"john" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.


When it comes to toys, food, and drugs, the question is, if not the
government, then who? And if the answer is the manufacturers, the next
question is, since when? And if the answer to that is since now, because
we have a newfound willingness to let the markets determine even such
outcomes as the number of deaths we'll tolerate to expose a
manufacturer's irresponsibility and resulting bankrupcy, the question is,
whose deaths?

The fact is that we, as consumers, cannot evaluate the safety of many
products. And we have a very flexible scale when it comes to tolerating
deaths. For example, our magic number for deaths due to vehicle accidents
seems to be around 30,000 - 40,000/year.

The incentives for manufacturers to go beyond a minimum effort on safety
and inspection are slim. So we're getting about what market forces should
be expected to produce: dangerous intestinal bacteria in beef, for
example, and lead paint on toys.

This isn't a place where market forces are going to work. But, who knows,
maybe we'll tolerate 30,000 - 40,000 deaths per year from poorly
inspected food, too. And who knows that those kids wouldn't have lost
just as many IQ points from playing football without a helmet? It is
worth dismissing those problems as long as it keeps the free market as
pure as driven snow. Whatever they do in response to the forces of the
market is, by definition, the right thing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress

The ugly truth is that we are the ultimate factor in keeping ourselves
safe. If you are worried about losing some iq points from playing
football, simple answer is 'don't play football'.
IF you are worry about contaminated meat, don't eat meat or cook it
properly to kill the bugs.

Oh, good idea. Let's see...lettuce. Boil your lettuce. g Don't eat
spinach.

And dog food. Cripes, you can't even eat a dog anymore.

What's left? How about cats? 'Taste like chicken, I hear. Gunner would get
upset, however.

I'd prefer a market-based solution. If some company is shown to have lax
safety control on food products, take the CEO out and shoot him. Three or
four of those will re-adjust market incentives with no artificial government
distortions.

Drugs would remain a problem. Don't take drugs. In my case, that would mean
digging myself a hole and jumping in.

How about hiring more government inspectors? Nah, the government can't do
anything right. 'Better to just take our chances and let the market work it
out.

We're screwed. I'm digging out my old pressure cooker and I'll make sure
it's all cooked to mush, so we can keep the world safe for unfettered
markets.

As much as no one wants to admit it, there is a dollar value placed on all
human lives.

What do you suppose the price is to the meat packers? Would $50/each cover
it?

In reality the scales are very convoluted, in this last meat
contamination issue there were fewer ten people that died.
That's a little more than a bad day in Baghdad, or about two hours of
highway deaths.

Hey, that's a relief. Topps could have built a marketing campaign around
that. "Topps' Burgers -- Better For You Than a Bad Day in Baghdad."


If you see your kid chewing on toys you got to make sure that nothing is
coming off them, lead paint or non lead paint. Same goes for attachments
to the toys.

What if you don't see him chewing on them, but he does it anyway?


We could digress into banning tobacco products, alcohol and a number of
other items, but it up to the individual to make the decision to use or
not to use them.

Yup, we can't do anything about food packers who don't care if we live or
die, so let's stop eating food and let them run hog wild.

Or maybe we could get rational about inspecting meat and laying some heavy
penalties on those who don't comply? Maybe that would work.

--
Ed Huntress