I know we're all trying to be moderate here, but I'm not very good at it:
1) It is irrational. The cost-benefits of aircraft safety make no sense. Planes are held to a standard that we don't hold buses and trains to. We should strive to make rational decisions as a matter of policy.
2) There is no reason to think the US regulators are any good at what they are doing. As the thread root comment points out, the incentives are terrible. US industrial policy over my life time has consistently led to Asian growth and US stagnation in ways that were predictable. The US has banned most of the avenues that it could grow by, and coincidentally growth has largely stopped. Very similar story in Europe too, big focus on banning stuff (plus a bit of redistribution) and small focus on how to achieve more prosperity.
The US is dedicating the lives of countless smart people to taking a thing that was going to fly through the air like a bird and ... not changing the outcome much. They could have been doing something else that was more useful, like competing with China for telecoms leadership.
I don't think the evidence is there for this "having" to be minimised. The big picture looks a lot like people are behaving emotionally, that is sometimes leading to irrational decisions and those irrational decisions have added up to cause real harm. People should be more accepting of other people taking reasonable risk.
(The optimal number of plane crashes is not zero, as the saying goes, and itβs probably more than we have now.)
Some plane crashes can be prevented with a $0.30 warning light. Preventing those plane crashes is optimal.
Some plane crashes can only be prevented by permanently grounding all planes, because they'll be caused by a confluence of improbable events. Trying to mitigate every implausible circumstance that could potentially lead to a crash is not optimal, even when some of them proceed to actually happen.
I suppose you could let the market decide, and just have airlines publish their failure rates, and more process means a higher ticket price. But it's a bit grisly.
> I suppose you could let the market decide
People think of the market as just involving the principles, but in practice you actually get a ecosystem of controls, between insurance companies, vendors setting standards beyond the normal risk of consumer litigation. The tradeoff is really one of how many specific procedures are specified top-down by government, or required by your insurance company (which may in-turn require something like third-party certification). In-practice plenty of the private regulatory regimes can provide just as much protection, or even better protection for the public as governmental review. They can also be worse. But they do tend to be nimbler, and also tend to leave more room for experiments and risk takers on the margin.
What are the poor ROI irrational decisions that the FAA makes on airline safety, how many lives do they save, and how many dollars do they add to the price of my ticket?
It's easy to say that things are not optimal. Let's say that's the case. What would you change?
> The US is dedicating the lives of countless smart people to taking a thing that was going to fly through the air like a bird and ... not changing the outcome much. They could have been doing something else that was more useful, like competing with China for telecoms leadership.
The US isn't a command economy, it can't redirect human effort like that, introducing subsidies into telecoms will distort the markets, and most of the country's intellect is wasted on financial innovation and adtech and middle management, anyways.
I'm not sure of a good way to have a middle ground between excessive regulation and devaluing human wellbeing. In that case, I'd rather that we err on the side of excessive regulation; especially since there are already powerful financial interests advocating for the other side.
There aren't actually powerful interests advocating for reduced safety. What they want is increased profits.
One way to do that is by eliminating safety measures to save costs, but liability for harm already removes that financial incentive because the cost of the liability should be greater than the cost of the mitigation in any case where the mitigation is cost effective.
Another way to increase profits is to impose "safety regulations" on smaller competitors so they go out of business and larger incumbents can raise prices. Powerful financial interests do not oppose this, they promote it.
Or highway/pedestrian/cyclist safety, for that matter?
You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare. But that kind of regulation is extraordinarily expensive, and then the same regulatory model gets applied where it isn't needed.