On February 22, 2010, In Jewish News, by admin
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Use the form below to search the site:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
All entries, chronologically...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
All of this of course, does hinge on the variable of the penalties imposed on the company for fraud by the government. In my last comment, I’m assuming that the penalty would be the same as the amount of money lost from the company cutting corners. If the penalty ends up being less, then there may still be some financial benefit to the company (estimated loss in revenue due to lowered reputation aside.)
Wow, I just missed something huge. I found a flaw in my logic. If a company cuts corners to save $100Mil on the production of their car (thus making the car unsafe), and then the courts find out, the company would just be forced to pay out that $100Mil anyway as a penalty. the only thing that changes is the degradation of the companies reputation, and that gives strength to its competitors. So, to sum it all up. It IS the best best interest of the company to not make mistakes after all.
I suppose someone could argue with me that the reputation of the company being tarnished is enough incentive for companies to have consumer safety in their best interest. Monetary penalties imposed by the government aside.
Lets say ford makes $5 Billion off the sale of their faulty car, lives are lost, and the courts find them guilty after the fact. Then the government forces them to pay the penalty of lets say, $100 Million. Will ford care? No. If they need to pay out $100Mil to make $5Bil, then that is what they will continue to do, and that is what all businesses will do. The only downside is companies reputation being tarnished.
Yes judicial government systems need to be in place so that if it is found out that a company withheld information, they can be tried for fraud and be made to pay very heavy expensive. But this is AFTER THE FACT! this is after lives have already been lost. Here is another point. Lets say ford is found guilty for fraud and they’re ordered to pay for their “mistake.” The company wont care, because they will just see this as a surcharge for doing business.
As a consumer, how can you choose with missing information? it would be great if companies divulged the CONS as well as the PROS regarding their products, but that isn’t going to happen. “Should ford still of spent that $200.000?” This point is stupid. I agree with the kid, because if it cost THAT much they obviously wouldn’t go ahead with the production of a car like that to begin with.
Friedman makes a good point. You get what you pay for, and if you’re willing to pay extra then you can buy a certain degree of safety. The point is, in the case of the pinto, did people KNOW that the vulnerable gasoline tank was existent? of course not. Ford knew fair well that it was an issue, but they produced the car non the less, and told no one about the problem. They need responsibility and culpability. Who is going to make them divulge these facts without the government?
Oh God. I felt so bad for this kid.
This kid’s such a dork. Whenever Friedman beat his argument I expected him to scream “Leave me alone!” and slam his bedroom door shut.
Great Video! I goto boxofficemovies=org, give fake info and watch all the box office hits
I STILL drive my pinto. I luv my Pinto!!
you are as dumb as that kid
@direwolf661
In the end it turned out that the Ford Pinto wasn’t any more dangerous than similar cars of the time and only 27 people died in one due to a fire.
You can’t help but laugh when he smirks after his retarded arguments only to get owned shortly thereafter.
Poor kid.
@MrRonnierams
You mean ‘misinterpretation’? Again, you seem to be keen on: arguing about the argument, and attempting to debase others by wild generalisations. I referred to this one kids adherence to a well discredited moral belief which associates most clearly with the Nazis, and you now say that I do this for all political rivals. Now I believe you are doing this deliberately. If one doesn’t have a counter arguement, one tends to attack the opponents methods instead, as if that was somehow a substitute.
That is not necessarily so. I have seen cars flipped end over end with someone not wearing a seatbelt fly out of the car and not have one scratch on them, on the flip side of the coin I have seen minor collisions such as getting hit from the back at 10 miles per hour with people having internal bleeding. The point is that although you put all the safety precautions you wish when its that persons time there’s no stopping it. There is a reason for everything
Total misrepresentation of the Nazi mindset, but since you are just trying to equate your political rivals with the worst example of people in modern history in a slander technique devised in the interest of obscuring the actual issues, which you either lack the mental capability of grasping or know that morally you are wrong, Im not surprised
@tothemax01 This is just not an argument, it totally ignores the issue that has even started this conversation, the only reason this whole debate is taking place is because of Fords ability to decrease the statistical probability of death. There is always a chance of a crash when you drive, and a chance of death when you crash. Certain safety features DECREASE your chance of death from a crash, not your chance of a crash. So you have said nothing, which you’ve already done, so Im not shocked
The idea that a death rate is unacceptable because the dead could include a loved one demands such things as:
No roads, or 0mph limits on all roads.
No flights.
No mining, no construction, no farming, etc etc etc.
Hence, yes, the death rates are acceptable in a sense. One should hence tell the loved one ‘concentrate while driving’ etc, rather than expecting other people to take care of them. Besides, today if the car was dangerous n u were hurt u would sue for like 1mil.
How the kid sounds and how the originality of the example are relevant, escape me. The Nazis are the super-evil example not because of the other Nazi ideas (anti-smoking, pro-animal-rights, pro-social-security), but because they deemed termination of lives (no matter the quantity) acceptable if it was for the ‘overall good’. So the Nazi example was apt in pointing out the kids moral credibility.
Let me start out by saying that I actually agree with a lot of what I know about Friedman, but this video exemplifies why I ultimately reject him. And I think you, along with Friedman, are only presenting a narrow, and flawed, angle on the issue. First of all, a .001% death rate is still unacceptable, what if it was your child/parent/lover? Secondly, the whole point is that Ford purposefully obscured or hid the information in order to avoid hurting sales, which lack of safety always does
yeah this kid sure sounds like a Nazi to me
Milton, although hard to see at first, is based on morality and logic.