On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
There is another fallacy involved here (which is another reason why working with the specific Pinto example is so valuable in clarifying issues). You are assuming that there are hundred of routine tradeoffs like the exploding gas-tank that engineers must make all the time and they would be crippled if c/b type analysis is not used. This is just wrong. It is not a routine occurrence that such life and death decisions have to be made everyday by companies. The Pinto's design flaw was a major one. It made the Pinto *far* more unsafe than other cars on the market. -raghu. -- Don't steal; thou'lt never thus be successful in business. Cheat instead! _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
