Milton Friedman justifies not recalling the ford pinto
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN uses it as an example of cost-benefit reasoning about product safety in threads on recalls, security spending and Boeing.
What it is
A clip of Milton Friedman answering an audience member about Ford's decision not to recall the Pinto, in which he defends weighing safety costs against benefits. The uploader's framing is strongly hostile to Friedman.
Recommended by 1 HN commenters across 1 different months, 2015 to 2019.
What Hacker News said
Recommends baddox · 2015-04 · on “The Engineer’s Lament”
There is an entertaining video of Milton Friedman discussing the same issues with an audience member: [this video]
Cites wsc981 · 2016-09 · on “Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insiders Say”
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. The example reminds me of this discussion[0] between Milton Friedman and a student. [0]: [this video]
Cites randyrand · 2017-08 · on “Uber Knowingly Leased Unsafe Cars to Drivers”
Reminds me of this video from the 70s/80s about Ford knowingly distributing an unsafe car - "Milton Friedman on Ford not recalling the ford pinto" [this video]
Critical 75dvtwin · 2019-03 · on “Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as Extras”
>consumer shopping for a car can decide how much safety they want to pay for I have seen this argument before, by a Nobel Memorial prize in economics, Milton Friedman. [1] [this video] Overall he said, that it is not possible, as a principle, to put 'infinite' economic value into individual life. -- Perhaps the argument can be made, that in a different situation the 'other data' pilots were to use, would increase safety. -- Either way, I think there is something wrong with Friedman's argument. 'Optionality' -- when related to safety features, should be treated very different, than optionality in, say, comfort features. Passengers themselves should not be expected to make choices which optional sa