Moore favors abortion because feels life is not guaranteed under the Constitution? (life, liberty and the pursuit....) He never fails to embarrass. Maybe he needs to live in Cuba!
This is how you fuck up a liberal. You ask a liberal questions that demand serious answers and truth. Then they can not think with their hearts and have to use their brain and common sense. Sorry, I used brain and common sense in the same sentence as liberal. My bad.
@4ingP So there is no right or wrong? Nothing that has a common sense answer? That would be logic of someone very young who wants no accountability or someone older, who wants no accountability.
@MultiMrfalcon "That would be logic of someone very young who wants no accountability or someone older, who wants no accountability. " wow, that was illogical...
@MultiMrfalcon No, there is right and wrong (to logical problems, that is). I was saying that the correct answer to a problem or question sometimes needs a little more thought or investigation.
In a free enterprise system, morality takes second place to profit. Individualism includes taking personal responsibility, thus the company producing a dangerous car is responsible and can be sued in this type of system. It's not always about justice. That's the reality in our society.
this is bullshit man, people buying the car don't buy it knowing it is more dangerous. ''but they they can sew them'' are you kidding me ? So if killing a person is profitable, is it justified to do it ? I can't beleive people are buying this shit
this is bullshit man, people buying the car don't buy it knowing it is more dangerous. ''but they they can sew them'' are you kidding me ? So if killing a person is profitable, is it justified to do it ?
First of all, Ford didn't produce the knowing that it was going to produce this result. Crash tests are performed independently, and can not be performed until the vehicle is built.
What Friedman was doing was answering his question which was based on the dollar amount. Not if what Ford did was right or wrong.
This still happens to this day. All of the automakers do what are called "silent recalls". They will fix an issue if you bring it to them, but they don't go out of their way to tell you.
Friedman's argument breaks down because the people didn't know the risks in this case and therefore couldn't have been able to account for the risk in their decision to by the car. That's a principled argument. I would also say many people are extremely risk adverse when it comes to car safety. If they knew that the risk of death is much higher because of a defect, they most certainly wouldn't have bought the vehicle. Who wants to wait for a court case to decide? Cold comfort for the victims
@brendos444 Actually, Friedman's argument holds up very well because even if it were true that people didn't know that there was a safety issue but Ford did, which was not the case, the revelation of a safety issue became widely disseminated in short order. The Pinto was relegated to the scrap heap even though its safety record proved no different from that of comparable cars.
@FletchforFreedom Information became widely known because people died. This is a particularly cold utilitarian ideal. I suggest to you that most people have more respect for human life than to simply let people die before the market figures out that certain products are dangerous. This goes for the whole drug testing debate as well. It's simply not desirable to put potentially dangerous products out there when the risk is that consumers might not know the risks they are taking.
The kid had a point that Friedman could not answer regarding the faulty cars, i.e. that information assymetries render his free market ideology false. As soon as you introduce information assymetries into classical economic models, the free market results don't work.
@brendos444 The problem is that your view about information asymmetry was disproved decades ago. Even if the example were not also long disproved, information is merely another commodity in the marketplace that the market has already demonstrated it can address (Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, Car & Driver - all of which get their money by providing precisely that kind of information).
@FletchforFreedom Info assymetry has not been solved.. it should be clear to anyone that markets do breakdown if there is an information assymetry. This is true especially of information markets like stock exchanges. The fact is that the classical model is a very poor reflection of reality. Yes it highlights some true aspects of the market, but it is no THE truth. Friedman doesn't engage with other ideas of freedom such as those expressed by Sen...
... I note that Sen's famous impossibility theorem (a mere 7 page article) pulled the pants down on the sort of "liberal" (i.e. liberal in the classic sense not the modern political sense) ideologies of the Friedman type. You seem, like Friedman, to think that if only the govt would get out of the way we'd live in some sort of utopian society, the best of all possible worlds... I just don't agree with this and so do most other people. Libertarian economics is simply a front for greed
It's interesting that young man said he supports abortion because not every human life is sacred. Was he calling a fetus a human life? Just found that interesting.
Friedman is a pretty sharp guy. We could certainly use another like him right now. Someone to help teach the masses how we can actually fix the path to disaster we are currently on. Get Government out of the markets. The federal gov't continues to screw it up.
Friedman is a SCUMBAG and anyone who believes his career of bullshit is just another robotic drone who needs a leader to tell him/her what to think.
Friedman believes it's OK for Ford (a CORPORATION) to determine the value of human lives then put a potentially VERY dangerous product out there as though it's safe when they know it's not and NOT inform people of the dangers?
Fuck you idiots who believe this kind of bullshit, you're the same assholes who sue when it affects you.
If by 'puts in his place' you mean. 'avoids the question because it's an indisputable counterexample to his thesis,' then yes, Friedman puts him in his place alright.
Friedman tries to make a point about people knowing what the risks are when they buy a Pinto, but uses an inapt comparison to a Mack truck. The apt comparison is the one consumers use to gauge the risk of driving a Pinto - other cars similar to the Pinto. The consumer assumes it's the same, but the actual risk is far greater. Ford knew it, so they had an opportunity to close that perception gap, by either coming clean or by bringing down the risk. They did neither, which amounts to murder.
The arguments from both the kid and Friedman are both debatable. However, in the free market if a company were to say not install something that would make it less safe, then it is the right of the consumer to know that. If the company comes forward and says that it didn't install product 'X' that is perfectly fine, then consumers can buy from another company if they want. If the company doesn't tell the consumer about it, then that is where the gov needs to step in and tell the consumer.
@VassiliZaitsev12 Friedman is just simply wrong and you are right here. in markets where there is assymetric information, Friedman's conclusions fall apart as shown by Akerlof, Stiglitz and others. funny that Friedman never engages with his serious critics, instead he goes for some well intentioned but naive college undergrads.
@brendos444 Stiglitz?!?!? Please, be serious. While he won a Nobel as the third wheel on the team examining information asymmetry, he seems completely oblivious to the subsequent research showing that the market is perfectly capable, and very adept, at addressing such asymmetry.
no, the market is not "perfectly capable, and very adept, at addressing such asymmetry." because of asymmetry in the market place, there is a less than socially optimal level of education that workers must achieve to distinguish themselves from lesser abled workers. this is commonly accepted theory of today. please don't spread misinformation.
@liv2ride2liv Yes, as has been demonstrated, the market IS perfectly capable of addressing such asymmetry. Your entrely subjective assessment of what constitutes a "socially optimal level of education" is neither relevant nor any part of "commonly accepted theory". Quite the opposite is the case - that, in fact, in the information age, such information is readily available and frequently used. I'm not the one spreading misinformation...
@VassiliZaitsev12 Then instead of charging $13 more another company would play on people's fears and then gouge them thousands for getting safety features that they should have got in the first place. The government should step in for the greater good even if Ford has to loose profits.
You know whats hilarious is that Moore has failed to figure life out after all these years! Clearly one can deduct that Moore is a mentally ill low level psychopath.
Moore went into this wanting to get a specific answer...Friedman admitting something to the effect of the free market not working in this case and that government control should be there...he didn't get it. Friedman called him on it and no one liked it. Friedman was spot on concerning this situation and the free market. Those who can't figure out his arguments...are as lost as ol Moore here...
If the speed limit was 10 mph, there would be almost no traffic fatalities. The cost? Longer travel time. But why don't we do it? Because we've decided that the cost in time is unacceptable. Why is the speed limit not 100 mph? Because the cost in lives is unacceptable. We've decided that the appropriate balance is around 60 mph. If Friedman put it in those terms, would this thick-headed young man finally grasp his argument? Or would this young man still insist on a 10 mph speed limit?
@utubewillyman Friedmans idea says there should be no limit at all. Arguing that the government regulation is rational is antithetical to the basis of his argument. He would say there need not be a speed limit because most people would go around 60, people would have the choice of driving 100 and killing themselves, or to would waste time by going 10 mph. Highway speed limits acknowledge we live in society and need to be mindful of one another and not act solely on self interest
An interesting side note is that the study Moore brings up was not accepted in court as evidence because it was not specifically focused on rear end collisions, but was in fact more concerned with role-over fires. The study was given to a government bureau in order to try to get them to ease up on safety regulatons. The government doesn't know anything about cars?
My point is when he says,"peple are free to decide how much money they are willing to pay to reduce the chances of their death" he ignores the fact that "willing to pay" as an act of freedom is dissingenuous because people often are guided by what they can afford. You don't decide how much your willing to pay if you don't have the money pay for more safety.
@maybethisnamewilwork Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@TheHomoludens He also fails to mention that you're choice to make that stupid risk and buy that dangerous car may just end up costing me my life. If I am more likely to die because of your stupidity, I think we as a society have a right to say "you, sir, do not have the right to make that stupid choice". You right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
@TheHomoludens Then how would the government know what is safe to regulate it? The government doesn't know anything about cars. What kind of a future would an auto maker have making unsafe cars? What would the cost of insurance be for those cars for both the consumer and the auto maker? The free market is a much stricter regulator.
@TrippingTheTube "The government doesn't know anything about cars"
Well, the same is true with CEOs.
You ought to be aware that breaking up the large corporations (which I strongly advocate, because I despise corporatism) will propably end consumerism (inflation of cheap products of low quality). Short: in a "free market" society many propably won´t be able to afford a car.
@maybethisnamewilwork My answer - we shouldn't have to worry about this issue because all US car companies should have gone out of business, but they kept getting bailed out. So, the answer is you would only be able to buy foreign cars in an idea free market. Damn government they should let all US car companies just die I want to buy only foreign cars
@maybethisnamewilwork that is almost correct, except, as Friedman pointed out, Ford should be required by law to disclose any element in the design of the car that could cause the consumer harm. As long as everything is disclosed properly, then the consumer has all the necessary information to make a free choice.
and then the company closes down because noone buys its cars anymore, and all the workers become unemployed... all the restaurants and workwear shops around the factorys have to close down too... the workers will come home drunk and beat up their wifes... there is going to be alcoholism, drugabuse, violence and homicide in the streets... just because the goverment didnt interfere with the company beeing stupid. :/
Friedmans arguement is idiotic. "Suppose the cost had been 200 million"' "Suppose 1 person would die". What bullshit. My point about people "being free" to decide how much their willing pay to be safe is that people are not free to spend money they don't have. So how is safety then a matter of a "free" choice.
@healdogtoe2c Without the freedom there would be no cheap cars and there would be no progress on safer and more affordable cars. The government would have put an end to it in 30s and we'd all be walking still.
@TrippingTheTube "Without the freedom there would be no cheap cars and there would be no progress on safer and more affordable cars."
Wrong, without corporatism this silly consumerism wouldn´t have been sustainable.
Just think about it:
if oil companies had to pay for the environmental costs, atomic energy producers would have to fully pay for the costs (10000s of years radioactive trash).
@TheHomoludens "Silly consumerism" has lead to probably billions of people around the world not starving to death or being killed by the elements. The industrial age is what allowed our survival. Basically you believe that the wealthy should hold all the wealth and the poor should stay poor serfs to save the environment. You would kill millions of people. Oil companies DO have to pay for clean up and environmental. I don't know where you get the idea they don't.
@TrippingTheTube "the industrial age" didn´t do nothing for "our survival" it helped sustain an exponential growth of human population. I despise Fabainism, but still humanity will be faced with the question of how many people can live on that planet.
You´re wrong if you think I don´t feel with the poor, but I don´t think it´s in their interest to keep up the current system.
There´ll be a crash, be it for economic reasons, ww3 or finally because peak oil really kicks in.
If the topic wasn´t so serious, I´d have to laugh about the logic shortcuts you take in order to try to evoke some bad conscience. The coming collapse isn´t my fault, I never wanted that system.
Populations growth is the largest in the most severe parts of the world, the best way to deal with the topic of world population would be to raise the livng conditions for the poorest people by giving them opprtunites to be selfsustaining.
fletch you're an idiot. You live in a country where the tobacco companies have been fined hunreds of millions into billions of dollars because of their systematic campaign to conceal their knowledge of the effects of smoking and fought to keep warnings off of cigarette packs for years, and here you are telling us the risks of smoking were known before the civil war. is it nice and warm inside your bubble?
What freemarketers don't understand is that people who bought the Pinto didn't know it'd blow up if it was rear-ended in just the right way. A free market depends on people making decisions based on self-interest. I happened to own a used Pinto at the time it was made public that there was a problem with the gas tank. The person who bought it new was never told by Ford about the decision they made. No consumer made the cost/safety analysis on this- Ford made it for them but didn't tell them.
@mitcheast What those coming late to the story don't know is that the Pinto RARELY blew up, did NOT know that it was possible and, as soon as they learned that it was, developed the plastic attachment
@mitcheast Ford didn't concel anything and the Pinto proved to be no less safe than comparable cars available in the marketplace. Mother Jones has been completely refuted.
@FletchforFreedom car safety has come a long way since those days thanks to free market, and R&D. sure there are some gov. reg but WE the people ARE the regulators by what we purchase just like everybody buying cheap Chinese products from Walmart while wondering where all the jobs and exports are - that is the fault of Americans for having no principle in who we support through our purchases. liability falls on us all. Pride is the folly of youth.
@weseyedwalk Yes, WE are the regulators acting in our own self interest. And we generally succeed in that regard. This is why, when we choose to buy less expensive Chinese imports, we have more resources available to buy other things which creates jobs. And, as it happens, more jobs are INsourced into the US than are outsourced so not only do making sound purchasing decisions help the consumer, they help the economy as a whole. WIN-WIN.
But what Michael moore is talking about is absolutely valid. Would you agree if you or your family member was one of those 200? Would you pay an extra 13 dollars?
But what Michael moore is talking about is absolutely valid. Would you agree if you or your family member was one of those 200? Would you pay an extra 13 dollars?
@ricebiscuit Friedman makes the kid look like a uneducated fool (and that's even without knowing that the Ford story he is presenting was completely bogus).
"people should be free to decide how much money they are willing to pay to decrease the chances of their death." Are people free to decide how much money they have to,"decrease the chances of their death"? Choosing dangerous activities, or behaving in a way that endangers your life has nothing to do with money.
@healdogtoe2c Have in mind that money is only a measure of "utility". Whenever someone talks about costs and benefits its really in utility and not in money. In other words - how much utility/joy are we willing to sacrifice in order to get a safer car?
@healdogtoe2c Sure it does. Regardless of whether you choose to buy a safer car or not or if a county puts up a stop sign or stop light - the issues of danger and cost are distinctly intertwined.
@DiNatalli Bullshit dude. Bullshit. You dont believe that every human life is sacred either. You might say so. But you dont truly believe it. If you did you wouldnt sit on youtube.
If this is Michael Moore, he is one the most admirable humans i've seen in a while for arguing with a man widely regarded as the standard bearer of Capitalizim in such a fashion. Great Job. Frediman was squirming in his seat trying to spin the question.
@Anastrodamus Gas was $1.89 when he took office. It's now approaching $5. His agenda of bringing the US down is making me squirm in my seat! And I am a Democrat. Can't you see what's happening?
@fatalcoolfatalcool Gas price was 1.89 because we were in a deep recession. It was up to $4 during the previous 6 months. So if you want to start quoting numbers quote them with context. Please.
@Anastrodamus What video did you watch? Even without knowing that the case the kid was presenting was false, Friedamn scored an obvious KO before the end of the first round.
@Anastrodamus In what respect? He is wrong on the circuimstance as the "Ford knew" myth put out by Mother Jones has been debunked. He is wrong in that Ford is the one who decided to put a protective piece in the design (not to exclude one). He is wrong in that he can't grasp the issue of the relative costs vs, safety benefits made by Friedman. How much farther shall I go?
@FletchforFreedom "He is wrong in that he can't grasp the issue of the relative costs vs, safety benefits made by Friedman. How much farther shall I go?"
No one can "be wrong" for not knowing a concept. One might be wrong if making statement contradicting facts.
In return knowing a concept doesn´t prove anyone to be right, unless that concept is true.
But claiming to know "truth" is just bloated, narcisstic sophism imo...
@FletchforFreedom Not at all, guy. Its actually well known fact that American Companies, were cutting cost everywhich way they could. This is documented fact. Not a myth. Even as a consumer, I've noticed the lack of vision and short cuts taken by Ford and Ilk.. especially in the 70's and 80s/ There is nothing he said that leads me to believe he was citing was "debunked". Its widely accepted. I don't know where u are getting your facts from. .
@Anastrodamus Yes, at all. That companies cut costs to become more efficient doesn't undermine ANYTHING I said. The kid was regurgitating a Mother Jones article that claimed Ford did this, but it was debunked. The "smoking gun" memo used to "prove" Ford's behavior actually had nothing to do with the Pinto. And it has been demonstrated that the Pinto was no less safe than any other comparable car on the market. Your opinions about "lack of vision" and waht is "widely accepted" don't hold up.
@FletchforFreedom COmpanies become more efficient??? at what cost? Thats what he is trying to comprehend. Freidman had no answer. He expertly tried to throw the kid off topic. But the kid's question is a valid one. And as far as your claim of of "debunk"-ing of the article.. Mother Jones was not even mentioned here and you are the one who mentioned it. You just assumed he sourced Mother Jones. Listen to the first sentence of Freidman's answer and start from there.
@Anastrodamus Companies become more efficient ... without cost. That's just it. The kid's question was based ENTIRELY on the only source to have made the claim - Mother Jones. They took a response requested by the NTSB on the hypothetical trade-offs beween cost and safety that had NOTHING to do with the Pinto and called it the "smoking gun". Subsequent statistics demonstrated that the Pinto was no less safe than any other car.
@Anastrodamus Friedman, without specifics on the case, took the position that nothing is cost free - that the decision to make something safer has a cost and these decisions are (and must be) made all the time. When your local authority decides to put in stop signs instead of stoplights, he knows that he is statistically condemning some people to death in order to save resources. It is simple reality.
This is not a matter of producing 100% safe cars. The point Mr. Moore is making is that competition in the market can induce industry to endanger human life for the sake of profit. Ford went ahead after putting a price tag on he lives lost due to the design flaw they were embracing. And we all know Mr. Freidman smoked during a time when the industry was keeping secret the deadly effects of tobacco on the human body.
@healdogtoe2c Actually, the story has been long debunked. Ford made the decision not to make the car safer than it did (a level of safety comparable to other cars in the same marketplace).
@healdogtoe2c When Ford learned of the potential problem, AFTER its manufacture, it added a plastic pice voluntarily. And the risks of smoking have been well known since before the Civil War.
The guy uses emotional appeal by describing vividly a source of risk in a cheap car . In fact, there are many other, even greater, risks found in cheap cars produced during the 70s. Friedman is right. Even by today's standards no one can produce 100% safe cars that are affordable to everyone..
One critical point Friedman tactfully evaded here is that of information asymmetry. He is right about him finding many people's decision making mechanism illogical. But for the most part this irrationality arises not because of any inherent suicidal tendency, but because of ignorance; under a context where even the most educated finds it hard to stay abreast of all information. The question is how do you prevent people from exploiting that ignorance: courts of law? not too reassuring!
@firefumedale Information is a commodity like any other. Absent governmnet intervention market mechanisms have repeatedly arisen to inform the consumer about the choices available to him.
@FletchforFreedom Yes, information is a commodity.The problem is, the purchased information helps a consumer in making an informed decision in purchasing a commodity. But the consumer would need to 'purchase' the information first. What would help him/her make an informed decision there? Common sense? Intelligence? education? Common sense is not sufficient. Education is a commodity. While the tools needed to cultivate intelligence are mostly commodities ...even experience.
Hmm, this video has given me a lot to mull over. NOT! Seriously, the only thing I got out of this video was, "How the fuck is Ford still in business?"
@jsmith224455 downsized bulit better cars & didnt take a gov bailout. the better question is how GM is still in business as they still owe tax payers billlions.
@trublu97 The greatest killer of mankind is unchecked power weather it comes in the form of a corporation or a government, that is why our 'model of government' (notice I didn't say our current government, but the model itself) is a good model as it seeks to check power. If an agency were created to force corporations like Ford to release information such as the 4,000 lives/year lost bit, there would be consent and then it would just be a choice. Govt should balance power, including its own.
Mr. Friedman, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
@yoyo420timesinfinity It's Dr. Friedman, noobcake, and he made more sense in that short vid than you'll probably make in your entire life of requoting stupid Adam Sandler movies.
There were "27 deaths" from the defect of the Ford Pinto, and "in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no recallable problem".
100,000 were sold just the 1st year. Just using the 1st year of the 10 years it was produced, that is 27/100,000 or 0.027% chance of dying. Likely, 0.0027% would be a generous estimate for the 8 years it had this defect.
This car cost $2,000. With inflation calculations, $13 is at least $50 today. $50 for 0.0027% risk. Not many would pay
Friedman is a genius with numbers, but he is a moron when it comes to people.
He brings up "principle" of having a $200,000 increase in price to "save lives" when that is not what the question is about at all. Yes, we COULD make all cars out of NASA grade titanium, but that is not what the question is about. Its a measly $13 dollars (that 99% of people would likely be willing to pay for the added safety) but instead Ford chose to hide the safety information death risks in order to obtain $
And no. People wouldn't be willing to pay $13 more. To argue with the intellectual big boys, you would need to convert that $13 with inflation, which would be around $50 today
And like he said, most people would not pay it. It is the same reason people use mopeds or motorcycles to save gas, or skimp on health insurance, or drive "smart cars" vs SUVs.
@Subie1337 Yes and we already have a system in place called "courts" that could be used to sue Ford for millions if they did try to hide anything. This argument makes no sense Ford knew that not adding that plastic block could endanger more lives... well Harley Davidson knows that riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving an SUV should the government put a stop to that too or is that different.
@Subie1337 Yes and we already have a system in place called "courts" that could be used to sue Ford for millions if they did try to hide anything. This argument makes no sense Ford knew that not adding that plastic block could endanger more lives... well Harley Davidson knows that riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving an SUV should the government put a stop to that too or is that different.
@Subie1337 Yes and we already have a system in place called "courts" that could be used to sue Ford for millions if they did try to hide anything. This argument makes no sense Ford knew that not adding that plastic block could endanger more lives... well Harley Davidson knows that riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving an SUV should the government put a stop to that too or is that different.
This kid is contradicting himself and is hypocritical. He argues based on "principle" that Ford failed in their social responsibility in manufacturing a vehicle that cause the death of two hundred peple but then ignores "principle" about the abortion issue.
And when socialists argue about deaths caused by the private sector, they ignore how many people died at the hands of government in the last century alone: two world wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the near 100 American interventions, communist invasions, assassinations, bombings etc.
@sandwichtaster most people who are wallstreet bankers like him are sociopaths becuase they have to commit what is called economic violence. They force people to lose money, lose their homes, starve, and cuase wars and genocide just so that they can make more money.
@sandwichtaster@habadashery2009 let me ask you this..do you guys donate to charity? Do you volunteer to help the homeless, work at soup kitchens..etc? if not..then you don't have a right to call anyone else a sociopath..why didn't you call Moore a sociopath for saying that a unborn life is not important?
@ubermisogynist Because it is a psychiatric diagnosis and not a synonym for "rude man". Superficial glibness and charm, lack of empathy, etc. Look it up please.
@habadashery2009@Subie1337 he does actually..do you own or did you own a PS2 or any producys from Sony, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Nokia, Intel Lucent, Motorola, Ericsson, Siemens, Intel, Hitachi, IBM? if so look up COLTAN..and tell me if all those lives were worth giving you entertaiment..see it's not so simple
People were unaware of this problem when they purchased their Pintos. It was when it came to light that they exploded on contact that killed the Pinto brand.
Nikola Tesla, physicist, inventor, and electrical engineer :
"Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it. All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life."
The tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density. It was defined in 1960 in honor of the inventor, physicist, and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla
Unfortunately his way of thinking is the exception from the rule.
If the cost of making the cars safe for use had been $200,000,000, then the appropriate course of action would have been to scrap the design and go back to the drawing board.
The bottom line is that Ford knowingly put lives in mortal danger for the sake of profit. In this case, Friedman was wrong.
On the other hand, if Ford had told the general public about the risk, and the public had accepted that risk and purchased the cars anyhow, Ford would be absolved of any blame.
free market logic is there but although moore didn't argue it well enough, it displays one of the most fundamental flaws in the market system.Friedman argues that you pay a price to reduce risk, which is true. But one of the basic determinations of the relationship of supply and demand is information, or in this instance, misinformation.Perhaps any consumer aware of this procedure would pay 13 dollars extra to reduce the risk. But without information they are not free to make that choice
So this guy doesn't think life is sacred, but he is pissed at Ford for putting profit over safety. What a moron.
MrPlowboy66 56 minutes ago
What an unfortunate looking young man.
krestshinable 2 hours ago
I hate micheal moores dumb fucking retarded smiles.
quezcatol 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even a fucking stone manifests more emotional intelligence than Friedman.
S1L3nCe 4 hours ago
Comment removed
S1L3nCe 4 hours ago
If everyone in the world knew the whole truth about everything. the world would be a better place to live
tntcatering 9 hours ago
liberalism is a mental disorder
peptopro17 18 hours ago 5
"People individually should be free to decide how much they're willing to pay for reducing their chances of death."
Dumbest statement of the video.
maxcohen13 23 hours ago
Moore favors abortion because feels life is not guaranteed under the Constitution? (life, liberty and the pursuit....) He never fails to embarrass. Maybe he needs to live in Cuba!
RedGoat400 23 hours ago
@RedGoat400
It's not actually Michael Moore. Just someone as annoying.
maxcohen13 23 hours ago
This is how you fuck up a liberal. You ask a liberal questions that demand serious answers and truth. Then they can not think with their hearts and have to use their brain and common sense. Sorry, I used brain and common sense in the same sentence as liberal. My bad.
MultiMrfalcon 1 day ago
@MultiMrfalcon Sense isn't common and common logic isn't always sensible.
Not to take Mikey's side here, mind.
4ingP 23 hours ago
@4ingP So there is no right or wrong? Nothing that has a common sense answer? That would be logic of someone very young who wants no accountability or someone older, who wants no accountability.
MultiMrfalcon 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MultiMrfalcon "That would be logic of someone very young who wants no accountability or someone older, who wants no accountability. " wow, that was illogical...
ChurchillGeoff 20 hours ago
@MultiMrfalcon No, there is right and wrong (to logical problems, that is). I was saying that the correct answer to a problem or question sometimes needs a little more thought or investigation.
"Common sense" isn't always reliable.
4ingP 20 hours ago
Michael Moore seems retarded here...
quezcatol 1 day ago
Friedman is not the devil. He is like Machiavelli, simply pointing out how things really work.
letsif 1 day ago
In a free enterprise system, morality takes second place to profit. Individualism includes taking personal responsibility, thus the company producing a dangerous car is responsible and can be sued in this type of system. It's not always about justice. That's the reality in our society.
letsif 1 day ago
this is bullshit man, people buying the car don't buy it knowing it is more dangerous. ''but they they can sew them'' are you kidding me ? So if killing a person is profitable, is it justified to do it ? I can't beleive people are buying this shit
zerogravity121 1 day ago
this is bullshit man, people buying the car don't buy it knowing it is more dangerous. ''but they they can sew them'' are you kidding me ? So if killing a person is profitable, is it justified to do it ?
zerogravity121 1 day ago
Friedman is kind of evil.
Pretty cool.
YawnGod 1 day ago
I'm not necessarily a proponent of this, just citing a fact that this has been, and continues to be the way things are done.
tkdtko 1 day ago
First of all, Ford didn't produce the knowing that it was going to produce this result. Crash tests are performed independently, and can not be performed until the vehicle is built.
What Friedman was doing was answering his question which was based on the dollar amount. Not if what Ford did was right or wrong.
This still happens to this day. All of the automakers do what are called "silent recalls". They will fix an issue if you bring it to them, but they don't go out of their way to tell you.
tkdtko 1 day ago
hahahaah michael moore became a fat fuck
laker10591 1 day ago
Ford builds the stupid car, Ford is responsible for safety recalls - problem solved! WTF?
worstevershow 2 days ago
This old man evaded the questions he did not put Moore in his place because he made no sense.
Bambam78 2 days ago
Milton Friedman is just a bunch of well built, scripted arguments. It's really just inflated pretense.
EmilioCasavegas 2 days ago
@EmilioCasavegas But it takes more than "knowledge" to see this - understanding.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
I guessed it was a joke. Nobody can put on THAT much weight! :-)
benthejrporter 2 days ago
Comment removed
MonteBoston13 2 days ago
Friedman's argument breaks down because the people didn't know the risks in this case and therefore couldn't have been able to account for the risk in their decision to by the car. That's a principled argument. I would also say many people are extremely risk adverse when it comes to car safety. If they knew that the risk of death is much higher because of a defect, they most certainly wouldn't have bought the vehicle. Who wants to wait for a court case to decide? Cold comfort for the victims
brendos444 2 days ago
@brendos444 Actually, Friedman's argument holds up very well because even if it were true that people didn't know that there was a safety issue but Ford did, which was not the case, the revelation of a safety issue became widely disseminated in short order. The Pinto was relegated to the scrap heap even though its safety record proved no different from that of comparable cars.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Information became widely known because people died. This is a particularly cold utilitarian ideal. I suggest to you that most people have more respect for human life than to simply let people die before the market figures out that certain products are dangerous. This goes for the whole drug testing debate as well. It's simply not desirable to put potentially dangerous products out there when the risk is that consumers might not know the risks they are taking.
brendos444 1 day ago
Comment removed
xcvsdxvsx 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brendos444 you must think very little of consumers if you believe they are incapable of determining that ingesting untested drugs is risky.
xcvsdxvsx 1 day ago
The kid had a point that Friedman could not answer regarding the faulty cars, i.e. that information assymetries render his free market ideology false. As soon as you introduce information assymetries into classical economic models, the free market results don't work.
brendos444 2 days ago
@brendos444 The problem is that your view about information asymmetry was disproved decades ago. Even if the example were not also long disproved, information is merely another commodity in the marketplace that the market has already demonstrated it can address (Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, Car & Driver - all of which get their money by providing precisely that kind of information).
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Info assymetry has not been solved.. it should be clear to anyone that markets do breakdown if there is an information assymetry. This is true especially of information markets like stock exchanges. The fact is that the classical model is a very poor reflection of reality. Yes it highlights some true aspects of the market, but it is no THE truth. Friedman doesn't engage with other ideas of freedom such as those expressed by Sen...
brendos444 1 day ago
... I note that Sen's famous impossibility theorem (a mere 7 page article) pulled the pants down on the sort of "liberal" (i.e. liberal in the classic sense not the modern political sense) ideologies of the Friedman type. You seem, like Friedman, to think that if only the govt would get out of the way we'd live in some sort of utopian society, the best of all possible worlds... I just don't agree with this and so do most other people. Libertarian economics is simply a front for greed
brendos444 1 day ago
It's interesting that young man said he supports abortion because not every human life is sacred. Was he calling a fetus a human life? Just found that interesting.
mmsun44 2 days ago
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 3 days ago
Friedman is a pretty sharp guy. We could certainly use another like him right now. Someone to help teach the masses how we can actually fix the path to disaster we are currently on. Get Government out of the markets. The federal gov't continues to screw it up.
sbakerrealtor 3 days ago
Friedman is a SCUMBAG and anyone who believes his career of bullshit is just another robotic drone who needs a leader to tell him/her what to think.
Friedman believes it's OK for Ford (a CORPORATION) to determine the value of human lives then put a potentially VERY dangerous product out there as though it's safe when they know it's not and NOT inform people of the dangers?
Fuck you idiots who believe this kind of bullshit, you're the same assholes who sue when it affects you.
shadyzz954 3 days ago
If by 'puts in his place' you mean. 'avoids the question because it's an indisputable counterexample to his thesis,' then yes, Friedman puts him in his place alright.
Pericles88888888 3 days ago
Friedman tries to make a point about people knowing what the risks are when they buy a Pinto, but uses an inapt comparison to a Mack truck. The apt comparison is the one consumers use to gauge the risk of driving a Pinto - other cars similar to the Pinto. The consumer assumes it's the same, but the actual risk is far greater. Ford knew it, so they had an opportunity to close that perception gap, by either coming clean or by bringing down the risk. They did neither, which amounts to murder.
tomisphere 3 days ago
The arguments from both the kid and Friedman are both debatable. However, in the free market if a company were to say not install something that would make it less safe, then it is the right of the consumer to know that. If the company comes forward and says that it didn't install product 'X' that is perfectly fine, then consumers can buy from another company if they want. If the company doesn't tell the consumer about it, then that is where the gov needs to step in and tell the consumer.
VassiliZaitsev12 3 days ago 9
@VassiliZaitsev12 Friedman is just simply wrong and you are right here. in markets where there is assymetric information, Friedman's conclusions fall apart as shown by Akerlof, Stiglitz and others. funny that Friedman never engages with his serious critics, instead he goes for some well intentioned but naive college undergrads.
brendos444 2 days ago
@brendos444 Stiglitz?!?!? Please, be serious. While he won a Nobel as the third wheel on the team examining information asymmetry, he seems completely oblivious to the subsequent research showing that the market is perfectly capable, and very adept, at addressing such asymmetry.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
no, the market is not "perfectly capable, and very adept, at addressing such asymmetry." because of asymmetry in the market place, there is a less than socially optimal level of education that workers must achieve to distinguish themselves from lesser abled workers. this is commonly accepted theory of today. please don't spread misinformation.
liv2ride2liv 1 day ago
@liv2ride2liv Yes, as has been demonstrated, the market IS perfectly capable of addressing such asymmetry. Your entrely subjective assessment of what constitutes a "socially optimal level of education" is neither relevant nor any part of "commonly accepted theory". Quite the opposite is the case - that, in fact, in the information age, such information is readily available and frequently used. I'm not the one spreading misinformation...
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 yeah you're right but honestly what company would advertise a defect?
SethAY68 2 days ago
@SethAY68 Exactly, that is why the free market breaks down sometimes, and sometimes the government needs to step in.
dovahkiin516 2 days ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Then instead of charging $13 more another company would play on people's fears and then gouge them thousands for getting safety features that they should have got in the first place. The government should step in for the greater good even if Ford has to loose profits.
Pillowpants8495 1 day ago
You know whats hilarious is that Moore has failed to figure life out after all these years! Clearly one can deduct that Moore is a mentally ill low level psychopath.
jihadjared 3 days ago
Moore went into this wanting to get a specific answer...Friedman admitting something to the effect of the free market not working in this case and that government control should be there...he didn't get it. Friedman called him on it and no one liked it. Friedman was spot on concerning this situation and the free market. Those who can't figure out his arguments...are as lost as ol Moore here...
MCBD915 3 days ago
If the speed limit was 10 mph, there would be almost no traffic fatalities. The cost? Longer travel time. But why don't we do it? Because we've decided that the cost in time is unacceptable. Why is the speed limit not 100 mph? Because the cost in lives is unacceptable. We've decided that the appropriate balance is around 60 mph. If Friedman put it in those terms, would this thick-headed young man finally grasp his argument? Or would this young man still insist on a 10 mph speed limit?
utubewillyman 3 days ago
@utubewillyman Friedmans idea says there should be no limit at all. Arguing that the government regulation is rational is antithetical to the basis of his argument. He would say there need not be a speed limit because most people would go around 60, people would have the choice of driving 100 and killing themselves, or to would waste time by going 10 mph. Highway speed limits acknowledge we live in society and need to be mindful of one another and not act solely on self interest
imadizzy1 3 days ago
An interesting side note is that the study Moore brings up was not accepted in court as evidence because it was not specifically focused on rear end collisions, but was in fact more concerned with role-over fires. The study was given to a government bureau in order to try to get them to ease up on safety regulatons. The government doesn't know anything about cars?
healdogtoe2c 3 days ago
My point is when he says,"peple are free to decide how much money they are willing to pay to reduce the chances of their death" he ignores the fact that "willing to pay" as an act of freedom is dissingenuous because people often are guided by what they can afford. You don't decide how much your willing to pay if you don't have the money pay for more safety.
healdogtoe2c 3 days ago
Where exactly did he put him in his place?
MargaretTD 3 days ago
debating on the FORD PINTO LOL
21boxhead 4 days ago
liberal answer- the govt should regulate ford and make them put it in, and layoff workers to cover the cost of doing it
conservative answer- dont buy that car if you dont think its safe, buy it from another copmany
maybethisnamewilwork 4 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@maybethisnamewilwork Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 4 days ago
@maybethisnamewilwork Abd both answers are flawed.
1. The govt. should make laws that reduce consumers´ risks without ignoring the "cost of safety".
2. "if you don´t think ti´s safe" - how could anybody know that?
What consumer could know as much about the product as the producer?
There´s a great assymetry of knowledge.
New moral questions...
TheHomoludens 4 days ago
@TheHomoludens He also fails to mention that you're choice to make that stupid risk and buy that dangerous car may just end up costing me my life. If I am more likely to die because of your stupidity, I think we as a society have a right to say "you, sir, do not have the right to make that stupid choice". You right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
ChurchillGeoff 4 days ago
@TheHomoludens Then how would the government know what is safe to regulate it? The government doesn't know anything about cars. What kind of a future would an auto maker have making unsafe cars? What would the cost of insurance be for those cars for both the consumer and the auto maker? The free market is a much stricter regulator.
TrippingTheTube 3 days ago
@TrippingTheTube The free market is a much stricter regulator."
Blahblahblah,
Again your everrepeating dogma.
I´m not pro-statism, but your belief in the "free markets" (ignoring that such a thing has never existed) is religious, not rational.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TrippingTheTube "The government doesn't know anything about cars"
Well, the same is true with CEOs.
You ought to be aware that breaking up the large corporations (which I strongly advocate, because I despise corporatism) will propably end consumerism (inflation of cheap products of low quality). Short: in a "free market" society many propably won´t be able to afford a car.
I´d be ok with that.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@maybethisnamewilwork My answer - we shouldn't have to worry about this issue because all US car companies should have gone out of business, but they kept getting bailed out. So, the answer is you would only be able to buy foreign cars in an idea free market. Damn government they should let all US car companies just die I want to buy only foreign cars
VassiliZaitsev12 3 days ago
@maybethisnamewilwork that is almost correct, except, as Friedman pointed out, Ford should be required by law to disclose any element in the design of the car that could cause the consumer harm. As long as everything is disclosed properly, then the consumer has all the necessary information to make a free choice.
MovingCastleE 3 days ago
@maybethisnamewilwork
and then the company closes down because noone buys its cars anymore, and all the workers become unemployed... all the restaurants and workwear shops around the factorys have to close down too... the workers will come home drunk and beat up their wifes... there is going to be alcoholism, drugabuse, violence and homicide in the streets... just because the goverment didnt interfere with the company beeing stupid. :/
sensationsuperthrust 3 days ago
@sensationsuperthrust If that isn't a strawman argument, what is?
greatcow95 3 days ago
@maybethisnamewilwork dumbass!!!! the whole point was that the consumer had NO idea that the car was not safe!!!!!
brendos444 2 days ago
Friedmans arguement is idiotic. "Suppose the cost had been 200 million"' "Suppose 1 person would die". What bullshit. My point about people "being free" to decide how much their willing pay to be safe is that people are not free to spend money they don't have. So how is safety then a matter of a "free" choice.
healdogtoe2c 4 days ago
@healdogtoe2c Without the freedom there would be no cheap cars and there would be no progress on safer and more affordable cars. The government would have put an end to it in 30s and we'd all be walking still.
TrippingTheTube 3 days ago
@TrippingTheTube "Without the freedom there would be no cheap cars and there would be no progress on safer and more affordable cars."
Wrong, without corporatism this silly consumerism wouldn´t have been sustainable.
Just think about it:
if oil companies had to pay for the environmental costs, atomic energy producers would have to fully pay for the costs (10000s of years radioactive trash).
Consumerism dwells on Papa State.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens "Silly consumerism" has lead to probably billions of people around the world not starving to death or being killed by the elements. The industrial age is what allowed our survival. Basically you believe that the wealthy should hold all the wealth and the poor should stay poor serfs to save the environment. You would kill millions of people. Oil companies DO have to pay for clean up and environmental. I don't know where you get the idea they don't.
TrippingTheTube 3 days ago
@TrippingTheTube "the industrial age" didn´t do nothing for "our survival" it helped sustain an exponential growth of human population. I despise Fabainism, but still humanity will be faced with the question of how many people can live on that planet.
You´re wrong if you think I don´t feel with the poor, but I don´t think it´s in their interest to keep up the current system.
There´ll be a crash, be it for economic reasons, ww3 or finally because peak oil really kicks in.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TrippingTheTube And where did you get the idea of "billions of people not starving"?
We westerners can keep the sad pictures away from us, but people have been starving to death at all times under the current system.
We live in a world where a fraction of a percent of the population holds major parts of all wealth and that causes tremendous sufferings.
Now we could try and start communism, I don´t believe it works.
So I rather choose constitutionalism knowing that it will be tough to get there.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TrippingTheTube "You would kill millions of people."
If the topic wasn´t so serious, I´d have to laugh about the logic shortcuts you take in order to try to evoke some bad conscience. The coming collapse isn´t my fault, I never wanted that system.
Populations growth is the largest in the most severe parts of the world, the best way to deal with the topic of world population would be to raise the livng conditions for the poorest people by giving them opprtunites to be selfsustaining.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
fletch you're an idiot. You live in a country where the tobacco companies have been fined hunreds of millions into billions of dollars because of their systematic campaign to conceal their knowledge of the effects of smoking and fought to keep warnings off of cigarette packs for years, and here you are telling us the risks of smoking were known before the civil war. is it nice and warm inside your bubble?
healdogtoe2c 4 days ago
ηλίθιος διάλογος
nickosrp 4 days ago
What freemarketers don't understand is that people who bought the Pinto didn't know it'd blow up if it was rear-ended in just the right way. A free market depends on people making decisions based on self-interest. I happened to own a used Pinto at the time it was made public that there was a problem with the gas tank. The person who bought it new was never told by Ford about the decision they made. No consumer made the cost/safety analysis on this- Ford made it for them but didn't tell them.
mitcheast 4 days ago
@mitcheast What those coming late to the story don't know is that the Pinto RARELY blew up, did NOT know that it was possible and, as soon as they learned that it was, developed the plastic attachment
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@mitcheast Ford didn't concel anything and the Pinto proved to be no less safe than comparable cars available in the marketplace. Mother Jones has been completely refuted.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom car safety has come a long way since those days thanks to free market, and R&D. sure there are some gov. reg but WE the people ARE the regulators by what we purchase just like everybody buying cheap Chinese products from Walmart while wondering where all the jobs and exports are - that is the fault of Americans for having no principle in who we support through our purchases. liability falls on us all. Pride is the folly of youth.
weseyedwalk 3 days ago
@weseyedwalk Yes, WE are the regulators acting in our own self interest. And we generally succeed in that regard. This is why, when we choose to buy less expensive Chinese imports, we have more resources available to buy other things which creates jobs. And, as it happens, more jobs are INsourced into the US than are outsourced so not only do making sound purchasing decisions help the consumer, they help the economy as a whole. WIN-WIN.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@mitcheast So did you sell it used when you were done with it?
weavermama 4 days ago
Milton is a beast though. The question comes down to information.
QCREIGN 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But what Michael moore is talking about is absolutely valid. Would you agree if you or your family member was one of those 200? Would you pay an extra 13 dollars?
QCREIGN 4 days ago
But what Michael moore is talking about is absolutely valid. Would you agree if you or your family member was one of those 200? Would you pay an extra 13 dollars?
QCREIGN 4 days ago
Milton Friedman got schooled.. his rebuttal is complete spin.
ricebiscuit 4 days ago
@ricebiscuit Friedman makes the kid look like a uneducated fool (and that's even without knowing that the Ford story he is presenting was completely bogus).
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
"people should be free to decide how much money they are willing to pay to decrease the chances of their death." Are people free to decide how much money they have to,"decrease the chances of their death"? Choosing dangerous activities, or behaving in a way that endangers your life has nothing to do with money.
healdogtoe2c 4 days ago
@healdogtoe2c Have in mind that money is only a measure of "utility". Whenever someone talks about costs and benefits its really in utility and not in money. In other words - how much utility/joy are we willing to sacrifice in order to get a safer car?
mr82769 4 days ago
@healdogtoe2c Sure it does. Regardless of whether you choose to buy a safer car or not or if a county puts up a stop sign or stop light - the issues of danger and cost are distinctly intertwined.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
"I am a supporter of abortion therefore I don't believe every human life a sacred." Evil but honest.
DiNatalli 4 days ago
@DiNatalli Bullshit dude. Bullshit. You dont believe that every human life is sacred either. You might say so. But you dont truly believe it. If you did you wouldnt sit on youtube.
mr82769 4 days ago
If this is Michael Moore, he is one the most admirable humans i've seen in a while for arguing with a man widely regarded as the standard bearer of Capitalizim in such a fashion. Great Job. Frediman was squirming in his seat trying to spin the question.
Great video.
Anastrodamus 4 days ago
@Anastrodamus Squirming in his seat? I saw nothing of the sort.
fatalcoolfatalcool 4 days ago
@fatalcoolfatalcool That's right you wouldn't.
Anastrodamus 4 days ago
@Anastrodamus Gas was $1.89 when he took office. It's now approaching $5. His agenda of bringing the US down is making me squirm in my seat! And I am a Democrat. Can't you see what's happening?
fatalcoolfatalcool 4 days ago
@fatalcoolfatalcool Gas price was 1.89 because we were in a deep recession. It was up to $4 during the previous 6 months. So if you want to start quoting numbers quote them with context. Please.
Anastrodamus 3 days ago
@Anastrodamus What video did you watch? Even without knowing that the case the kid was presenting was false, Friedamn scored an obvious KO before the end of the first round.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom what was wrong with what the kid was saying? Please indulge.
Anastrodamus 3 days ago
@Anastrodamus In what respect? He is wrong on the circuimstance as the "Ford knew" myth put out by Mother Jones has been debunked. He is wrong in that Ford is the one who decided to put a protective piece in the design (not to exclude one). He is wrong in that he can't grasp the issue of the relative costs vs, safety benefits made by Friedman. How much farther shall I go?
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FletchforFreedom "He is wrong in that he can't grasp the issue of the relative costs vs, safety benefits made by Friedman. How much farther shall I go?"
No one can "be wrong" for not knowing a concept. One might be wrong if making statement contradicting facts.
In return knowing a concept doesn´t prove anyone to be right, unless that concept is true.
But claiming to know "truth" is just bloated, narcisstic sophism imo...
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Not at all, guy. Its actually well known fact that American Companies, were cutting cost everywhich way they could. This is documented fact. Not a myth. Even as a consumer, I've noticed the lack of vision and short cuts taken by Ford and Ilk.. especially in the 70's and 80s/ There is nothing he said that leads me to believe he was citing was "debunked". Its widely accepted. I don't know where u are getting your facts from. .
Anastrodamus 2 days ago
@Anastrodamus Yes, at all. That companies cut costs to become more efficient doesn't undermine ANYTHING I said. The kid was regurgitating a Mother Jones article that claimed Ford did this, but it was debunked. The "smoking gun" memo used to "prove" Ford's behavior actually had nothing to do with the Pinto. And it has been demonstrated that the Pinto was no less safe than any other comparable car on the market. Your opinions about "lack of vision" and waht is "widely accepted" don't hold up.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom COmpanies become more efficient??? at what cost? Thats what he is trying to comprehend. Freidman had no answer. He expertly tried to throw the kid off topic. But the kid's question is a valid one. And as far as your claim of of "debunk"-ing of the article.. Mother Jones was not even mentioned here and you are the one who mentioned it. You just assumed he sourced Mother Jones. Listen to the first sentence of Freidman's answer and start from there.
Anastrodamus 1 day ago
@Anastrodamus Companies become more efficient ... without cost. That's just it. The kid's question was based ENTIRELY on the only source to have made the claim - Mother Jones. They took a response requested by the NTSB on the hypothetical trade-offs beween cost and safety that had NOTHING to do with the Pinto and called it the "smoking gun". Subsequent statistics demonstrated that the Pinto was no less safe than any other car.
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
@Anastrodamus Friedman, without specifics on the case, took the position that nothing is cost free - that the decision to make something safer has a cost and these decisions are (and must be) made all the time. When your local authority decides to put in stop signs instead of stoplights, he knows that he is statistically condemning some people to death in order to save resources. It is simple reality.
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
Comment removed
SuperRightShoe 4 days ago
Thumbs up if you see Friedman's middle finger up.
leonboy332 4 days ago
This is not a matter of producing 100% safe cars. The point Mr. Moore is making is that competition in the market can induce industry to endanger human life for the sake of profit. Ford went ahead after putting a price tag on he lives lost due to the design flaw they were embracing. And we all know Mr. Freidman smoked during a time when the industry was keeping secret the deadly effects of tobacco on the human body.
healdogtoe2c 5 days ago
@healdogtoe2c Actually, the story has been long debunked. Ford made the decision not to make the car safer than it did (a level of safety comparable to other cars in the same marketplace).
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@healdogtoe2c When Ford learned of the potential problem, AFTER its manufacture, it added a plastic pice voluntarily. And the risks of smoking have been well known since before the Civil War.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
The guy uses emotional appeal by describing vividly a source of risk in a cheap car . In fact, there are many other, even greater, risks found in cheap cars produced during the 70s. Friedman is right. Even by today's standards no one can produce 100% safe cars that are affordable to everyone..
themeettrees 5 days ago
One critical point Friedman tactfully evaded here is that of information asymmetry. He is right about him finding many people's decision making mechanism illogical. But for the most part this irrationality arises not because of any inherent suicidal tendency, but because of ignorance; under a context where even the most educated finds it hard to stay abreast of all information. The question is how do you prevent people from exploiting that ignorance: courts of law? not too reassuring!
firefumedale 5 days ago
@firefumedale Information is a commodity like any other. Absent governmnet intervention market mechanisms have repeatedly arisen to inform the consumer about the choices available to him.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Yes, information is a commodity.The problem is, the purchased information helps a consumer in making an informed decision in purchasing a commodity. But the consumer would need to 'purchase' the information first. What would help him/her make an informed decision there? Common sense? Intelligence? education? Common sense is not sufficient. Education is a commodity. While the tools needed to cultivate intelligence are mostly commodities ...even experience.
firefumedale 12 hours ago
Frmadman is wrong
shahsn1 5 days ago
Hmm, this video has given me a lot to mull over. NOT! Seriously, the only thing I got out of this video was, "How the fuck is Ford still in business?"
jsmith224455 5 days ago
@jsmith224455 downsized bulit better cars & didnt take a gov bailout. the better question is how GM is still in business as they still owe tax payers billlions.
fendergibs 5 days ago
@trublu97 correction to my statement: ford didn't conceal that information, so never mind about that part.
KWtones 5 days ago
@trublu97 The greatest killer of mankind is unchecked power weather it comes in the form of a corporation or a government, that is why our 'model of government' (notice I didn't say our current government, but the model itself) is a good model as it seeks to check power. If an agency were created to force corporations like Ford to release information such as the 4,000 lives/year lost bit, there would be consent and then it would just be a choice. Govt should balance power, including its own.
KWtones 5 days ago
Stupid sheep- the government is the greatest killer of mankind. It's is about the only thing the gov does efficiently. That and waste money.
So, the very institution that kills the most people and can't manage a one float parade, I want to be the arbiter of safety?
trublu97 5 days ago
Mr. Friedman, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
yoyo420timesinfinity 6 days ago
@yoyo420timesinfinity Stop plagiarizing without attribution.
BoSoxnation1972 5 days ago
@yoyo420timesinfinity It's Dr. Friedman, noobcake, and he made more sense in that short vid than you'll probably make in your entire life of requoting stupid Adam Sandler movies.
jackpics 5 days ago
Looked it up on Wikipedia
There were "27 deaths" from the defect of the Ford Pinto, and "in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no recallable problem".
100,000 were sold just the 1st year. Just using the 1st year of the 10 years it was produced, that is 27/100,000 or 0.027% chance of dying. Likely, 0.0027% would be a generous estimate for the 8 years it had this defect.
This car cost $2,000. With inflation calculations, $13 is at least $50 today. $50 for 0.0027% risk. Not many would pay
brendanmcwilliams 6 days ago
Friedman is a genius with numbers, but he is a moron when it comes to people.
He brings up "principle" of having a $200,000 increase in price to "save lives" when that is not what the question is about at all. Yes, we COULD make all cars out of NASA grade titanium, but that is not what the question is about. Its a measly $13 dollars (that 99% of people would likely be willing to pay for the added safety) but instead Ford chose to hide the safety information death risks in order to obtain $
Subie1337 6 days ago
@Subie1337
He already covered this. Courts of law are in place and if Ford "hid" the information, they can be sued for hundreds of millions.
brendanmcwilliams 6 days ago
@Subie1337
And no. People wouldn't be willing to pay $13 more. To argue with the intellectual big boys, you would need to convert that $13 with inflation, which would be around $50 today
brendanmcwilliams 6 days ago
@Subie1337
And like he said, most people would not pay it. It is the same reason people use mopeds or motorcycles to save gas, or skimp on health insurance, or drive "smart cars" vs SUVs.
brendanmcwilliams 6 days ago
@Subie1337
And lastly, if a dealer said you could pay $50 ($13 after inflation) today to avoid a 0.5% chance of a component failing, most still would risk it.
brendanmcwilliams 6 days ago
@Subie1337 Yes and we already have a system in place called "courts" that could be used to sue Ford for millions if they did try to hide anything. This argument makes no sense Ford knew that not adding that plastic block could endanger more lives... well Harley Davidson knows that riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving an SUV should the government put a stop to that too or is that different.
J3rEmY17 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Subie1337 Yes and we already have a system in place called "courts" that could be used to sue Ford for millions if they did try to hide anything. This argument makes no sense Ford knew that not adding that plastic block could endanger more lives... well Harley Davidson knows that riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving an SUV should the government put a stop to that too or is that different.
J3rEmY17 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Subie1337 Yes and we already have a system in place called "courts" that could be used to sue Ford for millions if they did try to hide anything. This argument makes no sense Ford knew that not adding that plastic block could endanger more lives... well Harley Davidson knows that riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving an SUV should the government put a stop to that too or is that different.
J3rEmY17 4 days ago
This kid is contradicting himself and is hypocritical. He argues based on "principle" that Ford failed in their social responsibility in manufacturing a vehicle that cause the death of two hundred peple but then ignores "principle" about the abortion issue.
gmccord1970 6 days ago
And when socialists argue about deaths caused by the private sector, they ignore how many people died at the hands of government in the last century alone: two world wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the near 100 American interventions, communist invasions, assassinations, bombings etc.
Bastiat90 6 days ago
What a scumbag Friedman is. Forget these dead people here, let's escape to the abstract, let's talk about "principles".
DawudSchlemiel 6 days ago
Its clear that milton friedmon is a sociopath, he didn't understand the question of morality that was being asked.
habadashery2009 6 days ago
@habadashery2009 Very perceptive of you! And I'm not being sarcastic. He is most definitely a sociopath
sandwichtaster 6 days ago
@sandwichtaster most people who are wallstreet bankers like him are sociopaths becuase they have to commit what is called economic violence. They force people to lose money, lose their homes, starve, and cuase wars and genocide just so that they can make more money.
habadashery2009 6 days ago
@sandwichtaster @habadashery2009 let me ask you this..do you guys donate to charity? Do you volunteer to help the homeless, work at soup kitchens..etc? if not..then you don't have a right to call anyone else a sociopath..why didn't you call Moore a sociopath for saying that a unborn life is not important?
ubermisogynist 6 days ago
@ubermisogynist Because it is a psychiatric diagnosis and not a synonym for "rude man". Superficial glibness and charm, lack of empathy, etc. Look it up please.
sandwichtaster 5 days ago
@ubermisogynist Unborn lives are not important. It's unborn. not born. not alive. period. it's a parasitic organism not an independent being.
sandwichtaster 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sandwichtaster "Unborn lives are not important. It's unborn. not born. not alive. period. it's a parasitic organism not an independent being.
Lol, and you´re 100% sure that everyone would subscibe to that opinion?
TheHomoludens 5 days ago
@habadashery2009 @Subie1337 he does actually..do you own or did you own a PS2 or any producys from Sony, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Nokia, Intel Lucent, Motorola, Ericsson, Siemens, Intel, Hitachi, IBM? if so look up COLTAN..and tell me if all those lives were worth giving you entertaiment..see it's not so simple
ubermisogynist 6 days ago
@habadashery2009 probably, but many sociopaths are sucessful in business
colecionar 5 days ago
@colecionar I´d rather say, to be really successful in any business you have to be "sociopathic" to some degree.
No morality implied...
TheHomoludens 5 days ago
@TheHomoludens that's for sure
colecionar 2 days ago
milton friedman was maniac period.
EisEisBaby 6 days ago
People were unaware of this problem when they purchased their Pintos. It was when it came to light that they exploded on contact that killed the Pinto brand.
bdc1960 6 days ago
And now he's splitting millions with the Weinstein bros. on a 9-11 movie. Well done, lad. Get that money.
biozamadotcom 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nikola Tesla, physicist, inventor, and electrical engineer :
"Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it. All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life."
The tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density. It was defined in 1960 in honor of the inventor, physicist, and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla
Unfortunately his way of thinking is the exception from the rule.
SuperThe86 6 days ago
The kids response put Friedman in his place, logically. I don't know what you guys heard here.
bahramf 6 days ago
Friedman's example was ludicrous, and fallacious. Slippery slope fallacy, among others.
SiriusMined 6 days ago
How did he put him in his place?
Ford could have passed the $13 dollar cost along, and no one would have noticed, and fewer people would have died.
SiriusMined 6 days ago
Freedman is a profiteer.
The kid is a hypocrite (he talks about safety but all human life is not sacred).
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings (robotic voice). Roll out........
TheEKastrioti 6 days ago
If the cost of making the cars safe for use had been $200,000,000, then the appropriate course of action would have been to scrap the design and go back to the drawing board.
The bottom line is that Ford knowingly put lives in mortal danger for the sake of profit. In this case, Friedman was wrong.
On the other hand, if Ford had told the general public about the risk, and the public had accepted that risk and purchased the cars anyhow, Ford would be absolved of any blame.
That didn't happen.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
fuck anyone who buys into this shit
all of it is bull
Uhavebeenfrimponged 1 week ago
free market logic is there but although moore didn't argue it well enough, it displays one of the most fundamental flaws in the market system.Friedman argues that you pay a price to reduce risk, which is true. But one of the basic determinations of the relationship of supply and demand is information, or in this instance, misinformation.Perhaps any consumer aware of this procedure would pay 13 dollars extra to reduce the risk. But without information they are not free to make that choice
ElBank2012 1 week ago