3 ms·

Here's a great clip of Milton Friedman answering a question from a young Michael Moore about a similar issue, the exploding Ford Pinto debacle. The uploader put

Here's a great clip of Milton Friedman answering a question from a young Michael Moore about a similar issue, the exploding Ford Pinto debacle. The uploader put a childish title, but the video itself is good. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyKAIhLdNs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyKAIhLdNs It's not a directly analogous situation, but it's easy to forget that there is a level of toxins that we prefer, over paying a lot more or not being able to have certain goods at all. Trying to deceive the public about the risks, however, is inexcusable.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>but it's easy to forget that there is a level of toxins that we prefer, over paying a lot more or not being able to have certain goods at all // Profit motive is the part you've missed out there. Often we could have the goods, with less toxic effluent produced, at the same price but with less profit to the capital holders. So yes whilst the poor could forgo more "luxuries" it would in general be far easier for those who are richer to forgo relatively extreme luxuries. The greatest impact is probably made from the top end. I can refuse to buy Nestle products forever but it doesn't make a difference to Nestles terrible production and marketing practices at all - yet if one major shareholder takes the same stand then the ethics of the company can be changed rapidly. In the UK we've seen some companies who appeared to be acting not only for profit taken over by larger international corporations that seem to seek nothing else - I'm thinking Cadbury taken over by Kraft - with [my perception being:] an immediate reduction in quality of produce, apparent manipulation of product weights (thinner bars of chocolate look the same size on the shelf; differently moulded bars have less chocolate but look the same size), apparent reduction in use of Fairtrade ingredients, increased prices. None of that needed to happen, Cadbury were profitable already. It's not just down to the consumer; Kraft have after all reduced consumer choice with their takeover. In general if companies with poor ethics get more profit (eg by abusing the environment) then those companies can forceably takeover companies with better ethics.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  A company that's willing to make a product for a 20% margin might not be willing to make that same product for a 5% margin. Would you put all of your savings in an account with 1% interest and zero-risk? The opportunity cost is important too. Also, remember that your pay as an employee depends on the success of the company, just as much as the dividends for the owners do. Not to mention that the owners include just about all of society, through mutual funds, pension funds, and retirement accounts. The more you raise burdens to business and profit, the poorer your society gets. That's not to say we shouldn't regulate pollution, but we can't ignore the trade-offs involved. It's not just a matter of the rich taking less of a cut; that's not how it works.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    >A company that's willing to make a product for a 20% margin might not be willing to make that same product for a 5% margin. // Generally those doing the actual manufacture are probably perfectly happy to do it if they get the same wage. The share-holders perhaps won't want to invest, but then we're back to profit motive. A company can in theory continue to pay all the employees and make zero profit, it can succeed in all it's goals except in paying out a large return for investors.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Even if, in theory, you can have a static society by forcing everyone to keep doing what they're currently doing--which you can't, because many peoples' business is providing services to new or closing businesses, and any unexpected events will cause cascading effects that your static society can't accommodate--I don't see how that's at all desirable or relevant to real economic issues. And of course the profit motive is central. It's the whole reason why anyone makes products in the first place.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>but it's easy to forget that there is a level of toxins that we prefer, over paying a lot more or not being able to have certain goods at all // Profit motive is the part you've missed out there. Often we could have the goods, with less toxic effluent produced, at the same price but with less profit to the capital holders. So yes whilst the poor could forgo more "luxuries" it would in general be far easier for those who are richer to forgo relatively extreme luxuries. The greatest impact is probably made from the top end. I can refuse to buy Nestle products forever but it doesn't make a difference to Nestles terrible production and marketing practices at all - yet if one major shareholder takes the same stand then the ethics of the company can be changed rapidly. In the UK we've seen some companies who appeared to be acting not only for profit taken over by larger international corporations that seem to seek nothing else - I'm thinking Cadbury taken over by Kraft - with [my perception being:] an immediate reduction in quality of produce, apparent manipulation of product weights (thinner bars of chocolate look the same size on the shelf; differently moulded bars have less chocolate but look the same size), apparent reduction in use of Fairtrade ingredients, increased prices. None of that needed to happen, Cadbury were profitable already. It's not just down to the consumer; Kraft have after all reduced consumer choice with their takeover. In general if companies with poor ethics get more profit (eg by abusing the environment) then those companies can forceably takeover companies with better ethics.

marcoperaza 11y ago
A company that's willing to make a product for a 20% margin might not be willing to make that same product for a 5% margin. Would you put all of your savings in an account with 1% interest and zero-risk? The opportunity cost is important too. Also, remember that your pay as an employee depends on the success of the company, just as much as the dividends for the owners do. Not to mention that the owners include just about all of society, through mutual funds, pension funds, and retirement accounts. The more you raise burdens to business and profit, the poorer your society gets. That's not to say we shouldn't regulate pollution, but we can't ignore the trade-offs involved. It's not just a matter of the rich taking less of a cut; that's not how it works.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >A company that's willing to make a product for a 20% margin might not be willing to make that same product for a 5% margin. // Generally those doing the actual manufacture are probably perfectly happy to do it if they get the same wage. The share-holders perhaps won't want to invest, but then we're back to profit motive. A company can in theory continue to pay all the employees and make zero profit, it can succeed in all it's goals except in paying out a large return for investors.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Even if, in theory, you can have a static society by forcing everyone to keep doing what they're currently doing--which you can't, because many peoples' business is providing services to new or closing businesses, and any unexpected events will cause cascading effects that your static society can't accommodate--I don't see how that's at all desirable or relevant to real economic issues. And of course the profit motive is central. It's the whole reason why anyone makes products in the first place.