I think the thing with the Pinto is that Ford concluded that it would cost them less to pay for wrongful death suits than to put something in the Pintos that would stop them from exploding in rear end collisions. I suppose this is the issue in dispute, but the greater cost of the part to prevent the explosions doesn't seem astronomical to me.
So, the problem is a difference of opinion in the value figures we should put in the cost/benefit slots, sort of . Myself, I think the benefit of reducing the speed limit substantially ( maybe not to 5 miles per hour), and more safety features of the type you mention would be worth it in the lives and injuries saved, and the cost would not be astronomical given what would be saved. In other words, the value of a human life _is_ astronomical, well, relative to the conveniences that are had by being able to go 75 instead of 40. I think you are right that the problem wouldn't just go away with socialism. There might , in general, in socialism be more focus on some safety issues when the decision would not depend upon how the safer engineering impacted an individual corporation's bottomline. I can see a socialism more readily developing its transportation system with all the safety features you suggest, and not experiencing them economically as "astronomical". If there was safety focus comprehensively and for a long time, it might be very practical to do it better safety wise. Charles ^^^^^^ by David B. Shemano 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
