Plus, you know, lots of people would have died who could have been saved by stricter building codes. I'd rather be alive than have a couple more percentage points of economic growth every year.
Plus, you know, lots of people would have died who could have been saved by stricter building codes. I'd rather be alive than have a couple more percentage points of economic growth every year.
That seems rather disingenuous to me. The real question is: would you pay more up front to reduce the risk of a catastrophe?
When the government mandates, you don't get to answer. It's a downside.
It's also an upside, as it avoids a social trap[1]. If companies can choose what they want, those that spend less will have a short-term advantage over those that spend more. If the government mandates a certain level of quality, then there's no competitive advantage to cutting corners (assuming the regulations are well enforced).