3 ms·

> The theory that government regulation is mandatory or companies will never do anything healthy requires a consumer base who assigns no regard to their health

> The theory that government regulation is mandatory or companies will never do anything healthy requires a consumer base who assigns no regard to their health and safety, which is obviously false. Either that or companies price health-and-safety options out of the price range of some consumers, resulting in a society where we think it's right that anyone under a certain level of income doesn't deserve to be as safe as we are. At least in the current system, you can't buy things without much the same level of safety as we have - meaning that you can't realistically push their income+benefits any lower without lots of pushback. If we thought that health and safety features were optional... that'd be a lot different.

witty_username 10y ago
> resulting in a society where we think it's right that anyone under a certain level of income doesn't deserve to be as safe as we are. This sounds bad, but even current society is like this. You can always use more money to be more safe. Car regulations don't change this but they do make cars less affordable.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  > You can always use more money to be more safe. To some degree, and for some things. In general, spending more on your car isn't going to help much when you get into a crash.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    You can buy more safety systems, like ABS. You could buy a car with a larger crumple zone. You can drive more slowly, which would cost you time which is ultimately money.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Depends, there are a level of technologies on cars based around accidents that require more money to obtain. Small, cheap car that meets bare minimum safety regulations versus big, expensive car that goes beyond required safety regulations. I bet the survivability rate of a Tesla is much higher than my Altima in the same near-fatal accident.
ashark 10y ago
I think an under-appreciated effect of regulation is making participation in the market easier. I don't need to research the apple I'm buying at the store. I don't need to look into the company that certified its safety to ensure it's not captured by the very company producing/selling the apple, or that it's not the same company that had huge scandal last year but with a new name (to take the Anarcho-Libertarian idea that private companies would replace government regulators in certifying safety and quality). That huge time/money cost is just gone. Anything in the grocery store will be basically fine. I can just toss it in the cart without a thought. I might gain some benefit from researching the products there, but it will be marginal. I don't have to do that stuff to just probably not die of food poisoning. Same with car safety and any number of other things. Regulation ensures a baseline under which products will (generally) not drop, making it easier (cheaper) for buyers to spend. It reduces (consumer) overhead and greases wheels.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The classic paper on this is Akerloff's Market for Lemons (cars, not groceries); information asymmetry is a bit of an under-studied area of economics.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > I think an under-appreciated effect of regulation is making participation in the market easier. As a consumer — but it also makes it significantly more difficult to participate as a producer. This is why existing firms are so often pro-regulation: they have the resources to absorb the initial hit and then pass the costs on to consumers, while an upstart has to raise the resources to pay for the hit before having a single customer.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Sure, but some of these are due to real economies of scale for safety. It can be hard to produce food safely, and ensuring food safety often has fixed costs (like buying safety/lab equipment, etc.)

witty_username 10y ago

> resulting in a society where we think it's right that anyone under a certain level of income doesn't deserve to be as safe as we are. This sounds bad, but even current society is like this. You can always use more money to be more safe. Car regulations don't change this but they do make cars less affordable.

vertex-four 10y ago
> You can always use more money to be more safe. To some degree, and for some things. In general, spending more on your car isn't going to help much when you get into a crash.
- witty_username 10y ago
  You can buy more safety systems, like ABS. You could buy a car with a larger crumple zone. You can drive more slowly, which would cost you time which is ultimately money.
- talmand 10y ago
  Depends, there are a level of technologies on cars based around accidents that require more money to obtain. Small, cheap car that meets bare minimum safety regulations versus big, expensive car that goes beyond required safety regulations. I bet the survivability rate of a Tesla is much higher than my Altima in the same near-fatal accident.

ashark 10y ago

I think an under-appreciated effect of regulation is making participation in the market easier. I don't need to research the apple I'm buying at the store. I don't need to look into the company that certified its safety to ensure it's not captured by the very company producing/selling the apple, or that it's not the same company that had huge scandal last year but with a new name (to take the Anarcho-Libertarian idea that private companies would replace government regulators in certifying safety and quality). That huge time/money cost is just gone. Anything in the grocery store will be basically fine. I can just toss it in the cart without a thought. I might gain some benefit from researching the products there, but it will be marginal. I don't have to do that stuff to just probably not die of food poisoning. Same with car safety and any number of other things. Regulation ensures a baseline under which products will (generally) not drop, making it easier (cheaper) for buyers to spend. It reduces (consumer) overhead and greases wheels.

pjc50 10y ago
The classic paper on this is Akerloff's Market for Lemons (cars, not groceries); information asymmetry is a bit of an under-studied area of economics.
zeveb 10y ago
> I think an under-appreciated effect of regulation is making participation in the market easier. As a consumer — but it also makes it significantly more difficult to participate as a producer. This is why existing firms are so often pro-regulation: they have the resources to absorb the initial hit and then pass the costs on to consumers, while an upstart has to raise the resources to pay for the hit before having a single customer.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Sure, but some of these are due to real economies of scale for safety. It can be hard to produce food safely, and ensuring food safety often has fixed costs (like buying safety/lab equipment, etc.)