🚀 go-pugleaf

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yHY9g.17992$QP4.1283@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:TIN9g.397$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.

This kind of loses you the high ground in the DDT debate, since you admitted
above that you'd advocate using asbestos even though it kills more people
than another material simply because it's cheaper.

>
>
>
> >  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.

Um, you are talking about "publically traded companies", which are the only
ones that actually officially take "investment".  Private companies -- as
many home builders are -- get to keep the profit for themselves.

Besides, this isn't true.  During the high tech boom Internet companies that
made no profits had hugely high share prices, whereas the telecom company I
worked for lost share price when we made millions of dollars of profits but
that weren't as high as people would like.

>
>
>
> >> 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...

Who do you expect to have better lawyers: corporations, or poor saps who
happen to live in the houses they built?

>
>
>
>
> >> > 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.

But the claim here is about how easy it is for people VULNERABLE TO ASBESTOS
to find a house that doesn't use it if all houses use it.  So as I said,
this has nothing to do with that.  One death would count as equally as a
million FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.


>  ... 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.

Unless you build your house, you do not get to control whether asbestos is
used in it or not.  As I said above, good luck in the Western world finding
land close enough to where you work if you work in anything "citified".