I stand somewhat corrected. Why, though, did he appear to defend Ford's mathematical conclusion, since I do not recall Pinto owners being aware of any such defect before they started blowing up? Also, while the courts should be available to victims for compensation, that should certainly not be the first line of defense for unwitting consumers. We can agree there, right?
I cant speak for Friedman, but I believe he defended Ford's math because their final conclusion was not relevant. Ford like any other manufacturing entity is subject to the triple constraint of fast/good/cheap. Whether people are aware of it or not, every decision is made within these confines. The important thing is that if something has been made less safe to cut costs, the consumer has a right to know this which is a point that Friedman was supporting and actually what he called the arguable point as opposed to the issue of saving $13. Every car we buy has cost savings that have made the car less safe - if not we would all be driving tanks that cost 40 million dollars and even then they would have cost savings built in that reduced their safety. -burn8
But not necessarily known to be potentially dangerously defective under reasonably normal user conditions. There's a difference, and I think we should make that distinction.