Hacker News Reader

Comment by 001sky | Hacker News Reader

no, its like saying "caveat emptor"

http://rockyroadblog.com/caveat-emptor-vetting-mpg-claims-30...

Sorry, that BS. Nobody wants to conduct a research experiment every-time they purchase splenda to see if it might give them cancer in 10 years. It is impossible to live life that way. Social guarantees that your water supply does not contain poison, and that the car you purchase doesn't not fall apart and kill you at 45 mph when it worked fine at 20mph when you did the test drive, are and should be expected. Just because cheating is widespread does not make it your fault for not knowing it.

nobody wants to read website TOS either, but that's not how the world or the law work. there is a line between 'street smarts' and blind faith in people you don't know telling you stuff. 2x4's are not 2x4...that's something everyone probably should know...similarly, EPA fuel mileage is not accurate...and never has been...its not anyone's fault that everything in the world is not "literally" true

The same transaction costs argument for regulatory disclosure apply to the quality of such disclosure as well. Ever try reading nutritional labels? It goes on and on...has very little to do with one particular instance.

That being said, a auto is a capital good and a substantial purchase and investing some time to understand the buying process is both economic and sensible. so in this case the faux shock/outrage seems particularly misplaced...as the arguments for ignorance are weak indeed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com