Discussion in 'Videos' started by seismicmike, Oct 25, 2015.
You sneaky SOB...
Hey it was relevant! The point applies both ways, honestly.
Playing without protection is always more fun
And safer... ban rubbers.
Really, I see the argument here in football. It's worth real research. Maybe down-grading the helmets could change things. Do Aussie football players ever wear the soccer helmets? I think I've seen rugby players wear them. Remove the hard shell and the facemask. The protection you really need is the forehead/crown and the back of the head right? Isn't the facemask really just protection from other players' helmets? I guess shoulder pads could do some damage to a face though.
As for the other points, like the seatbelts... no chance you're winning me over on that one.
I've only heard Moral Hazard discussed as an event where one party takes a risk because another party will bear the burden of the risk, not because they are ignorant to risk potential. It's been used as a liberal talking point in favor of financial sector regulation since the start of the recession... like Elizabeth Warren 101.
You joke, but given that there is a certain failure rate for condoms, there is a point to be made there. (not that I'm in favor of banning anything, mind you.)
Well, seat belts are actually the best case-in-point of that. Since I'm wearing a seat belt and have an air bag, I'm really safe. If I drive recklessly, then the other guy is more likely to get hurt....
To risk moving this in a political direction, the reasoning promoted by the video here is precisely the opposite: that government regulations are what create these false senses of security and cause bad behaviors (this was a major contributing factor in the 2008 financial meltdown)
The seat-belt study Prof Horwitz cites is a study on risk compensation or more specifically, the Peltzman effect. And that's really what Horwitz is talking about, not Moral Hazard. Moral Hazard addresses purposeful bad-faith, not subliminal over-confidence or false security. It's also an economic term that doesn't belong here. This is an intentional misuse of the term. You cannot use Moral Hazard as an argument for deregulation, you can use risk compensation. But if you can establish a warped definition outside of economics, you can then turn around and try to use it against Senator Warren.
And to that study on seat-belts, the Peltzman effect did raise the risk to pedestrians when seat-belt laws were introduced. What is commonly left out of the discussion is that the effect wanes over time. Pedestrian death rates have steadily dropped since the 1970s with upticks under rough economic times, and a sharp rise in adult male cyclist fatalities (all others dropped with normal pedestrian trends). This is easy enough to explain, the seat-belt is no longer seen as an added measure of safety. It's now a normal part of driving a 2,500lb death machine.
Separate names with a comma.