4 ms·

That's a lot of hand-wavy claims. Care to back some of it up with data? Especially the part about China's economic growth being slower if they'd had stricter bu

That's a lot of hand-wavy claims. Care to back some of it up with data? Especially the part about China's economic growth being slower if they'd had stricter building codes. Absent any real data, it's equally intuitive to say that it wouldn't have been slower because [insert natural disaster here] would have been a big setback as often as [same natural disaster] occurs on average. Plus, you know, lots of people would have died who could have been saved by stricter building codes. I'd rather be alive than have a couple more percentage points of economic growth every year.

RickHull 16y ago
> I'd rather be alive than have a couple more percentage points of economic growth every year. That seems rather disingenuous to me. The real question is: would you pay more up front to reduce the risk of a catastrophe? When the government mandates, you don't get to answer. It's a downside.
- weavejester 16y ago
  > When the government mandates, you don't get to answer. It's a downside. It's also an upside, as it avoids a social trap[1]. If companies can choose what they want, those that spend less will have a short-term advantage over those that spend more. If the government mandates a certain level of quality, then there's no competitive advantage to cutting corners (assuming the regulations are well enforced). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap