Just a minor oversight
Posted by aogWednesday, 02 June 2010 at 13:56 TrackBack Ping URL
A classic window into the liberal mind was provided by this recent NY Times correction of a Freudian editing error:
Because of an editing error, an article on Tuesday about the top 10 choking hazards for children omitted some steps to take if a child is choking and seems unable to cough out the obstruction. Besides having someone call 911, the health authorities recommend acting quickly to remove the object.

Just One Minute

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Harry Eagar Thursday, 03 June 2010 at 12:23

It would make as much sense — more, even — to propose that a classical insight into the conservative mind was the substitution of cadmium for lead in children’s toys by Wal-Mart, because, after all, who cares if children get sick so long as there is money to be made?

erp Thursday, 03 June 2010 at 13:23

Since when have Republicans gotten into the nanny act?

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 03 June 2010 at 13:33

who cares if children get sick so long as there is money to be made?

The parents?

erp Thursday, 03 June 2010 at 14:29

aog - in the nanny state, parents just get in the way.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 03 June 2010 at 15:47

‘The parents?’

Probably. Not the market, in any case.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 03 June 2010 at 16:14

The parents are part of the market.

Bret Friday, 04 June 2010 at 00:03

A rather important part too given that they control the expenditures.

Harry Eagar Friday, 04 June 2010 at 12:43

Few of them, however, will take money to make their children sick.

We know, from Smith’s famous disquisition on breakfast, that the perfectly operating market expends no effort on enhancing, or even preserving, the life and health of its customers; but you might suppose that there would be some incentive not to actively kill the customers. Open your paper any day and learn that this isn’t so.

Wal-Mart and cadmium is the perfect example. Society tells the market — we don’t want you to poison children with lead just to make a few coppers. Wal-Mart says — well, society didn’t explicitly say it didn’t want us to poison children with cadmium, so there’s nothing wrong with that. Onward!

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 04 June 2010 at 13:04

that the perfectly operating market expends no effort on enhancing, or even preserving, the life and health of its customers

Completely false. The moral case for the market is that it, better than any other known economic system, provides the mechanisms for people to do exactly that. You write about Walmart and its failures, but I could counter that with the tales of how governments do worse every day. You can’t read that in the newspapers because they don’t like to report it (see Duranty, New York Times). But if you open up your information channels you can discover it. One need only look at the environmental problems in the more market oriented West vs. the Soviet Block.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 05 June 2010 at 00:21

I didn’t mention it, but as I was typing in the previous comment, the radio was on and reporting that McDonald’s also is poisoning children with cadmium.

As you know, I believe business management averages out only a little over moron, but stupidity cannot explain everything. In some cases, only malevolence seems to fit the case.

Besides, I am open to other channels of information. Just finished Markopolos’s book. You should read it.

Post a comment