Name: 最危險的壟斷：當小心翼翼地殺人｜LearnLiberty (The most dangerous monopoly: When caution kills | LearnLiberty)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T05:18:52.000Z
Duration: 4 min 41 s

All of us want to assure that the things we buy are safe. What's the best way for us to get it?

大家都想要確認他們買到安全的產品 哪一種方式是最好的呢?

One way is to have a government agency assess products and allow or forbid their sale.

一種方式是請政府機關評估產品並允許或是禁止它們的銷售

The food and drug administration requires and oversees lengthy expensive tests of each new drug.

食品藥物管理處會規定每款新藥都要在它們的監督下進行曠日廢時的昂貴測試

Based on those tests it decides whether or not that drug maybe used.

A different approach is to allow competing private firms to assess the products and give each one a rating.

另外一種方式就是讓互相競爭的私人公司評估產品 並給予其評級

Customers decide for themselves whether to buy or not based on these ratings.

消費者再根據這些評級 決定是否要購買

This is the way it works for thousands of products from toasters and hair dryers to installation and bullet proof vests.

從烤土司機 吹風機 設備 甚至是防彈背心 成千上萬的商品都是採用這種方式

Manufacturers hire a private certification firm such as underwriter's laboratories to evaluate their products design and manufacturing process and to test it.

製造商們會僱用私人的認證公司 像是擔保者的實驗室(UL) 來評估他們的產品設計 製造過程 並測試它們的商品

If the product passes the certifier's logo is added to it.

如果通過測試 商品就會貼上認證者的標誌

Manufacturers pay for private certification because it increases sales.

生產商會付錢以獲得私人認證 因為那會增加銷售量

The customers who see the logo know that the product is passed rigorous safety tests and they are more likely to buy it as a result.

消費者看到認證的標誌 就會知道這項產品通過了嚴格的安全測試 因而更有可能購買

Stores also value assurances of product safety.

They don’t want unhappy customers or law suits from selling things that turn out to be harmful.

他們不希望有不快樂的顧客 或是因為銷售有害商品而導致的訴訟

So they will pay extra to stock certified products.

所以他們願意付更多錢購買這些經過認證的產品作為存貨

Certification firm such as underwriter's laboratories have no monopoly. They have competitors.

這種認證公司 像是擔保者的實驗室(UL) 並無壟斷的能力 他們有競爭者

Accordingly they have a strong incentive to be cautious but also fast and affordable for manufacturers.

他們因而有強烈的動機 在保持謹慎的同時 提供快速且價格平實的服務以吸引生產商

On the one hand they depend on their reputations for trustworthiness built up over the years.

他們一方面得倚賴自己長年累積的可靠聲譽

A certifier who puts its logo on a product that turns out to be dangerous ends up with a damaged reputation and a higher likelihood that manufacturers will use a competing certifier in the future.

一項貼有認證標誌的商品如果出了問題 生產者往後會採用競爭認證公司的服務

On the other hand, if a certifier is over cautious and takes a long time on costly extra testing that delays a product from getting to market or if it refuses to certify a product that turns out to be safe, again it will lose customers.

另一方面 如果認證者太過謹慎 花了大把時間跟銀子進行測試 拖延了產品上市的時間 或是拒絕擔保安全的產品 也會失去顧客

Self interest pushes these competing certifiers to avoid both kinds of mistakes neither certifying dangerous products nor refusing to certify safe ones.

個人利益促使這些互相競爭的認證者避免擔保危險的商品 或是拒絕擔保安全的商品

Compare this to a government agency that has a monopoly on deciding whether a good becomes available.

相較於在認證上擁有壟斷能力的政府機關

What happens when such an agency approves a dangerous product that ends up causing harm?

如果這樣的機構認可了一項危險的廠品 結果這項產品造成危害 會發生甚麼事呢?

There are serious consequences for the careers of the officials who let that happen.

讓這種情況發生的監管者 職業生涯將會受到嚴重的影響

As a result they become excessibly cautious.

They take so long on costly extra testing that they do delay products from getting to market.

進行曠日廢時 所費不貲的額外測試 結果真的延遲了產品的上市日期

When the product is a life saving medicine people die who could have been saved.

當這項產品是救人一命的藥物 或許有人原本可以免於一死

Unlike a voluntary certification firm a monopoly

government agency faces no check on this kind of caution. If the agency rejects a product

獨占性政府機關不會因過度謹慎而受遭受惡果 就算拒絕認證一項安全的產品

that is safe or takes years for additional tests the manufacturer cannot turn to another

或是花數年進行額外的測試 生產商無從轉向其他認證機構

certifier. No other certifiers are permitted. The government agency doesn’t have to worry

沒有其他的認證機構受到許可 政府機關不需要擔心收入減少

about losing revenue or going out of business because it is funded by taxation and not by

也不需要擔心無法繼續經營 因為政府機關的經費來自稅收

the voluntary payments of its manufacturer or customers.

而非來自於生產商或消費者自願性的付款

How much safety is the right amount? It is always possible to test a product one more

要多安全才夠安全? 在產品上市前永遠有辦法對產品再測試

time before selling it but the test costs time and resources to run so the more the

rigorous the safety testing procedures the more manufacturer must charge to cover its

所以越是嚴格的安全測試 生產者就得定越高的價格 以補償他的成本

costs and the less money it has to invest in new products. Who should decide at what

同時這也代表將會有較少的金錢能夠投資於新產品的研發

point the cost of more tests becomes too high? Under monopolized government safety regulation

誰應該決定何種程度的測試成本才算過高了呢? 在政府獨佔的安全管制下

government officials decide. Under voluntary certification in a free market everyone decides

就交由政府官方來決定 在自願性證明的自由市場機制下 由所有人自己決定

for him or herself usually with the help of certification agencies and professionals such

通常還會有擔保機構與專業人士的幫助

as doctors and pharmacists who make it their business to learn all they can about the products

例如醫生或是藥劑師 這些人的工作就是盡可能了解他們所建議使用的產品

they advise us to use. Instead of the one size fits all approach in which the government

不同於政府 用一種標準評斷所有產品

bans all products that fail to meet arbitrarily determined criteria. The market process creates

禁止所有無法達到政府專斷標準的產品

and communicates various assurances of product safety and each buyer decides for him or herself.

市場機制創造並傳達了多種的產品安全擔保 再交由每個消費者自行決定