Thread: Who needs regulations?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You can't rely on people to use their pocketbook for many reasons but one of the main ones are they don't care. The same reason why people on motorcycles don't wear helmets even though they know a minor wreck will cost them dearly or many people still drive without seat belts or put their kids in a car without seats. The folks in Brazil would rather spend money on a fancy radio or rims then safety equipment. Sometimes Govt has to take the unpopular part and do things folks don't want because it's vital to their interests. It's only years later they realize it.

The big problem with 'relying on your pocketbook' to regulate business is that it simply does not work, because often, corporations will dump the negative consequences on a third party so they don't inconvenience you.

The reason the EPA had to be created was that manufacturers thought nothing of destroying the environment. And customers thought nothing of it either, because it didn't hurt them. People did vote with their pocketbooks. They voted for cheap products.

Relying on a large mass of people to 'do the right thing' out of moral or ethical consideration is bound to lead to failure.

Gentlemen all points made in this discussion so far are valid and the topic (car safety) raised is a basic business practice. Be it wrong or right it simply works this way. Government makes rules and companies survive, manufacture, sell, under these rules. The problem with the world today is simple and very basic. This TED Talk might bring some attention as to the very basic way to change things. Instead we all look at other issues for what ever reason because we are not focused on fixing the basic flaws. This video explains what I mean. Think hard about this after you watch it and tell me it's not the type of place we need to start if we want to fix this crazy world.

Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim | Video on TED.com

10pups

That is the basic flaw in most "Democracies" today to a greater or lesser extent no matter how they were set up in the first place.

Bob

It all starts with a Voter and his/her vote.

harummmmmmmmmf!

Originally Posted by 32t

You smokers will die sooner and use less medical money in the long run in my opinion! Go for it.

Here is food for thought. When good intentions make bad policy – car seat edition | The Incidental Economist

First there is a big flaw in all statistical models used to compare car and air travel. They use miles. Planes travel much faster and slew the results. A fairer way would be time spent in both modes. The results would be far different.

The author of that piece makes many assumptions. He is willing to expend so many lives because "few people walk away from plane crashes" that is simply untrue. We only hear about the deadly ones however there are incidents all the time of a more minor nature where a child would be much better protected in a seat than in someones lap where they could suddenly become a projectile in the cabin.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

First there is a big flaw in all statistical models used to compare car and air travel. They use miles. Planes travel much faster and slew the results. A fairer way would be time spent in both modes. The results would be far different.

The author of that piece makes many assumptions. He is willing to expend so many lives because "few people walk away from plane crashes" that is simply untrue. We only hear about the deadly ones however there are incidents all the time of a more minor nature where a child would be much better protected in a seat than in someones lap where they could suddenly become a projectile in the cabin.

Thank you for your reply. I did not say my example was the answer to all our problems but food for thought.

I fail to see why miles traveled is an unfair comparison. The task is to go from point A to B. If I choose to go that distance faster that would weigh into my risk consideration. If I choose to go slower will my risk go up or down? If the cost of going faster and safer is out of reach will I choose the slower and riskier mode of travel?

To think that it is even possible to make our world risk free is absurd. To think that we can regulate out any risk at any cost is just as absurd. Risk is a part of life and even though many do not agree there is arguable $ value for that risk.

Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates, Parties Super PACs and Outside Spending Groups | OpenSecrets

HISTORICAL ELECTIONS

Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates, Parties Super PACs and Outside Spending Groups

The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.

An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor's occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Relying on a large mass of people to 'do the right thing' out of moral or ethical consideration is bound to lead to failure.

Depends on who's definition of "The right thing" you choose. Besides, who ever guaranteed a life without failure? Seems like a highly unreasonable expectation.

Originally Posted by honedright

Depends on who's definition of "The right thing" you choose. Besides, who ever guaranteed a life without failure? Seems like a highly unreasonable expectation.

I didn't say 'without failure'. But most things didn't get better before the government stepped in and said 'we really want you to stop doing this nasty thing'.

Large companies have shown since the depths of time that they will not give a damn about anything except the dollar. These are the companies who survive because they make bigger profits than the ones who do. Individuals don't let what happens to other people influence their buying decisions.

Nothing is perfect and abuses are still here today. However, nothing changed for the better until government stepped in to protect the little guy from the big guy. Without regulation, there would be a lot more pollution, medical fraud, false advertizing and hazardous working conditions than there is today.

Big companies used to abuse the fact that most of their employees had no other options than be unemployed or work in a hazardous environment. Somehow, I don't see their ability to take advantage of that situation as a god given right that should be defended.

India is a fine example of a democratic, modern country where there are very few regulations.

There was a documentary on tv about people working in the fabric industry. People often only have the choice between starving to death along with their family, or working in the tannery (or other but similar environment). They literally wade through pools of Chromium, hauling buckets of chromium on a yoke, from one place to another. Not suprisingly, most of those people grow tumors and spectacular rashes on their legs.

That's what you get when there are no regulations and people are caught having to choose between short term or long term death, all so you can buy your nike shoes for a reasonable price while still allowing the fabric companies to make ludicrous profits.

We know how those people are treated, and we still buy those things. We don't vote with our pocketbook because as a society, we don't care about the Indians. Or rather, we do vote with out pocketbook: we vote for cheap over ethical.