Comment by KaiserPro | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KaiserPro | Hacker News Reader

I know its not fashionable, but things like asbestos is the point of regulation.

If you ignore the health effects, asbestos is a fucking brilliant material, strong(if used with a binder) exceptionally fireproof, UV stable and fairly inert.

Why _wouldn't_ you use it? To use modern parlance; only melts wouldn't use it, thats who (this message brought to you by your friendly corporate sponsor...)

The problem is that it still kills now[1]. Because its a time bomb, with a dwell time of well over 10-20 years, its very lard to pin point the cause.

The only way that its _stopped_ being put into building materials is through regulation. The problem now for us, especailly in the UK is the power of regulation is being ablated through incompetence, funding cuts and a concerted effort by those who stand to benefit from a weakened regulatory system.

Most regulation is formed from the blood of victims. We may not _like_ what the regulation is, and lord knows it needs improving. But to not have it, or worst, have it and not be enforced, is a terrible state of affairs.

[1]https://neu.org.uk/latest/library/what-real-risk-asbestos-sc...

Luckily thanks to regulation the use of asbestos in new builds has almost completely been eliminated (I'm sure there are some uses somewhere where it's indispensable?), but there's of course a huge number of places where it turns up in all kinds of renovation projects.

In addition to buildings, e.g. ships. Think about a steamship, what material that is fireproof and doesn't rot do you think they used for insulating boilers and steam pipes? One museum ship I'm somewhat familiar with ripped out all the asbestos insulation and replaced it with IIRC mostly mineral or glass wool during a major renovation some years back, just to make it safer for the mostly volunteers who dedicate their time to keep the ship functioning.

Ships, especially navy ships, have lead to lots of mesothelioma cases in later life.

Ships and other industrial applications were where the most dangerous blue asbestos was most common.

Our business leaders have successfully painted shortsightedness, greed, and nihilism as beneficial business traits embraced by adults willing to accept life’s difficult realities.

In reality, only personal and group morality protected our society from such forces, and letting ethics retard profit and growth became seriously uncool in the 80s hippie backlash.

Would you buy a product with asbestos in if it wasn't regulated against? (Assuming we removed all similar regulation so the lack of regulation does not its self imply safety.)

Of course you wouldn't.

We have journalists to uncover dangers like this; they are clearly financially incentivised to do so. We have courts to assess damages. We don't need government regulation.

Such a common trope that "the heartless capitalist doesn't care about harming customers so we need the government to save us". Of course the capitalist cares about harming customers, she needs to sell to them (and their competitors product will be much more successful if it is not harmful!).

And, in either case, regulation or free market will only save us if there are viable alternatives. Fossil fuels still kill people, but we don't regulate against it because there is currently no viable alternative.

Would you buy a product with asbestos in it if its presence wasn't disclosed? You might, if it provided value vs alternatives.

Manufacturers are successuful when they sell. If their product is found dangerous they a) deny and muddy the waters, b) settle lawsuits and if that doesn't work c) close up shop and open a new business. Customer unwelfare is a cost of business.

Asbestos is hard to hide, certainly competitors of the Asbestos-using company would know they were using Asbestos. They, at least, would have an incentive to advertise how bad their competitors product is because it uses Asbestos.

Equally, once it has been established that Asbestos is harmful any company using it would be so sued that they would quickly cease to exist.

Yes the free market doesn't stop health risks immediately but neither does regulation (see: asbestos!)

Both regulation and an actually healthy free market are important.

Both have pros and cons

Regulation sucks at directing productions of goods and setting prices, distributing these tasks to the people generally works better.

The free market is unstable though, its actors ever trying to gain advantage and squash competition. Profit first driven people too often push harm to humans as out of mind and externalized.

This is where regulation is needed. (read as: we the people need rules to protect what we deem important, including our health and having a well-functioning society, profits be damned)

>currently no viable alternative

So false.

Would you tell people your product has asbestos in it, if it wasn’t regulated that you had to? Of course you wouldn’t. And then, apparently, you would blame your customer for buying it.

I don't know if this comment is one of ignorance, or juvenile "well actually", but it is tragically misinformed. From an Australian perspective all of the big players, CSR, John Mansviille, & James Hardy, knew asbestos was a significant hazard by _at least_ the 40s. There were early epidemiological studies of cancers around asbestos work sites, and workers, in the 50s here in NSW. Unions and gov health departments start to push back on exposure and seek meaningful damages in the 60s and 70s. There were _public_ campaigns about the dangers in the 70s and 80s. It wasnt meaningfully restricted, _and continued to be commonly used_, through the 80s. A complete ban, primarily workplaces IIRC, wasnt introduced until 2003. The randian wank fantasy of "the informed consumer knows best" has been repudiated innumerable times.

And, as others have pointed out, this is not an individual choice. The families who got asbestosis from washing their fathers work clothes didnt make a choice. The bloom of cancers for residential suburbs miles around james hardy in camellia didnt have a choice. There is no expiration date on the dangers of friable asbestos. It remains hidden in the common environment forever, until someone else stumbles on it.

> Of course the capitalist cares about harming customers, she needs to sell to them

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

Internal memos from 1970s - 2000s reveal knowledge of asbestos traces. Executives, better known as caring capitalists, resisted disclosure.

In case you think this isn’t a pattern: Purdue and Oxy, General Motors and their ignitions switches, DuPont and “confirmed animal carcinogen” Teflon, Philip Morris’ cigarette campaigns, VWs dieselgate…

Each of them found to be suppressing knowledge knowingly harming consumers.

Yes of course it is in their interest to lie / hide until it becomes public knowledge. But regulation has the exact same problem (hence why Asbestos was not regulated for a long time, same with your other examples).

When it is widely known (and therefore can be regulated) it is already too late as it's now in the producers interest to cease producing it.

Heavy litigation after the fact can disincentivise the lying in the first place. If legislation doesn't not allow for this (e.g. because of time limitations) then it should be amended.

All successful markets in history have been regulated to some degree. A market requires sellers AND buyers and buyers will flock to a market where they're not burdened with the cost and expense of having to do their own research and investigation before even considering a purchase, never mind actually completing a trade.

Completely unregulated markets simply don't scale in terms of successful trading - the regulation replaces the work each buyer would have to do and thus is actually more efficient than having each buyer replicate the work of the regulator. This is why they have been out-competed by regulated markets in the course of history.

So have all unsuccessful markets. I think this says more about human power dynamics than the necessity of market regulation.

I don’t understand your point - there’s no symmetry there.

Regulated venues dominate nearly every sphere of trading in terms of volume.

They have done this by being more attractive to buyers and sellers than unregulated venues - i.e. regulated venues have out-competed unregulated venues.

In the market for trading venues, regulated venues have won.

> Fossil fuels still kill people, but we don't regulate against it

ULEZ, Euro 6, clean air act (both US and UK), there are more though.

You are correct, I meant regulate to ban them.

No doubt when electric cars become better in every way than fossil fuel cars, the government will create a regulation banning fossil fuel cars. Everyone will rejoice that the government stopped those horrible fossil-fuel burning cars! Of course, the vast majority of people would have switched to the electric cars at this point anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com