Quote:
Originally Posted by JonL
And my response to Pete recognized that risk-benefit analyses are done all the time, and should be done all the time, AND that a backstop of effective regulation is necessary to assure that society's needs are met even when they are contrary to a corporation's cost/benefit analysis. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept.
Regarding your water example, perhaps you haven't noticed the popularity of bottled water? Many people buy it because they feel it is more pure or more healthy than municipal tap water. I don't see how the regulations that assure a minimum level of safety of municipal water supplies have gotten in the way of that.
I don't understand this statement: "Right now today, I'm mitigating my risk of having my palacial Tenn estate wiped out by a tornado watch. It's a calculated risk that 10s of MILLIONs take." What does that mean?
|
Well JonL -- when I moved to Tennessee from California, I did a relative risk assessment (earthquakes VERSUS tornadoes), and a cost/benefit analysis. It's part of life. Today, we're under weather warnings (as HillBilly gets pounded by hail -- I have to hope he's not got a $1M solar panel on his tin roof
) so I've got my (govt regulated) weather radio going off with alerts. (that's the mitigation part) May lose the house, but maybe the family and pets will survive. These choices that people make on their own are FAR MORE consequential than percentage of skin in "white meat turkey" as regulated by the FEDs. In fact, that addresses your 2nd question of how regulation "gets in the way" of offering products that are BETTER than the minimum standards. We could do water, but I'm fond of turkey.
You can use the label "WHITE MEAT TURKEY" on your product if you meet the MINIMUM standard. Surprisingly (or not) that allows a considerable amount of junk in the "WHITE MEAT TURKEY". What incentive do I have as a deli slice producer to produce a better product if both I and my competitors can label the product with the same claim? Now a few companies do the extra advertising to get that message to potential customers.
But that's expensive. Hebrew National (We answer to a HIGHER Authority!) comes to mind... But also folks who don't trust the GOVT certificate of ORGANIC have tried to advertise the alternatives to the MINIMUM standard.
Now that was trivial, but I'll give you a different example. I asked in a tech meeting one day "what cost point do you want"? It was for a medical product. The marketing guy laughed and said "not important" because we were replacing a reimbursable procedure that included "outpatient hospital care" with an at home method of treatment. And the GOVT was gonna reimburse the same way for either. We had NO INCENTIVE to make a reduction in medical costs. And that's VERY sad JonL. And you wonder why ObamaCare had virtually nothing to say about controlling costs?
THAT's the kind of pertubation of the free market that has angered me into becoming a zealot.. And I want people to know what happens when they place their faith in centralized govt meddling..