Posted on 05/30/2002 2:21:35 PM PDT by Ms. AntiFeminazi
Regards from a nasty old mine in South America
Cuttnhorse
This was indeed a great event and my thanks to everyone, especially Ms. AntiFeminazi for excellent work!
Correct. You do not understand the motivational architecture.
That is not what I said. The design flaws of the Pinto and the Firestone 500 tire both killed people and when management learned of it they COVERED IT UP AND STONEWALLED THE FEDS. That's obstruction of justice, fraud, and criminal negligence. Nobody went to jail.
You won't get far with me pretending that the current system works while you are throwing hypothetical bombs at mine without understanding it. I said we intend to replace the system where we can PROVE that we can do a better job and the system design assures collection of data that make that case. Nothing is perfectly determined, that is why motivational systems work better than coercion and oversight.
Read the book. It's well worth your time.
You won't get far with me pretending that the current system works while you are throwing hypothetical bombs at mine without understanding it.Not what I was doing. What I was asserting was, that based on what I had read so far, the proposal would remove whatever little deterrence is in the current (admittedly flawed) system.
However, let's take the parallels further. There were design flaws (accidental, almost certainly). Then there was an action which resulted in harm, namely that the flaw was concealed. In my hypothetical, there was an action that resulted in harm (namely, some illegal dumping).
But we can go back to the Firestone and Pinto examples. This may be a good way to drum up interest in your book. How would your system have handled them precisely? How would it have avoided a coverup? How would it have caused an adverse condition to a group of individuals deciding to cover up some damaging facts or actions?
By preventing the coverup and additional losses because the manufacturer would have MOTIVE not to do so. Good systems prevent problems.
How would it have avoided a coverup?
Remember that the certifier has access to audit. If the cases continue to mount, it costs them.
How would it have caused an adverse condition to a group of individuals deciding to cover up some damaging facts or actions?
Their premiums go up because they are a high risk. The criminal penalties remain in force. This is about getting rid of the DOT, not the DOJ.
By preventing the coverup and additional losses because the manufacturer would have MOTIVE not to do so.How would it have prevented the coverup? I am having a hard time seeing that.
Company X has a car that is selling well. Re-engineering it would be prohibitively expensive for the next generation, and revealing the problem would cause people to want their current model to be fixed. It would harm the marketing of other models, since people would rightfully be concerned about the quality control at Company X.
To me, I still see a motive to coverup. What two differences I see are conflicting in their effect: 1)the governmental penalties may be less (which works towards diminishing the motive to cover up) and 2) the liklihood of any coverup being discovered and successfully brought to full public knowledge without the resources of government to force it decreases (which works towards increasing the liklihood of coverup).
Good systems prevent problems.Possibly true. I think a more accurate statement is "good systems are characterized by a minimum of problems as measured by number and scale".
Remember that the certifier has access to audit. If the cases continue to mount, it costs them.You don't think it would become likely that the same sort of destructive, conflict-of-interest laden, relationships would develop between the certifier and the producers as happened between Enron and Andersen?
Not if they successfully do cover it up. Avoidance of costs is a motive to cover up, and premiums are a cost.How would it have caused an adverse condition to a group of individuals deciding to cover up some damaging facts or actions?Their premiums go up because they are a high risk.
The criminal penalties remain in force. This is about getting rid of the DOT, not the DOJ.It may be on this that I am misunderstanding the proposal. What would the role of the DOJ be (summary, I am not asking you to give away the book)?
I just know I'm forgetting something. Will that feeling ever go away? lolololol.
Angelwood, I didn't get any pictures of basil. She doesn't stand still long enough to snap a shot. Well, I did get one and I think it's posted above, but I'm not going to point it out because she's fleeing the scene and came out a little blurry and a lot wide. lololololol.
basil, we'll talk either this weekend or next week sometime? I was just too tired last night. I enjoyed spending time with you this week, as I always do.
Again, both Andersen and and Enron got preferential allowances out of the SEC that violated the rational principles of control system design. The reason those conflicts of interest existed is because they could buy preferential treatment from Bubba for cheaper than the insurance premiums for a settlement. If for example, the SEC had to cough up the dough if either Enron or Andersen failed, you can bloody well bet that they would have done more to prevent the problem. Becuase they are a monopoly and can pass that liability onto voters, they do not behave rationally. There is no accountability in civic regulation and I defy you to cite a Congressman or Senator who lost his job over this case. Indeed, Bush is being blamed instead, which cuts precisely to the evil of democratic control of property.
In the case of Ford or Firestone, both products were tested to DOT standards. That protected the manufacturers from the economic need to to develop better preventative testing and limited the degree of culpable neglegence. Compliance was all that was necessary and limited the liability of both companies. I contend that the trial lawyers are enough to put the fear of God into any company.
The biggest flaw (if you could call it that) in my proposal is the existing system of torts and insurance regulation. They both distort the motive to manage and reduce risk objectively. What you observe in the marketplace is manifestation of those distortions in part caused by civic intervention. I made the early decision that it is impossible to design a just system around an injustice. It is better to make the consequences of injustice more visible so that the problem gets fixed. That is a political problem and, yes, we do need legislation there.
I propose NO changes in congressional legislation, indeed, my intent is to use environmental law agains the government and its colluding environmental NGOs. It is the unconstitutional rulemaking process I am attacking where the power to draft, adminster, enforce, and judge are combined into a single agency. That violation of the separation of powers principle is the essence of a police state, the continuation of which is what you have said you prefer.
No thank you. As I said, I am not an anarchist. The democratic tyranny of civic control of property in response to the whims of media is doing more to lead us into anarchy than anything I propose. You do not understand enough of the antithesis in the book to see it.
I am not going to answer any more of these hypotheticals (I don't have the time). If you want to know more, buy a book and read it.
YAAAAAAHHOOOOOOOOO it sounds like another successful and organized freep. Thanks for all you do. This mock trial sounds downright scary. This is socialism right in our faces. Basil the report of the woman with the 2yr old was most depressing. These people need to move to another country just for a month and they would see how beautiful and free the United States of America truly is.
Unfortunately this is the first I had heard about it. This last week of school for my kids keeps me busier than my kids, and off the puter for any lenghth of time.
Again I salute and thank you for all your successful efforts.
. If for example, the SEC had to cough up the dough if either Enron or Andersen failed, you can bloody well bet that they would have done more to prevent the problemAndersen's very existence may have hinged on them preventing the problem. It didn't make them.
And a corporation can only cough up the dough they have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.