David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a very inefficient way of doing things.
A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. In hindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocent people. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David B. Shemano Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law Regarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is the issue? I mean, we know with certainty that a certain number of people are going to die each year from auto accidents. We also know that if we reduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required all passengers to wear helmets, required safety designs used for race cars, etc., the deaths would all be eliminated. But we don't, because the costs of doing so would be astronomical, and most people seem prepared to assume certain risks in consideration for conveniences and benefits. So is the problem the concept of cost/benefit analysis, the improper implementation of cost/benefit analysis, or disagreement about what are costs and benefits? If you reject cost/benefit analysis, how could you ever decide whether any marginal rule should be accepted or rejected? Why does this issue have anything to do with capitalism/socialism -- would not these issues have to be addressed no matter how the society is organized? David Shemano
