It was well known by the mid 1950s that smoking cigarettes was very harmful. This is why you don't see doctors smoking after this time. Amusingly (to my mind at least) doctors very much did smoke before that time. Three of my grandparents were doctors and they all gave up smoking in the mid-1950s because by that time the health risks were well known in the profession. Nowadays of course it is essentially impossible to find a doctor who (openly) smokes.

Well, Ray, if it were to be discovered that Hostess had spent millions of dollars trying to introduce additives to their Twinkies, for the purpose of getting millions of consumers to eat twenty or more of them a day, your analogy might carry a little more weight.

They do.

It's called "sugar."

Well, other than the fact that the Hostess Company didn't spend millions of bucks in "research" money trying to "enhance" sugar, for the expess purpose of increasing its addictive qualities; and other than the fact that many millions of consumers don't "chain eat" one pack of Twinkies after another because of their addictive qualities, you might be onto something.

Well, Ray, if it were to be discovered that Hostess had spent millions of dollars trying to introduce additives to their Twinkies, for the purpose of getting millions of consumers to eat twenty or more of them a day, your analogy might carry a little more weight.

They do. It's called "sugar."

Thus proving that you can, indeed, argue anything.

I don't know what you are going to do about that. Drug-market-readiness is a lot trickier than you apparently think.

Well, I'm likely not going to "do" anything about it, other than try to convince people to vote libertarian. What I would do if I had the power to do it is to make FDA certification voluntary. (In the long run, I'd fully privatize the certification process, but as an interim measure, I think that's reasonable.) People who did not feel they could trust their own judgment would be free to choose only drugs approved by the FDA, just as now. People who felt differently would have the freedom to do so.

It was well known by the mid 1950s that smoking cigarettes was very harmful. This is why you don't see doctors smoking after this time.

Except in countless cigarette ads, of course. But nobody could be expected to be influenced by mere advertising. That's why no company ever advertises.

That is an unfortunate stereotype, but anyone who's read The Cigarette Century knows that in at least one case it's not exactly a false one.

Andy, I'll concede that the tobacco companies acted dishonestly if you'll concede that every smoker in the United States in at least the last 40 years knew that smoking was both dangerous and addictive.

Except in countless cigarette ads, of course.

Yeah, but most people in the 1930s-1950s got their info from the writings of James VI, not from magazines and newspapers.

Andy, I'll concede that

Alex, I'll take Nieporent for $300. What are four words he's never typed before?

Nowadays of course it is essentially impossible to find a doctor who (openly) smokes.

Is this sarcasm? Because my (and many others that I marvel about this with from the healthcare industry) take is drastically the opposite. I can't believe how many doctors I know or see that smoke. Of course, they flatly decry the habit to their patients in the office. Do as i say, not as I do and all....

Except in countless cigarette ads, of course. But nobody could be expected to be influenced by mere advertising. That's why no company ever advertises.

Do beer ads make you believe hot chicks will come frolic, bikini-clad, in your front lawn if you crack open a cold one?

Well, Ray, if it were to be discovered that Hostess had spent millions of dollars trying to introduce additives to their Twinkies, for the purpose of getting millions of consumers to eat twenty or more of them a day, your analogy might carry a little more weight.

They do, Andy. It's called "artificial flavor." "Trans fats." Etc.

All manufacturers add features to their products to make them as attractive as possible to consumers.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Obama is going to win the general pretty handily, no matter how much longer the primary continues. With all the negative press Obama has gotten recently and the Hillary die-hards who now say they wouldn't vote for him but will probably change their minds come november, and with no focus on McCain's continued support for an extremely unpopular war, the polls have McCain and Obama roughly even. Add in the fact that Obama is going to have much more money, and a much better ground organization, and I don't see how McCain can win. It's just a horrible political environment for Republicans right now, and I think that is going to be the main factor influencing the election, not McCain's reputation or Obama's controversies.

I certainly worry about the scenario you describe, but one factor you omit is that nobody has attacked Obama for his views yet. (Hillary and he share almost identical positions on issues, so there's very little for her to criticize him for, which is why complaints about the debates being non-substantive are somewhat misplaced.) McCain still gets to point out that Obama is a traditional tax-raising anti-gun big-government liberal, who can't be trusted to answer the phone at 3 AM. (Okay, maybe that last part has been mentioned before.)

Let's not forget that in 1988, George Bush 41 trailed Dukakis by 17 points in the polls at the end of the primary season, before Bush had the opportunity to point out all the things people weren't going to like about Dukakis. Bush won rather handily.

The money issue is a key one, however; we'll see whether Obama lives up to his promise to take public funds or not.

Andy, I'll concede that the tobacco companies acted dishonestly if you'll concede that every smoker in the United States in at least the last 40 years knew that smoking was both dangerous and addictive.

For starters, we can go back at least 36 years, to this 1972 episode of Columbo. It's not like people had to read the New England Journal of Medicine to learn that smoking was dangerous and addictive; all they had to do was watch tv. (Or listen to the radio. Or read the newspaper. Or interact with others in everyday life.) This example shows that, at least by 1972, the knowledge was commonly accepted and had made its way into the public discourse:

The health perils of cigar smoking are emphasized again in Blueprint For Murder, as Columbo undergoes a physical exam by Bo Williamson’s cardiologist, Dr Moss (John Fiedler).

When the exam is done, Columbo puts a cigar in his mouth and makes the mistake of asking the doctor for a lighter. “You won’t find one here, Lieutenant,” says the doctor, genuinely outraged by the request. “And let me give you some free medical advice – stop smoking those things!” Columbo says “Well, I’ve been trying…,” and the doc interrupts, ominously: “Trying isn’t good enough – Remember, I deal in pacemakers!”

You have to go back a little before 1972, Ray. Six years earlier, in 1966, warnings that cigarettes were dangerous were mandated on every package of cigarettes. No possibility that any smoker could claim ignorance since at least that date.

You have to go back a little before 1972, Ray. Six years earlier, in 1966, warnings that cigarettes were dangerous were mandated on every package of cigarettes. No possibility that any smoker could claim ignorance since at least that date.

Ah. True.

Although the example I cited forecloses the argument that the warning labels didn't protect people who were illiterate :-)

There are also practical issues at play: are people going to buy your miracle drug on your say-so, or would you have to demonstrate results first?

Enzyte and a billions of dollars thrown at nutraceuticals says "Hells yeah!"

Six years earlier, in 1966, warnings that cigarettes were dangerous were mandated on every package of cigarettes. No possibility that any smoker could claim ignorance since at least that date.

I suppose the argument is that stupid people get what they deserve, but it certainly puts the lie in the idea that "it's not in companies' best interests either to start racking up a body count." The market isn't wired to punish bad actors who work dishonestly; WRT the cigarette industry, it's apparent that they don't give a #### about the body count, so long as there's money to be made.

I suppose the argument is that stupid people get what they deserve, but it certainly puts the lie in the idea that "it's not in companies' best interests either to start racking up a body count." The market isn't wired to punish bad actors who work dishonestly; WRT the cigarette industry, it's apparent that they don't give a #### about the body count, so long as there's money to be made.

Certainly the market is wired to punish bad actors who work dishonestly; the point here is that there wasn't dishonesty. (Or, to clarify, whether they lied or not, people knew the facts.) People knew the risks and chose to take them; the fact that the market enabled them to do so is a feature, not a bug. The market's role isn't to impose Softball's values on individual consumers.

It's in an industry's best interests to "rack up a body count" if that's what consumers of the industry's products want.

Further, keep in mind, that the federal government, acting at the behest of anti-smoking activists inside and outside of government, prevented tobacco companies from marketing safer cigarettes.

The money issue is a key one, however; we'll see whether Obama lives up to his promise to take public funds or not.

After the way McCain has already gamed the public financing system, I'm not sure this one's going to fly.

I do have some experience in the pharma industry. It's my understanding that the FDA now requires treatments to be more EFFECTIVE than standard of care (in addition to meeting the safety requirements) - and it's this efficacy testing that bounces most drugs, and keeps the cost of development in the half-billion dollar range (per drug).

I also believe that this system will crash and burn sometime in the next 20 years, and the FDA will start approving anything proven safe - leaving it to "the market" (i.e, MDs) to decided what works.

As for eliminating gov regulations (like 5% of the budget anyway) - does all that death, health cost, and litigation have any societal cost? Who pays for that? Would we have to hire more prosecutors? I guess the lawyers would be OK with that system.

But like the suggestion of leaving the DOEd to the states... doesn't that just increase STATE taxes? And that is a win for taxpayers how?

Certainly the market is wired to punish bad actors who work dishonestly; the point here is that there wasn't dishonesty. (Or, to clarify, whether they lied or not, people knew the facts.)

Let's just both be clear; they're still being dishonest. The facts came forth in spite of the industry, not because of it.

People knew the risks and chose to take them; the fact that the market enabled them to do so is a feature, not a bug... It's in an industry's best interests to "rack up a body count" if that's what consumers of the industry's products want.

But this goes back to the inaccuracy of Ray's initial point: A body count isn't going to impede the production of a profitable, but dangerous, product.

Further, keep in mind, that the federal government, acting at the behest of anti-smoking activists inside and outside of government, prevented tobacco companies from marketing safer cigarettes.

Right, the industry's been trying so hard to be safe, and evil government's been the reason cigarettes aren't safer:

But several factors have stood in the way of the development of a safer smoke. Taking the toxins out of cigarette smoke has turned out to be a technological challenge. The biggest problem has been maintaining the taste and smoking sensations that smokers crave -- so far, no company has overcome those obstacles. And industry lawyers have balked at the suggestions that cigarette makers embark on research to make safe cigarettes out of fears of the tricky legal problem such research would create for the entire industry. Patrick Sheehy, the former chief executive of British American Tobacco, wrote in 1986 that safe cigarette research would be tacit admission that cigarettes are dangerous. "In attempting to develop a "safe" cigarette you are, by implication, in danger of being interpreted as accepting the current product is unsafe, and this is not a position that I think we should take," he wrote.

I know people have this odd notion that corporate CEOs are like James Bond villains who just snap their fingers and have an army of people willing to lie and commit murder for them, but it's just not the case.

That is an unfortunate stereotype, but anyone who's read The Cigarette Century knows that in at least one case it's not exactly a false one.

Andy, I'll concede that the tobacco companies acted dishonestly if you'll concede that every smoker in the United States in at least the last 40 years knew that smoking was both dangerous and addictive.

It's taken me this long to respond to that sentence because my wife had to remember where we'd kept the smelling salts.

But since you ask: Of course "I'll concede" that since the Surgeon General's Report of 1964---44 years and counting---every sentient adult on Earth, or at least within the United States and with access to a television---should have known that smoking is both dangerous and addictive. When and where have I ever said otherwise? And any intelligent person who combined a bit of hard knowledge with a good dose of skepticism about advertising could have figured it out well before that. I'll even say in my most patronizing and elitist way that anyone who smokes is a f*ck*ng idiot, or at best a Russian Roulette loving masochist. Most smokers will even admit that themselves, but say that their "addiction" is too strong for them to quit.*

This common sense observation is wholly relevant to the question of whether or not smoking should be banned. It is not relevant to the question of whether or not tobacco companies should be allowed to "enhance" their products with extra-addictive qualities, suppress that information, and then be allowed to get away with it.

But now I'm tempted to get a T-shirt printed up which reads "DAVID NIEPORENT CONCEDES THAT THE TOBACCO COMPANIES ACTED DISHONESTLY ." I never thought I'd live to see the day.

Of course you'e more than welcome to print up your own T-shirts that read "ANDY MOURSUND SAYS THAT CIGARETTE SMOKERS ARE IGNORANT MOTHERF*CK*RS." That's only fair. We can even save money by printing them side by side if you'd like---I'll leave that up to you.

*(And gee, who spends gazillions of dollars trying to "enhance" that deadly addiction?)

It's my understanding that the FDA now requires treatments to be more EFFECTIVE than standard of care (in addition to meeting the safety requirements) - and it's this efficacy testing that bounces most drugs, and keeps the cost of development in the half-billion dollar range (per drug).

Yes, that is a requirement (depending on the drug delivery and some other factors). No, that isn't close to what bounces "most drugs". Maybe "many drugs post-filing", but once filed, there is a specific process for correcting any shortcomings. It's not nearly the wacked-out process being put forth.

I don't see the FDA going away.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Patrick Sheehy, the former chief executive of British American Tobacco, wrote in 1986 that safe cigarette research would be tacit admission that cigarettes are dangerous. "In attempting to develop a "safe" cigarette you are, by implication, in danger of being interpreted as accepting the current product is unsafe, and this is not a position that I think we should take," he wrote.

But the reason they didn't want to take that position is that there was only downside, no upside. They would be badmouthing their existing products without being allowed to get the benefit, because the federal government forbid them from advertising that any new products were safer. It would have been a very powerful marketing tool for a tobacco company to be able to say, "Our product is safer than that of our competitors," but the government wouldn't allow it.

But this goes back to the inaccuracy of Ray's initial point: A body count isn't going to impede the production of a profitable, but dangerous, product.

Of course it will. You're taking Ray's statement out of context. He's talking about unintended dangerous side effects, not ones known and intended by the consumers. Nobody who's taking medicine for a headache will accept a body count; people will accept it for recreation because that's what they want to do.

But the reason they didn't want to take that position is that there was only downside, no upside. They would be badmouthing their existing products without being allowed to get the benefit, because the federal government forbid them from advertising that any new products were safer.

It's hard to work up any sympathy for an industry who can't take a position because it would contradict a position they've been so consistently dishonest about. Why should anyone trust the industry to advertise anything as "safer" when they've spent the last half-century lying to the public, to Congress, and to themselves about just how safe the product is?

You're taking Ray's statement out of context. He's talking about unintended dangerous side effects, not ones known and intended by the consumers. Nobody who's taking medicine for a headache will accept a body count; people will accept it for recreation because that's what they want to do.

The intended effect is profit, the unintended side effect is anything that might stymie profits. The supposed systemic corrections — the civil and criminal liability, products liability, fraud, etc. that Ray noted in 1876 — that are supposed to stop bad actors simply haven't. The market isn't wired to stop individuals and companies who act dishonestly; if a product is desirable, then whatever sins the individual or company commits is forgiven regardless of how dishonest the supplies are and/or dangerous the product is. So, yeah, a body count isn't going to impede the production of a profitable, but dangerous, product.

Chris -
I wonder what the hell I am talking about sometimes. I guess what's important is not how many "compounds" (NDAs or NCEs) fail - but what the cost of development is to the point of failure.

By filing you mean NDA?

The meme that I remember when I was in the business was "Most compounds fail in Phase II" - this is post NDA.

However, I think most of the COST is Phase III... although I would have to actualy read this: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/dimasi2003.pdf to be sure.

My point regarding the FDA having a crisis (not going away) has to do with personalized medicine. If (small if) the biggest chunk of development cost comes from phase III large scale human efficacy studies - AND we move towards medicines that are only work on certain genomes AND we are not sure what these genomes are... I think it's going to make late stage effecacy trials very, very difficult to do in any cost-effective manner.

The meme that I remember when I was in the business was "Most compounds fail in Phase II" - this is post NDA.

However, I think most of the COST is Phase III...

Most compounds fail in Early Development (har har) because the tox studies drop them before they ever reach any type of formulation stuff.

Really, though, I am working on some market research for drugs requiring E&L;, and there's still a terrific rate from Phase IIb to III. I guess, the 2years of Ph2 many fail, or delay, and yes, the cost is in Ph III when you have,well, everything to go from "it's a non-lethal drug in a viable formula" to "it's a drug that will work better than anything else available, and minimally have problematic side effects". That does cost a lot more. For instance, E&L;work is as expensive as any 3-lot stability, and players don't even start considering it until Ph2b and into 3 (although it's early 3, and many have to meet the E&L;before going to ph3).

I think your two comments stand. I agree with those almost completely (and I'm not sure hwere I differ in substance - just am politicking there).

I HOPE the genome project is as successful as early returns show. I don't see that being very soon, and with the way Pharma is moving toward outsourcing to China and India for API and develoopment/manufacturing, the issues won't be so easily resolved. It just takes one "lead painted toys" crisis to bring it to a screeching halt. I think genome based clinicals, on a large scale, is very far away - and tremendously exciting. I only wish my area of expertise we workingin that arena. And I'm glad to see you back posting.

The intended effect is profit, the unintended side effect is anything that might stymie profits. The supposed systemic corrections — the civil and criminal liability, products liability, fraud, etc. that Ray noted in 1876 — that are supposed to stop bad actors simply haven't.

But one isn't a "bad actor" merely because one sells a dangerous product. Again, all of these claims are based on the presumption that consumers didn't know cigarettes were dangerous.

The market isn't wired to stop individuals and companies who act dishonestly; if a product is desirable, then whatever sins the individual or company commits is forgiven regardless of how dishonest the supplies are and/or dangerous the product is. So, yeah, a body count isn't going to impede the production of a profitable, but dangerous, product.

Look, you're conflating two very different issues here. The first is "body count" -- whether the product is dangerous. The second is dishonesty -- whether consumers knew the product was dangerous. The market (*) doesn't do anything to stop "dangerous" products, because the market's role is not to impose some external standard for product attributes; the market's role is to express the preferences of consumers. If they want a dangerous product, they'll get one.

As for dishonesty, in the short run, the market can't do anything about it, since, obviously, people can't respond to what they don't know. But once dishonesty is revealed in the long run, consumers can factor that in to consideration. (Note that as long as the dishonesty is secret, the government can't do anything about it, either.) Plenty of companies go out of business because people aren't happy with those companies' reputations for quality, honesty, etc. The problem with applying this discussion to cigarette companies is that their dishonesty was more hypothetical than real, so the typical analysis doesn't hold. Did they misrepresent? Yes, but nobody for many decades was buying cigarettes on the theory that cigarettes were safe because the companies said so. So people don't actually feel deceived by the companies, so feel no need to punish them in the market.


(*) I really hate anthropomorphizing the market; it's convenient shorthand, but the market doesn't "do" anything. The market isn't a thing, it's merely the aggregate of millions of individual decisions.

Look, you're conflating two very different issues here. The first is "body count" -- whether the product is dangerous. The second is dishonesty -- whether consumers knew the product was dangerous. The market (*) doesn't do anything to stop "dangerous" products, because the market's role is not to impose some external standard for product attributes; the market's role is to express the preferences of consumers. If they want a dangerous product, they'll get one.

I already said the market wasn't wired to protect people: "...if a product is desirable, then whatever sins the individual or company commits is forgiven regardless of how dishonest the supplies are and/or dangerous the product is."

...but nobody for many decades was buying cigarettes on the theory that cigarettes were safe because the companies said so. So people don't actually feel deceived by the companies, so feel no need to punish them in the market.

But that doesn't contradict what I was saying. The companies themselves know that their product is dangerous, and they're willing to trade lives for profit. Ray argued that the market would quickly put those companies out of business; it's clear that that's not always the case.

I'll even say in my most patronizing and elitist way that anyone who smokes is a f*ck*ng idiot, or at best a Russian Roulette loving masochist.

And this illustrates the disconnect you have, and illustrates why one group of people is trying to tell another group of people what is best for them. I don't smoke myself, but people who smoke are not "idiots." On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now. You wouldn't do it yourself, and I wouldn't do it myself (for that reason and for other reasons). Fine. But other people would, and do.

Most smokers will even admit that themselves, but say that their "addiction" is too strong for them to quit.*

But "addiction" is not a terminal and irreversible condition as you pretend. It's just a matter of choice: people who want to quit do. My dad smoked for 20 years and then quit cold turkey. My grandfather smoked for 70 years and then quit cold turkey, when he was 85.

*(And gee, who spends gazillions of dollars trying to "enhance" that deadly addiction?)

Smokers.

On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now.

I wouldn't say it's a rational decision so much as a rationalized one. It's not the same thing.

But "addiction" is not a terminal and irreversible condition as you pretend. It's just a matter of choice: people who want to quit do.

I hear it's the same thing with Iraq: we can win if we want to, but we just don't want to. I've proposed drafting Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Michael Jordan into the Marines, as they all have a long history of willing teams to victory.

The supposed systemic corrections — the civil and criminal liability, products liability, fraud, etc. that Ray noted in 1876 — that are supposed to stop bad actors simply haven't.

Neither has regulation stopped so-called "bad actors." (I don't agree with your usage of that term.) I pointed to Enron earlier; it's hard to imagine how that could have been any worse.

On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now.

I wouldn't say it's a rational decision so much as a rationalized one.

So is driving to the store to get a quart of milk, since we could die on the way. But we still decide to do it.

The question is not whether we balance risks, but where the line is. That's a subjective determination.

Neither has regulation stopped so-called "bad actors" (and I don't agree with your usage of that term.) I pointed to Enron earlier; it's hard to imagine how that could have been any worse.

I don't disagree. I personally support legalizing all drugs, including tobacco. My point is that you can't look to the marketplace to deal with dishonesty or dangerous products, because that's not what the marketplace is meant to do.

Wait a minute... what fraction of the 2007 budget goes into regulating the tobacco industry? The ATF? Under what category (I assume one Ray wants to cut?)

Are we arguing that it's overregulated or underregulated? Or just an example of evil... well lets be nice and say "indifferent" corporations?

I HOPE the genome project is as successful as early returns show. I don't see that being very soon, and with the way Pharma is moving toward outsourcing to China and India for API and develoopment/manufacturing, the issues won't be so easily resolved.

Technologically, I believe biology and to the point "genomics" is roughly where microcomputing was in 1975.

What the biological "internet" of 2025 looks like is anyone's guess... but I think it will be as revolutionary.

This is a useful topic with which to separate the libertarian men from the boys, if you will (and as much as I enjoy his... unique outlook, I'm not missing kevin on this thread).

If we don't object (at least, not with a vigor sufficient to call us to action) to companies making cost-benefit decisions in their favor, while concealing any of the pertinent data, that result in the deaths of human beings, we have to consider it equally acceptable for someone to break into your house and take your belongings. Even if the would-be burglar takes the precaution of breaking in while he believes you're on vacation, if you happen to come back early, and he kills you, well, wasn't that your look out? Shouldn't you have had a better alarm, been packing a .45, alert to the possibility of burglary, and so on? The robber was only making a cost-benefit decision he felt to be in his favor, to go after your money. That we put some kind of legal gloss on corporate murder to shield executives can't be an argument in favor of excusing coporate but not personal behavior.

A true libertarian doesn't even argue in favor of the existence of corporations at all, since the point of incorporation is to create a special class with unique privileges, and shields against full accountability. In doing so it creates a special and privileged class, which cannot be correct, much as on the same ground that some argue against hate crime legislation on the basis that such legislation grants special privileges to, say, homosexuals.

Technologically, I believe biology and to the point "genomics" is roughly where microcomputing was in 1975.

What the biological "internet" of 2025 looks like is anyone's guess... but I think it will be as revolutionary.

I'm not as close to that (although part of my project will inform me more) as I'd like to be, and

But that doesn't contradict what I was saying. The companies themselves know that their product is dangerous, and they're willing to trade lives for profit. Ray argued that the market would quickly put those companies out of business; it's clear that that's not always the case.

It doesn't matter whether companies are willing to trade lives for profit. That's not the point. In the case of tobacco companies, the consumers are willing to trade their own lives for the companies' profits. Fine - let them do that. This is not a self-correcting problem that puts these companies out of business because it is not a problem in the first place.

Neither has regulation stopped so-called "bad actors" (and I don't agree with your usage of that term.) I pointed to Enron earlier; it's hard to imagine how that could have been any worse.

Say what? That that regulation and oversight was corrupt and inept and insufficient is a reason to eliminate sound and transparent regulation and oversight? In other words, if you broke your collarbone in a traffic accident while wearing only a lap belt, we shouldn't use a better, harness-type belt because, after all, the lap belt didn't work, and the important thing is that they're both belts, and not that one is transparently superior?

If we don't object (at least, not with a vigor sufficient to call us to action) to companies making cost-benefit decisions in their favor, while concealing any of the pertinent data, that result in the deaths of human beings, we have to consider it equally acceptable for someone to break into your house and take your belongings. Even if the would-be burglar takes the precaution of breaking in while he believes you're on vacation, if you happen to come back early, and he kills you, well, wasn't that your look out? Shouldn't you have had a better alarm, been packing a .45, alert to the possibility of burglary, and so on? The robber was only making a cost-benefit decision he felt to be in his favor, to go after your money. That we put some kind of legal gloss on corporate murder to shield executives can't be an argument in favor of excusing coporate but not personal behavior.

This might be meaningful if corporations forced people to do their bidding at gunpoint. Unfortunately, only the government gets to do that.

But that doesn't contradict what I was saying. The companies themselves know that their product is dangerous, and they're willing to trade lives for profit. Ray argued that the market would quickly put those companies out of business; it's clear that that's not always the case.

They're "willing to trade lives for profit" because their customers are. If consumers said "make these safer or we ain't buying" (and if the government let them), the tobacco companies would roll out (no pun intended) safer cigarettes tomorrow -- or, if that's not technologically feasible, their sales, revenues, and profits would shrink drastically.

It doesn't matter whether companies are willing to trade lives for profit. That's not the point. In the case of tobacco companies, the consumers are willing to trade their own lives for the companies' profits.

Okay. Then what's the argument in the case of the Ford Pinto, wherein those ininerated were intentionally kept in the dark, by Ford, concerning the dangers.

@1937

The short answer is yes, that is "your look out" in as much as buying a defective product is "your look out." Bad things happen, so prepare yourself for them as best you can.

More importantly, your post misses the point entirely. Companies are discouraged from introducing literal killer apps because it is bad for business to kill your customers. That is bad publicity, and exactly the sort of story the media will (and should) scoop up in a heartbeat. If your goal is to make money, this is a bad route to take.

Upthread, someone mentioned privatized or optional regulation agencies. Those are great ideas. If you require your products to pass specific regulations, then buy those products. There will be a huge market for that. If you feel risky and want to try the unregulated, cheaper product, then go ahead. That is "your look out."



I'm sure someone will want to talk about corruption in these regulation companies. So to head that off, realize that they too will be subject to the same market rules as everyone else. If products that they inspect and approve are routinely found to be defective, then their days are numbered. Besides, whoever heard of corruption at the federal level? Surely more federal regulation agencies are the way to go...

This might be meaningful if corporations forced people to do their bidding at gunpoint. Unfortunately, only the government gets to do that.

Doesn't wash. The burglar/robber wasn't trying to get you to do his bidding at gunpoint. He simply wanted to profit off of you. He took precautions not to injure you. You happened to get in the way.

Just a business decision on his part.

Doesn't wash. The burglar/robber wasn't trying to get you to do his bidding at gunpoint. He simply wanted to profit off of you. He took precautions not to injure you. You happened to get in the way.

Just a business decision on his part.

But not on yours.

They're "willing to trade lives for profit" because their customers are. If consumers said "make these safer or we ain't buying" (and if the government let them), the tobacco companies would roll out (no pun intended) safer cigarettes tomorrow -- or, if that's not technologically feasible, their sales, revenues, and profits would shrink drastically.

But this just serves to reinforce the point: companies aren't going to, by themselves, make a product that is safer to use unless market pressures force them to. Again, any consideration by the company to produce something that isn't hazardous to health is secondary to maximizing profits. If you want to justify this approach, fine, but we shouldn't pretend that that's not how business is done.

And the government line here is inaccurate; the companies aren't allowed to market the cigarettes as safer, but there's nothing that would stop them from ACTUALLY making them safer.

(Edit: The ARE allowed to note on the packaging that one brand of cigs has lower X or less Y, so anyone who's actively buying cigs will know something's different. They're just not allowed to plaster it all over the world.)

Okay. Then what's the argument in the case of the Ford Pinto, wherein those ininerated were intentionally kept in the dark, by Ford, concerning the dangers.

The argument is that the entire statement, once again, is left wing Naderite talking points masquerading as a factual argument, just as the claims about Love Canal. (Either that, or he watched Top Secret too many times.)

First, as for "dangers," the Pinto wasn't more dangerous than other cars on the road. (See The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, Gary T. Schwartz, 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 1013 (1991)). It may have been more vulnerable to one particular type of danger, but that's the way the world is: there are tradeoffs. You can't eliminate all dangers. You can put the gas tank in the back, or side, or front, to protect against some types of collisions -- but you can't put it in a dimensional pocket so that it's safe from all types of collisions.

(One of the reasons it's clear that Arkitekton isn't a conservative is that he exhibits what Thomas Sowell called the "unconstrained vision" in his books A Conflict of Visions and Vision of the Anointed. (Sowell, incidentally, is a great writer and a terrible columnist.) Part of that phenomenon is the inability to understand that there must be tradeoffs, that there's no such thing as a perfect world.)

Second, "intentionally keeping in the dark" about what? Cars can have accidents. Bad things can happen to the occupants when those accidents occur. People know that; it's common knowledge. Neither Ford nor any other manufacturer needs to tell consumers that, and neither Ford nor any other manufacturer can possibly list every possible way in which someone might be injured. ("This car may roll over." "This car may explode if someone hits you hard enough to rupture the gas tank." "This car may slip on icy roads." "This car is not bulletproof.")

I don't know whether Arkitekton -- who I believe has me on ignore so he won't have to respond to my points -- is misunderstanding the facts or whether he's arguing for some sort of strict liability for manufacturers for all products. Because assuming it's not the first, the upshot of his arguments is exactly that: any time a product injures someone, regardless of reason or fault, the manufacturer should pay. Otherwise, it's hard to piece together what his complaint about the Ford Pinto is.

I'll even say in my most patronizing and elitist way that anyone who smokes is a f*ck*ng idiot, or at best a Russian Roulette loving masochist.

And this illustrates the disconnect you have, and illustrates why one group of people is trying to tell another group of people what is best for them.

That would be relevant if the group I were talking about consisted of smokers, but although I have an opinion about their intelligence, I'm not trying to "tell" them that they can't smoke. I'm not even in favor of smoking bans in public places as long as there's enough ventilation to clear out the smoke. We all have plenty of opinions about everything, but unless we're backing those opinions with force, I'm not sure what your objection is.

I don't smoke myself, but people who smoke are not "idiots." On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now. You wouldn't do it yourself, and I wouldn't do it myself (for that reason and for other reasons). Fine. But other people would, and do.

But to call a decision to smoke a "rational" decision is about as sensible as saying that it's "rational" to engage in one or two rounds of Russian Roulette. Of course you may blow your brains out, but the odds are that you won't---and gee, what a thrill if you survive. You can now say that you've walked through the f*ck*ng valley of the shadow of death. How cool is that?

I don't think Russian Roulette should be outlawed, either. But a smoker who doesn't play Russian Roulette likely has a better chance of dying before his time than a man who sticks a bullet or two in a six shooter and fires away at himself.

Most smokers will even admit that themselves, but say that their "addiction" is too strong for them to quit.*

But "addiction" is not a terminal and irreversible condition as you pretend. It's just a matter of choice: people who want to quit do. My dad smoked for 20 years and then quit cold turkey. My grandfather smoked for 70 years and then quit cold turkey, when he was 85.

Oh, I've known plenty of people who've managed to quit smoking. My best friend in the book business quit cold turkey after twenty years. And he died of lung cancer four years later.

*(And gee, who spends gazillions of dollars trying to "enhance" that deadly addiction?)

Smokers.

I'm not sure here whether you're referring to tobacco company executives or crackheads, but in any case most smokers I know take their smokes straight from the pack into their mouths, without stopping in the lab along the way. It was that little sidetrip that I was referring to, and that's only made by tobacco companies and crackheads.

But to call a decision to smoke a "rational" decision is about as sensible as saying that it's "rational" to engage in one or two rounds of Russian Roulette.

That can be rational, too. I'm assuming there's a reward if you survive, either a sum of money or sleeping with Megan Fox or something.

But this just serves to reinforce the point: companies aren't going to, by themselves, make a product that is safer to use unless market pressures force them to.

And it does. People accept the risks associated with smoking because they want to smoke. They accept the risk of getting into a car accident because they want to drive -- but they don't accept the risk that their gas tank will explode for no reason. Not when other car manufacturers are making cars that don't have spontaneously exploding gas tanks.

More importantly, your post misses the point entirely. Companies are discouraged from introducing literal killer apps because it is bad for business to kill your customers. That is bad publicity, and exactly the sort of story the media will (and should) scoop up in a heartbeat. If your goal is to make money, this is a bad route to take.

I'm no business man - but are you telling me that you can't exploit markets in the short term, dodge the liability - and fold the corp? S & L scandal? Recent mortgage explosion? Don't you have to prove fraud on the part of the owner/executives? Is it different is physical harm is involved vs. $$$

First, as for "dangers," the Pinto wasn't more dangerous than other cars on the road. (See The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, Gary T. Schwartz, 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 1013 (1991)). It may have been more vulnerable to one particular type of danger...

You're really downplaying what Schwartz says:

“It is now time to sum up. . . even if the general portrayal of the Pinto as a firetrap should be rejected as false, a limited core of the firetrap myth seems fair enough: the Pinto’s record in rear-end fire fatalities was not only much worse than the all-car average but was apparently somewhat worse than the record of most (though not all) of its subcompact competitors. . . Consider now, however, the combination of a stronger bumper, a smooth (bolt-free) differential, and the addition of both hat sections and horizontal cross-members. This combination of design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto’s safety to some appreciable extent. According to the evidence, the overall cost of this combination would have been $9; and it makes sense to assume that these items were turned down by Ford in planning the Pinto primarily on account of their monetary costs. It is plausible to believe, then, that because of these costs, Ford decided not to improve the Pinto’s design, knowing that its decision would increase the chances of the loss of consumer life.”

And that's really all I'm sayin'. Schwartz goes on to say, as you do, that trade-offs are always necessary, which is unbelievable since even he acknowledges that the fixes were not only simple but cheap.

Second, "intentionally keeping in the dark" about what?

Ford engineers knew about the defects:

When asked about the Pinto gas tank, a Ford engineer admitted: "That's all true (The fact that the car tends to explode in minor accidents). But you miss the point entirely. You see, safety isn't the issue, trunk space is. You have no idea how stiff the competition is over trunk space. Do you realise that if we put a Capri-type tank in the Pinto you could only get one set of golf clubs in the trunk?"

This was in 1971, and the fix was $11 at the time. Ford didn't respond to any demands for fixes until forced into a recall in 1978.

Cars can have accidents. Bad things can happen to the occupants when those accidents occur. People know that; it's common knowledge. Neither Ford nor any other manufacturer needs to tell consumers that, and neither Ford nor any other manufacturer can possibly list every possible way in which someone might be injured.

"...a report was prepared for NHTSA by consultant Eugene Trisko entitled "A National Survey of Motor Vehicle Fires." His report indicates that the Ford Motor Company makes 24 per cent of the cars on the American road, yet these cars account for 42 per cent of the collision-ruptured fuel tanks. Another staggering fact that was discovered was that a large and growing number of corpses taken from burned cars involved in rear-end crashes contained no cuts, bruises or broken bones. They clearly would have survived the accident unharmed if the cars had not caught fire."

It's a pretty well-documented case. Pintos were very clearly a statistical outlier, and Ford knew exactly why that was. They built a product that was measurably more dangerous than what it should have been. One can argue that you get what you pay for, or that anyone who was willing to drive a Pinto deserved what they got. I disagree.

But to call a decision to smoke a "rational" decision is about as sensible as saying that it's "rational" to engage in one or two rounds of Russian Roulette. Of course you may blow your brains out, but the odds are that you won't---and gee, what a thrill if you survive. You can now say that you've walked through the f*ck*ng valley of the shadow of death. How cool is that?

I don't think Russian Roulette should be outlawed, either. But a smoker who doesn't play Russian Roulette likely has a better chance of dying before his time than a man who sticks a bullet or two in a six shooter and fires away at himself.

Where's Kip Viscusi when you need him? You're hugely overestimating the harms from smoking.

Why is smoking "irrational" while, say, mountain climbing is rational? Or drinking alcohol? Or driving? Or do you think taking any risks is irrational?

before Bush had the opportunity to point out all the things people weren't going to like about Dukakis

Dukakis didn't lose because Bush pointed out his position on the issues. He lost because he was an idiot, a poor campaigner and had no balls to speak of. I don't think Obama would freeze in the headlights the way way Dukakis did on that "What if somebody raped Kitty" question.

On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now.

This point might be more persuasive, if people only took up smoking at a point in their lives when they were rational and fully formed individuals. I read somewhere that 80 percent of adult smokers started smoking before age 18. So the assertion that it was a thought out, rational choice before they became hooked is questionable.

Why is smoking "irrational" while, say, mountain climbing is rational? Or drinking alcohol? Or driving? Or do you think taking any risks is irrational?

Which of these activities do you engage in, David?

Doesn't wash. The burglar/robber wasn't trying to get you to do his bidding at gunpoint. He simply wanted to profit off of you. He took precautions not to injure you. You happened to get in the way.

Just a business decision on his part.


But not on yours.

Yep. You get to choose whether to purchase a product/service from a corporation, and you usually can decide which corporation you wish to obtain it from. Even by BBTF standards, that's a terrible analogy Arky.

I'm no business man - but are you telling me that you can't exploit markets in the short term, dodge the liability - and fold the corp? S & L scandal? Recent mortgage explosion? Don't you have to prove fraud on the part of the owner/executives? Is it different is physical harm is involved vs. $$$

You'd have to be more specific as to what exactly the bad actors are doing here, but if they're engaging in fraud, that's a crime, as well as a civil cause of action. Crime can't be regulated away... hopefully the drug war has taught us that much.

This point might be more persuasive, if people only took up smoking at a point in their lives when they were rational and fully formed individuals. I read somewhere that 80 percent of adult smokers started smoking before age 18. So the assertion that it was a thought out, rational choice before they became hooked is questionable.

Not really. 18 is a pretty arbitrary number. A rational decision about smoking can be made much earlier than that. (And, no, I'm not talking about handing a six year old child a cigarette. But teenagers are certainly capable of understanding the very basic and simple risks associated with smoking. And education on this point starts very early.)

I'm no business man - but are you telling me that you can't exploit markets in the short term, dodge the liability - and fold the corp?

I'm sure you could, in many cases. But since we have all this federal regulation now, this never happens, right?

Overregulation won't help this problem.

And that's really all I'm sayin'. Schwartz goes on to say, as you do, that trade-offs are always necessary, which is unbelievable since even he acknowledges that the fixes were not only simple but cheap.

...

This was in 1971, and the fix was $11 at the time. Ford didn't respond to any demands for fixes until forced into a recall in 1978.

The fix was not $11. The fix was $11 per vehicle. In other words, the fix was $121,000,000. That sounds a little different, doesn't it?

There are a lot of modifications that car companies can make to vehicles to make them safer. These all cost money, and the companies decide that the fixes are not worth the expense. Do you drive a tank? My guess is no.

But teenagers are certainly capable of understanding the very basic and simple risks associated with smoking.

You know some very different teenagers than I did and do. If you are asserting that they generally make decisions like whether to start smoking for rational reasons based on analysis of the situation, you are either yanking my chain, or seriously out of touch with reality.

In fact, cigarette companies have long had a policy of marketing to teenagers (though they would never admit it), precisely because this is the market of young fools they can reach and make money from.

Well, I'm likely not going to "do" anything about it, other than try to convince people to vote libertarian. What I would do if I had the power to do it is to make FDA certification voluntary. (In the long run, I'd fully privatize the certification process, but as an interim measure, I think that's reasonable.) People who did not feel they could trust their own judgment would be free to choose only drugs approved by the FDA, just as now. People who felt differently would have the freedom to do so.

Upthread, someone mentioned privatized or optional regulation agencies. Those are great ideas. If you require your products to pass specific regulations, then buy those products. There will be a huge market for that. If you feel risky and want to try the unregulated, cheaper product, then go ahead. That is "your look out."

I like that idea. I mean, a privatized certification process has worked great for the bond markets and rating agencies. I'd hate to see the drug equivalent of a sub-prime CDO, or the medical equivalent of the current credit crisis.

The fix was not $11. The fix was $11 per vehicle. In other words, the fix was $121,000,000. That sounds a little different, doesn't it?

And that was the "fix" for one particular aspect. There were dozens of other "fixes" that could have made the car safer -- each of them ratcheting up the cost to the consumer. At some point either the consumer won't pay, or the manufacturer can't turn a profit and so closes its doors.

The fix was not $11. The fix was $11 per vehicle. In other words, the fix was $121,000,000. That sounds a little different, doesn't it?

The $121 million came from a Ford memo that was later deemed inadmissible in court — Ford made that number up to counter the NHTSA's report which showed how dangerous Pintos were and how easy the fix would have been. This was also from Schwartz.

But just for argument's sake, let's use that number. The recall applied to all Pintos from 1971 to 1976, or about $24 million per year for those fixes. In 1978, Ford lost a $128 million dollar judgement on a 1973 accident, a judgement they could have avoided had the done due diligence. Later that year, Ford had to recall all Pintos ever produced.

How much do you figure that cost them? More than $24 million per? Yeah, probably — and this is all ignoring the thousands of people who were either badly burned or killed.

(Edited to fix my math.)

And that was the "fix" for one particular aspect. There were dozens of other "fixes" that could have made the car safer -- each of them ratcheting up the cost to the consumer.

No no, in this fantasy world the cost would have been paid for by the company, out of all those evil profits they only accumulate out of "greed." It is this attitude which has led to the American car industry being so fantastically profitable.

I'm sure you could, in many cases. But since we have all this federal regulation now, this never happens, right?

This was already dismissed above as a logical fallacy. Just because current regulation is badly written, poorly enforced, or insufficient does not necessarily imply that all regulation is useless.

But why not take it a step further... why have laws at all? People still rape and murder each other, don't they? I'm sure there's a libertarian white paper someone can dig up on what the "minimal set of laws for a functioning 250million person society". Or do we skip the borders (I am in favor!) and go the whole 6 billion?

Overregulation won't help this problem.

We are not talking about regulating anything more! Ray decided to cut the EPA and many other government agencies involved in regulation completely! Not make them more efficient. Not question their power or bugetary size - but eliminate them.

You know some very different teenagers than I did and do. If you are asserting that they generally make decisions like whether to start smoking for rational reasons based on analysis of the situation, you are either yanking my chain, or seriously out of touch with reality.

Well, I was a teenager once, and one of the reasons I didn't start smoking is because I was told over and over again that it was bad for me.

It's not like kids don't get the message.

It's not like kids don't get the message.

It's almost as if they lacked a certain maturity.

On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now.

This may have actually topped one of Nieporent's deluded libertarian statements about workers making fully voluntary, informed and rational decisions to work under ultra-hazardous conditions.

It's a pretty well-documented case. Pintos were very clearly a statistical outlier, and Ford knew exactly why that was. They built a product that was measurably more dangerous than what it should have been. One can argue that you get what you pay for, or that anyone who was willing to drive a Pinto deserved what they got. I disagree.

You're not comparing like to like. Of course a small car is going to result in a disproportionate number of deaths compared to other cars on the road.

As for the cost of redesigning the Pinto,
(1) it's not $9 (or $11) for Ford, but $9/$11 per car -- a substantially higher amount of money, and as Schwartz (I believe it's in there) showed, there were only a couple of dozen deaths. Presumably some number of people actually would have not bought the car if the price were raised, and
(2) it's $9/$11 per car for that particular problem. But there's always another incremental improvement one can make if one invests more money. If that one, why not the next $9 one? And the next, and the next?

and as Schwartz (I believe it's in there) showed, there were only a couple of dozen deaths.

Schwartz also claimed that the Pinto was not a statistical outlier- its death rate/serious injury rate was no higher than other sub-compacts on the road at the same times.

(1) it's not $9 (or $11) for Ford, but $9/$11 per car -- a substantially higher amount of money, and as Schwartz (I believe it's in there) showed, there were only a couple of dozen deaths. Presumably some number of people actually would have not bought the car if the price were raised, and

So what if some people wouldn't buy it at a higher price? Isn't that the point? If a product can't be made both safe and at a cost that makes it marketable/profitable, then perhaps it shouldn't be made in the first place.

Anyway, I don't know the facts in this case, so this is an honest question. Were there any non-functional aspects of the car that could have been eliminated in order to pay for the safety improvement?

(2) it's $9/$11 per car for that particular problem. But there's always another incremental improvement one can make if one invests more money. If that one, why not the next $9 one? And the next, and the next?

And this goes back — again — to Ray's original inaccuracy: It may be in a companies' best interests to rack up a body count (or, if you prefer, a hideous number of serious burn victims), but companies will (as Ford did) trade lives for profit and do everything possible to dodge accountability for their mistakes.

And it's not like this was some incremental improvement; the engineers who built the damn thing very specifically called it a "design flaw", one that was allowed to run through the Pinto line for five generations. Ford lied to the government and the general public about the problem for years, claiming that they had no such data on the Pinto's penchant to flame up (when they did) or that engineers had brought this to the attention of their superiors (they had). That's not a problem? If you don't want to hold companies accountable for fixing self-evident flaws in their products, then you don't want to hold companies to be accountable to anything but profit.

Schwartz also claimed that the Pinto was not a statistical outlier- its death rate/serious injury rate was no higher than other sub-compacts on the road at the same times.

That flies in the face of the NHTSA study I quoted above, which showed very clearly that Fords clearly were more flammable than their counterparts.

That flies in the face of the NHTSA study I quoted above, which showed very clearly that Fords clearly were more flammable than their counterparts.

Did Ford have the same percentage of subcompacts on the road as other manufacturers? I think that is what JPFW13 was getting at with his comment.

It's almost as if they lacked a certain maturity.

I don't think you get it: Ray's family anecdotes about smoking trump all other evidence about addiction, about advertising, about adolescent psychology, about anything.

@1963

So, your conclusion is that Ford made a mistake by selling a pretty unsafe car, since they ended up paying for it through the nose. I agree. Now, I distinctly remember asserting that selling dangerous products is a bad business decision, since the money saved in the short term can't cover the long term losses. It's almost as though this is an exact example of that. Funny...

I am sure that car companies are lining up to follow Ford's lead with the Pinto.



@1965

I know that is a logical fallacy if used as any sort of argument. I meant that as a flippant, off-the-cuff remark. Nonetheless, "overregulation" does not mean "regulating things more than we do now." I think it means "regulating things as we do now."

So what if some people wouldn't buy it at a higher price? Isn't that the point? If a product can't be made both safe and at a cost that makes it marketable/profitable, then perhaps it shouldn't be made in the first place.

But "safe" is a purely relative concept, different for every consumer. If a consumer wants to buy it at a price where it's profitable to make, why shouldn't it be made?

I have an SUV. They're more likely to roll over. It's inherent in SUVs -- higher center of gravity and all that. Who should decide that it's not "safe" and that the manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to sell it and I shouldn't be allowed to purchase it? Of course, that's a luxury; I have other options. But people buying Pintos probably didn't have many other options; to deny them the ability to purchase Pintos may have meant they couldn't own a car at all. (*) It sounds rather paternalistic to suggest that any of us could decide for these people whether that tradeoff was worth it.



(*) Or that they have to buy an even crappier, and less safe, used car.

Anyway, I don't know the facts in this case, so this is an honest question. Were there any non-functional aspects of the car that could have been eliminated in order to pay for the safety improvement?

I don't know the answer to that; I'll read the Schwartz article again and see if he says anything about it.

Anyway, I don't know the facts in this case, so this is an honest question. Were there any non-functional aspects of the car that could have been eliminated in order to pay for the safety improvement?

BTF political trolls (myself included!) - your mission.

Assuming the 2008 Federal Budget can be likened to a Ford Pinto...

Dukakis didn't lose because Bush pointed out his position on the issues. He lost because he was an idiot, a poor campaigner and had no balls to speak of. I don't think Obama would freeze in the headlights the way way Dukakis did on that "What if somebody raped Kitty" question.

Well, a hamster could have answered the question better than Dukakis, but do you honestly believe that the only reason Dukakis lost was because he was a "poor campaigner"? No possibility that it had to do with the issues?

Why is smoking "irrational" while, say, mountain climbing is rational? Or drinking alcohol? Or driving? Or do you think taking any risks is irrational?

Which of these activities do you engage in, David?

The second and third of the ones I listed, but not at the same time. Also, I'm going to a baseball game with Kevin. Though come to think of it, that's irrational.

That flies in the face of the NHTSA study I quoted above, which showed very clearly that Fords clearly were more flammable than their counterparts.

Did Ford have the same percentage of subcompacts on the road as other manufacturers? I think that is what JPFW13 was getting at with his comment.

I lack the personal knowledge to assert whether one conclusion is correct or not, I was merely noting that the claims that the Pinto had been statistically shown to have been an outlier have been disputed.

It is quite possible that Ford did have a higher rate of rear-end accidents resulting in fires than other car manufacturers;

It is also simultaneously possible that the Pinto was no more dangerous than other sub-compacts.

It could be that a higher % of Ford vehicles were sub compacts than for other manufacturers.
It could be that the Pinto may in fact be more prone to that specific problem- but be safer than other sub-compacts with respect to other issues- and on the whole be no more or less safe.

and lastly, the complete and utter inability of the MSM to accurately convey the results (and limitations) of statistical surveys to the general public is one of the MSM's greatest failings (and it has many many failings)

That flies in the face of the NHTSA study I quoted above, which showed very clearly that Fords clearly were more flammable than their counterparts.

No, it doesn't.

The fact that they were more dangerous in one way -- a way that represents a very tiny percentage of injuries, made even smaller by the fact that many such accidents would kill the passengers even if the car didn't catch on fire -- does not make them more dangerous overall.

Also, the NHTSA study you refer to doesn't sound like it controlled for types of cars. As I noted, you expect tiny cars like the Pinto to be more dangerous, ceteris paribus.

On the contrary, they've made a completely rational and subjective decision to risk trading years at the back end of their life (either the quality of those years or the years themselves) for the enjoyment they derive from smoking now.

This may have actually topped one of Nieporent's deluded libertarian statements about workers making fully voluntary, informed and rational decisions to work under ultra-hazardous conditions.

It may have been topped by this one, though:

But to call a decision to smoke a "rational" decision is about as sensible as saying that it's "rational" to engage in one or two rounds of Russian Roulette.

That can be rational, too.

-----------------------------

But to call a decision to smoke a "rational" decision is about as sensible as saying that it's "rational" to engage in one or two rounds of Russian Roulette. Of course you may blow your brains out, but the odds are that you won't---and gee, what a thrill if you survive. You can now say that you've walked through the f*ck*ng valley of the shadow of death. How cool is that?

I don't think Russian Roulette should be outlawed, either. But a smoker who doesn't play Russian Roulette likely has a better chance of dying before his time than a man who sticks a bullet or two in a six shooter and fires away at himself.

Where's Kip Viscusi when you need him? You're hugely overestimating the harms from smoking.

Why is smoking "irrational" while, say, mountain climbing is rational? Or drinking alcohol? Or driving? Or do you think taking any risks is irrational?

Not too surprising that you're calling on one of the tobacco industry's leading hired guns (i.e. "expert witnesses") to back you up. Keeping it in the family, so to speak.

A non-smoker who plays Russian Roulette with one bullet has a five in six chance of living out a normal life expectancy. Another bullet reduces his chance to two out of three. Those who die before that will be countered by those who live longer.

What percentage of smokers have a chance of reaching a normal life expectancy for people of their particular demographic group?

Remember, your overall philosophical point about weighing risk and pleasure is not one I'm disagreeing with. We've had long threads on smoking bans, and I've mostly argued on your side about this, and on general live and let live grounds. I may think that smokers are irrational idiots, but I'm also not trying to force them to quit, any more than you're trying to take the ballot out of the hands of us idiotic Obama supporters.

And since you've now admitted that "the tobacco companies acted dishonestly," I'm not sure what you're arguing about, either.

You're a funny guy, David. You spend 90% of your time here repeating variants of your cherished bromide that "people should face the consequences of their own actions." But then when these "people" happen to be tobacco company excecutives, you seem to argue that this shouldn't apply to them, at least beyond any loss of sales once their antics get brought to light.

Legal consequences? Heaven forbid.

When it comes to the tobacco companies, with you it's acquital first, verdict later---or more precisely, verdict never. It's like you're the mad brother of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland. Your rationalization of their conduct is reminiscent of the old Black Panther platform that all black prisoners should be set loose, on the grounds that all black imprisonment is by definition "political." But even Colin Ferguson was a piker compared to these executives whose policies you're defending.

No possibility that it had to do with the issues?

Define issues.
If stuff like "Willie Horton" were real "issues" then yes the issues had something to do with the election results

Also, I'm going to a baseball game with Kevin. Though come to think of it, that's irrational.

God, am I ever looking forward to this. I hope I don't wind up the evening disillusioned and find out that it's all been an act. I want blood, and lots of it.

But even Colin Ferguson was a piker compared to these executives whose policies you're defending.

Can we please not use spree killers and serial killers as comparison points anymore, unless we are actually discussing same.

flournoy - see what off the cuff remarks and using words without defining them gets you? Why do you think I phrase everything as a question?

So, which specific portions of the federal budget do you feel can be cut because they are unnecessary overregulation?

I guess if we cut our taxes 10%, we can use the savings on burn salve!

And it's not like this was some incremental improvement; the engineers who built the damn thing very specifically called it a "design flaw", one that was allowed to run through the Pinto line for five generations. Ford lied to the government and the general public about the problem for years, claiming that they had no such data on the Pinto's penchant to flame up (when they did) or that engineers had brought this to the attention of their superiors (they had). That's not a problem? If you don't want to hold companies accountable for fixing self-evident flaws in their products, then you don't want to hold companies to be accountable to anything but profit.

It is indeed a problem. Without the gloss of business law, and in the absence of special privileges granted to corporations, let's call it what it is: murder for profit.

Doesn't wash. The burglar/robber wasn't trying to get you to do his bidding at gunpoint. He simply wanted to profit off of you. He took precautions not to injure you. You happened to get in the way.

Just a business decision on his part.


But not on yours.

Precisely. I'm all in favor of a society (what some would call a truly libertarian society) where all parties have access to all information held by all parties prior to making decisions. This wasn't the case with Ford, and is almost never the case when selecting products, or work environments, and so on. And this is why the burglar turned robber analogy holds up nicely--he's choosing to go for the benefits (your money) while being willing to pay the freight (prison, fines, his own injury, death). That you, the homeowner, are not making a completely informed decision is, to stay with the Ford versus its customers analogy, beside the point. In fact, we need to suspend prison sentences in the case of burglars who don't kill intentionally in the pursuit of profit, since we do at least the same for corporate executives.

A level playing field, as we conservatives like to say.

Not really. 18 is a pretty arbitrary number. A rational decision about smoking can be made much earlier than that. (And, no, I'm not talking about handing a six year old child a cigarette. But teenagers are certainly capable of understanding the very basic and simple risks associated with smoking. And education on this point starts very early.)

Ray, do you believe there ought to be a legal age for sexual consent?

What the heck is going on with the colored text?

What the heck is going on with the colored text?

Obamanistic cult hackers.

Wait until the Clintonites strike, we will get flowery cursive with little hearts...

What the heck is going on with the colored text?

Wouldn't have happened with more federal oversight.

You guys. Now the margins of the page have gone way beyond original parameters. Clearly, the McCainites are at work.

Oh great. The Right Rev Wright is now essentially claiming that Obama's distancing of himself from the Rev was just because it was the political thing to do. At this point, if I'm Obama, I finally disown Wright, not because of his views, but because Who T F needs friends like this?

A non-smoker who plays Russian Roulette with one bullet has a five in six chance of living out a normal life expectancy. Another bullet reduces his chance to two out of three. Those who die before that will be countered by those who live longer.

What percentage of smokers have a chance of reaching a normal life expectancy for people of their particular demographic group?

Or, to put it another way, a RR player has a 16% chance of dying immediately from playing RR; a smoker has virtually no chance of dying immediately from smoking.

Define issues.
If stuff like "Willie Horton" were real "issues" then yes the issues had something to do with the election results

While obviously what happened in one single situation isn't particularly important, I don't see why a candidate's attitude towards crime isn't a real issue. A candidate's penological philosophy is something we should know about and take into account.

I just wanted to post on this thread before it hit 2000.

A candidate's penological philosophy is something we should know about and take into account.

I totally agree.

And it's not like this was some incremental improvement; the engineers who built the damn thing very specifically called it a "design flaw", one that was allowed to run through the Pinto line for five generations. Ford lied to the government and the general public about the problem for years, claiming that they had no such data on the Pinto's penchant to flame up (when they did) or that engineers had brought this to the attention of their superiors (they had). That's not a problem? If you don't want to hold companies accountable for fixing self-evident flaws in their products, then you don't want to hold companies to be accountable to anything but profit.

What makes it a "flaw"? Was the failure to put airbags in the Pinto a "flaw"? Was the fact that the Pinto, being a subcompact, was inherently less crashworthy than a larger car a "flaw"? Was the fact that they didn't put $500 of additional work into the safety of the car a "flaw"?

Does every car today that doesn't have side airbags carry a "design flaw"? Or antilock brakes? Is it only a "design flaw" if the upgrade is cheap? (Cheap relative to what?) Where's the cutoff?

I'm not saying that there should be no such thing as a warranty of merchantability, but the car was reasonably safe by the standards of the day. In any case, Ford was "accountable"; it got a reputation, only partly deserved, for building low quality products, and lost market share and billions as a result.

It is indeed a problem. Without the gloss of business law, and in the absence of special privileges granted to corporations, let's call it what it is: murder for profit.

This is, of course, gibberish. Neither "business law" nor any "special privileges granted to corporations," whatever those are, have any effect on the criminal law. If this were "murder for hire," it would be "murder for hire" whether done by Henry Ford individually or Ford Motor Corporation Inc.

It is, of course, not "murder for hire," since nobody was paid to kill anybody. It isn't "murder" at all, as there's no mens rea.

Precisely. I'm all in favor of a society (what some would call a truly libertarian society) where all parties have access to all information held by all parties prior to making decisions.

Which is, of course, not possible. Nor is there any reason why caveat emptor is not "truly libertarian."

This wasn't the case with Ford, and is almost never the case when selecting products, or work environments, and so on. And this is why the burglar turned robber analogy holds up nicely--he's choosing to go for the benefits (your money) while being willing to pay the freight (prison, fines, his own injury, death). That you, the homeowner, are not making a completely informed decision is, to stay with the Ford versus its customers analogy, beside the point.

You, the homeowner, are not making any decision. Unlike when you choose to buy a car. Which is why it's not "beside the point." There is no analogy between a voluntary transaction with imperfect information, and an involuntary one.

But even Colin Ferguson was a piker compared to these executives whose policies you're defending.

Can we please not use spree killers and serial killers as comparison points anymore, unless we are actually discussing same.

You're right; there's no comparison. Colin Ferguson was insane. Those far more rational mass murderers in the tobacco companies have no such excuse. They knew exactly what they were doing.

-----------------

A non-smoker who plays Russian Roulette with one bullet has a five in six chance of living out a normal life expectancy. Another bullet reduces his chance to two out of three. Those who die before that will be countered by those who live longer.

What percentage of smokers have a chance of reaching a normal life expectancy for people of their particular demographic group?

Or, to put it another way, a RR player has a 16% chance of dying immediately from playing RR; a smoker has virtually no chance of dying immediately from smoking.

I freely admit that indeed, the "rational" smoker's death is likely to be more drawn out and painful. Both the smoker and the Russian Roulette fan have their own "rational" metrics of cost-benefit analysis.

McCain's foreign policy views have come up here and there in this thread. Here's J. Peter Scoblics useful take:

[url=http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/23/8484/]Meet John ‘Dubya’ McCain: If you like George Bush’s foreign policy, you’ll love the GOP’s current candidate.
[/url]

I don't think you get it: Ray's family anecdotes about smoking trump all other evidence about addiction, about advertising, about adolescent psychology, about anything.

Works for me.

But the serious point, which I don't imagine you'll deny, is that many, many people do quit. "Addiction" is not a permanent situation; it's completely voluntary, just like anything else -- whether that is to quit gambling, to lose weight, or to stop paying 22-year-old hookers to travel from New York to Washington for the purpose of meeting you in the Mayflower Hotel for sex.

So who will be 2000?

Me?