HackerTubewatch
Surprise me
Frame from Milton Friedman justifies not recalling the ford pinto Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed

Milton Friedman justifies not recalling the ford pinto

RepublicansSuckDlCK
Commentary
YouTube
1 HN user recommended this commentary1 month2015–2019 score 1
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026

HN uses it as an example of cost-benefit reasoning about product safety in threads on recalls, security spending and Boeing.

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.

“There is an entertaining video of Milton Friedman discussing the same issues with an audience member” (HN, 2015)

1 recommendations · 2 citations · 1 critical · Commentary

4 Hacker News comments

From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.

@baddox Apr 2015 Recommends
on HN thread The Engineer’s Lament
There is an entertaining video of Milton Friedman discussing the same issues with an audience member: [this video]
Friedman debates safety trade-offs with an audience member.

Citations, criticism and jokes

@wsc981 Sep 2016 Cites it
on HN thread 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]
Friedman discussion related to recall cost calculation.
@75dvtwin Mar 2019 Pushes back
on HN thread Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as Extras
Read more
>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 safety features, on a car, a bus, or plane should be purchased by the drivers/operators. Drivers, should not be expected to make these choices, either. My thinking here, is that An optionality in safety device, should change the whole major (not minor) vehicle model number designation, for example. This would drive different visible profiles: different training, cost, marketing and so on.

Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search
j k
Next / previous video
r
Surprise me
l
Like (video page)
w
Watch later (video page)
?
This help
Esc
Close