In reply to Raghu below: It is important to clarify for the purpose of this discussion what Ford did in the Pinto case. Ford did NOT formally do a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether to spend $9 per car regarding a modification to the gas tank. Instead, the NHSTA was formulating a rule regarding gas tanks and Ford did the cost-benefit analysis in order convince to the NHSTA that the rule should not be changed. Ford decided not to spend the $9 not because it balanced the $9 against lives, but because Ford was committed to building an inexpensive car. As far as Ford was concerned, the car complied with all safety regulations and requirements, and the risks inherent in the Pinto were risks inherent in a small, inexpensive car -- if you make all of the marginal changes that somebody could contemplate, you no longer have a $2,000 car, which would defeat the purpose of the car.
That being said, there are two conceptual points. If you reject cost-benefit analysis, how do you propose that the NHSTA engage in rule-making? As set forth in the law review article, the NHSTA is not required to blindly follow the results of a cost-benefit analysis, but is permitted to incorporate cost-benefit analysis in the rule-making process. What is your alternative? Second, I don't see how you can criticize Ford unless you engage in your own cost-benefit analysis - which is exactly what Raghu does. Ford violated no law -- the car complied with all rules and regulations. The only way you can criticize Ford (as did the jury), is to argue that the costs of the gas tank placement (i.e. several dozen lives lost) outweighed the benefits (i.e. cheaper sticker price for 2 million cars). If Mr. Mage and the other on this list who complain that c/b analysis cannot be done even theoretically and/or cannot be done in reality, then I don't see you can rationally criticize Ford if Ford did not engage in a c/b analysis and relied upon its compliance with the rules and regulations. Finally, I agree with 100% of what Mr. Huato said and am glad that Mr. Lear and I have found common agreement on something. David Shemano >> >> It may help to work with a concrete example. David seems to imply that >> Ford's decision on the Pinto was based on a sound c/b analysis and >> their action was reasonable. I disagree and do the majority of PEN-L >> with the notable dissents of Julio and Bill. >> >> For the moment I want to play along with David's assumption that there >> is always a reasonable way to quantify cost and benefit. >> >> Now why do I believe Ford's Pinto analysis was wrong? After all they >> did set a fairly generous estimate of $200,000 for the value of a >> human life. If you think this estimate is too small, what should be >> the value? Infinite? But no car or any other product can guarantee >> infinite safety. Surely it is reasonable to accept some small enough >> but non-zero safety risk. In order to determine how small should this >> risk be, it is necessary to implicitly or explicitly specify some >> non-infinite value for human safety. Even if we decline to quantify it >> explicitly, we would merely making choices that implicitly does this >> anyway. >> >> I think the right answer in this case is that Ford's value estimate >> was simply because it leads to an absurd conclusion. If a Pinto buyer >> was told that they could have (a) a car that might explode in the >> event of a serious collision (which is rare, but happens) or (b) for >> $11 more, a car that won't explode, I don't think any reasonable >> person would choose (a). Clearly they implicitly value their lives >> more than Ford valued their lives. What makes this egregious, of >> course, is that Ford in effect made this choice for its customers >> without ever asking them.. >> -raghu. >> >> >> -- >> I like to leave messages *before* the beep. >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
