[david927]

businesses are subject to market forces

Markets are inefficient. Many products and services are inelastic. People will consume them while hating the companies that provide them. It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material. When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford? I wish it was so simple.

The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.

[anamax]

> When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford?

Actually, they did.

And, interestingly enough, the Pinto tradeoff decision in question came from a govt decision. Safety costs money. Ford asked the US govt "how much is a life worth" and the relevant design decision used a higher value.

Price matters. Some folks are alive because they traded in an older less safe car for a Pinto. Some of them couldn't have done that if Pintos cost more.

[david927]

Oh but they didn't stop buying Fords -- even Pintos -- when this was happening.

But your inclusion of government raises a good point. You're right. In the US, government is really just an extension of the corporations. It stopped being true democratic government, representing the people, long ago. So why not reduce that inefficiency and just be honest about it?

[anamax]

> Oh but they didn't stop buying Fords -- even Pintos -- when this was happening.

Stop, no, but sales did change significantly and Ford changed its tradeoffs.

It's unclear what would satisfy you other than regulation ....

My point about this govt involvement was that govt isn't the rational actor required by all of these schemes. Govt said "a life is worth X" but when someone acts on that and there's some backlash, govt says "oh no, you're wrong". Either defend the original number or say "you're right, we were wrong".

Regulators should be liable.

[babblefrog]

> The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.

You seem to be trying to imply a cause and effect relationship here, without actually saying that. I'm sure we can find examples of rich countries with small governments, and poor countries with large governments.

Also, for rich countries with large governments, which came first? Did they become rich, then grow large governments, or did they get a large government, and then become rich? I would guess that the former is more typical than the latter.

[anamax]

> The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.

Ah, so you're admitting that the US govt provides "free healthcare". (The US is one of the richest countries.)

> It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material.

Actually, it wasn't. It was publicity. Yes, there's a law now, but the market demand changed first.