🚀 go-pugleaf

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:TIN9g.397$z97.19087@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> > The problem is that in any business environment "cheaper" can mean
>> > "superior".
>>
>>
>>
>> It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on your
>> unlimited wealth.
>
> Are you advocating the idea that we should use a substance known to cause
> more deaths than another slightly more expensive substance simply because
> the first one is cheaper?


Yes.



>  Which in the housing market would mean that the
> builder gets to make more profit?


Well, no.  Actually houses get cheaper.  All industries in an economy have 
the same expected profit.  If they didn't investment would leave low profit 
industries and enter high profit ones until they did.  So house builders as 
a class can't have higher expected profits, competition will bid them down 
to the average for the economy.



>> Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to be
> less
>> than totally honest.
>
> But if the lawsuits pass, wouldn't both sides be able to present their own
> "less than totally honest" statements, and the judges determine that the
> weight of evidence is on the side against the companies?



<snicker....

Right...




>> > If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to build
> a
>> > house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you
> have?
>>
>>
>> It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a
> huge
>> pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would ever
> die
>> of anything else.
>
> This has nothing to do with what was discussed above



It has *everything* to do with this discussion.  You *cannot* honestly 
simultaneously argue that it presents an unreasonably high risk, AND that 
there are not a lot of casualties from it after it was so widely used for so 
long.

Either it is dangerous and there are a lot of dead bodies, or there are not 
a lot of dead bodies so it is not dangerous.

Pick ONE.



 ... which was how much
> choice you had to live in an asbestos-free home.  This is more limited 
> than
> you asserted.


You have absolute choice.  No one is going to force you to buy a home at 
gunpoint.