may not have been adjusted for inflation since then.