Takin' on water..

[JonL]

Originally Posted by whell

Why? Did you prevent me from immigrating to China and being deprived of a respirator? Yes, I do think it's a good thing to chase profits. In fact, I recommend it as a way to grow the economy. Just think of all taxes that it might generate, and you'll get excited too.

Go to China! Please! Seriously, China's got SERIOUS problems. Don't try to hold them up as a model for what I believe in, because it AIN'T.

But, I do agree... I also "think it's a good thing to chase profits." But not with a disregard for things that happen outside of the immediate financial view.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

I stripped that quote from Whell's post at #98. The words are no longer there OR in your original at #95.. Didn't make them up. You can retract them if you want to.. Despite the last rant that it's all about profits, I'm sticking to:

Which just points out that even WITH ZERO GOVT intervention, regulation, taxation or oversight -- the free market has many significant checks and balances including

1) Public Relations
2) Customer Satisfaction
3) Legal challenges due to harm bodily or otherwise
4) Competition
5) Contract law for products and services.

MANY other considerations in the board room, the conference room and water cooler OTHER THAN profits. Profits are not chased ""with a disregard for things that happen outside of the immediate financial view"" without first considering the 5 fundamental checks above. (Could be more, I'm not an expert).

An elevator manufacturer that routinely kills low-income people is no more immune from market pressures than one that kills Park Avenue residents. And in that case, HOW DO YOU excuse the failure of

1) The govt agency who accepted and bought those low-income elevators.
2) The city inspector whose name appeared in the deadly elevator.
3) The warnings from the competitors who tried to tell you not to go with the lowest bidder or insist on a "minority owned enterprise" because they might kill people.

What motivates all THOSE PEOPLE to be moral and competent? What's their incentive to remove all risk from the equation.. That's my point JonL. I've given you SEVERAL solid motivations beyond profit for the mean greedy capitalist. You give ME a couple for all of these equalizers you value so highly. Do they have a job after the bodies are pulled from wreckage?

A SINGLE accident is not neccessarily a failure of design. Could be a fluke. Could be misuse. Could be maintenance. Your blanket assumption that this stuff happens SOLELY because of GREEDY manufacturers, is a little too convienient. And not just for elevators.

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

JonL:

I stripped that quote from Whell's post at #98. The words are no longer there OR in your original at #95.. Didn't make them up. You can retract them if you want to.. Despite the last rant that it's all about profits, I'm sticking to:



MANY other considerations in the board room, the conference room and water cooler OTHER THAN profits. Profits are not chased ""with a disregard for things that happen outside of the immediate financial view"" without first considering the 5 fundamental checks above. (Could be more, I'm not an expert).

An elevator manufacturer that routinely kills low-income people is no more immune from market pressures than one that kills Park Avenue residents. And in that case, HOW DO YOU excuse the failure of

1) The govt agency who accepted and bought those low-income elevators.
2) The city inspector whose name appeared in the deadly elevator.
3) The warnings from the competitors who tried to tell you not to go with the lowest bidder or insist on a "minority owned enterprise" because they might kill people.

What motivates all THOSE PEOPLE to be moral and competent? What's their incentive to remove all risk from the equation.. That's my point JonL. I've given you SEVERAL solid motivations beyond profit for the mean greedy capitalist. You give ME a couple for all of these equalizers you value so highly. Do they have a job after the bodies are pulled from wreckage?

A SINGLE accident is not neccessarily a failure of design. Could be a fluke. Could be misuse. Could be maintenance. Your blanket assumption that this stuff happens SOLELY because of GREEDY manufacturers, is a little too convienient. And not just for elevators.

Oh boy. Here we go again. What part of what I wrote said that accidents happen SOLELY because of GREEDY manufacturers? My point, and it's happened time and again, is that companies will take short cuts on safety to make more money. Not every company, but some. Maybe even most. The most callous of them will actually do a cost-benefit analysis and accept a certain risk of death and dismemberment and figure what the lawsuits and insurance premiums will mean to the bottom line. If you don't believe this is true, you'd better grow up fast.

My admittedly bad example of the elevators was a demonstration of what would happen in YOUR world where there is little to no government oversight. In my example of YOUR world, the low income housing was privately built an owned and the builder bought the cheapest elevator he could find. Maybe the owner is a legal resident of Bermuda and isn't afraid of being sued. Maybe the elevator company is in China. It's your world. There is no gov't agency that accepted and bought the elevators. There is no city inspector. As for your list of five fundamental checks, tell me... which ones are not directly related to maximizing profits (or cost avoidance, really the same thing)?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

JonL:

I stripped that quote from Whell's post at #98. The words are no longer there OR in your original at #95.. Didn't make them up. You can retract them if you want to.. Despite the last rant that it's all about profits, I'm sticking to:



MANY other considerations in the board room, the conference room and water cooler OTHER THAN profits. Profits are not chased ""with a disregard for things that happen outside of the immediate financial view"" without first considering the 5 fundamental checks above. (Could be more, I'm not an expert).

An elevator manufacturer that routinely kills low-income people is no more immune from market pressures than one that kills Park Avenue residents. And in that case, HOW DO YOU excuse the failure of

1) The govt agency who accepted and bought those low-income elevators.
2) The city inspector whose name appeared in the deadly elevator.
3) The warnings from the competitors who tried to tell you not to go with the lowest bidder or insist on a "minority owned enterprise" because they might kill people.

What motivates all THOSE PEOPLE to be moral and competent? What's their incentive to remove all risk from the equation.. That's my point JonL. I've given you SEVERAL solid motivations beyond profit for the mean greedy capitalist. You give ME a couple for all of these equalizers you value so highly. Do they have a job after the bodies are pulled from wreckage?

A SINGLE accident is not neccessarily a failure of design. Could be a fluke. Could be misuse. Could be maintenance. Your blanket assumption that this stuff happens SOLELY because of GREEDY manufacturers, is a little too convienient. And not just for elevators.

First, the housecleaning. Post 95 does not indicate that it has been edited, and you cannot edit a post here without the software indicating that a post has been edited. Therefore, there was no deletion (unless there was some space between the lines from which one could read such things)

Which just points out that even WITH ZERO GOVT intervention, regulation, taxation or oversight -- the free market has many significant checks and balances including

1) Public Relations
2) Customer Satisfaction
3) Legal challenges due to harm bodily or otherwise
4) Competition
5) Contract law for products and services.

1) Corporations spend big bucks disseminating the message that they want the public to hear. When there is an accident, everyone gets involved in the game of blaming someone else - and the company can afford better PR people than the elevator inspector.

2) The customer might be happy with the cheapest elevators, but the public using them has no control over that decision.

3) One of the things high on the Chamber of Commerce's wish list is "tort reform" limiting the amount of damages that a person could recover, no matter how bad the injury no how egregious the misconduct. In terms of market forces, the potential for large awards is what attracts lawyers to represent clients who otherwise could not afford them. Put a limit on tort damages, and those lower on the economic totem pole are less likely to obtain competent counsel.

4) Safety ain't cheap. Sometimes environmentally sound policies come with a price tag as well. Those who are willing to cut corners on safety and pollution are going to have a competitive advantage over those who are conscientious about safety. In a marketplace where survival of the fittest is the rule, and where and expensive conscience is a weakness, companies who provide more safety, when the competitors are not required to do so, are less likely to survive. Regulatory requirements of essential safety measures level the playing field for those companies who insist on doing the right thing.

5) Contractual law is only going to protect those in privity of contract. The contract will not protect innocent bystanders. Moreover, if one party to a contract realizes that the cost of litigation will make it cost ineffective for the other party to enforce its full rights under a contract. I've seen this way too many times. The party with the greater financial resources will screw someone out of five or ten thousand dollars because it's expensive to take the steps to recover that money.

The market is not necessarily immoral - it is amoral. Nevertheless, what the market values does not necessarily reflect the values that provide the best place for most people to live.

Your and others have referred many times to China as an example of what you believe the left wants. To the contrary, China reflects the worst of capitalism. They invite business to operate without regard to environmental impact or the health and welfare of the workers. That attitude is attractive to businesses for whom the bottom line is the only concern, which is why we have seen so much manufacturing move there. What we with a leftward tilt advocate here is a system where we can balance the bottom line motivation with such concerns as safety, honest representation of products, fair competition and a cleaner environment.

Regards,

D-Ray