So I’m watching the Today show before I take my son to his bus stop, and there’s Mattel CEO Robert Eckert ($43.6 million earned in the last six years) chatting amiably with Meredith Viera about his latest toy recall.
He does the dance executives have been doing ever since the Tylenol scare. Here’s what we know. We’re getting to the bottom of this. Trust us.
It’s a model for corporate accountability, the experts agree.
And he defends his Chinese suppliers. The latest recall isn’t their fault. It’s a "design flaw."
What does this mean? It means Mattel designed tiny magnets inside breakable plastic toys deliberately. It wasn’t a bug. It was a feature.
So what are bloggers saying about all this? They’re worried about the company’s reputation. They’re talking, still, about China, although China had nothing to do with the 9 million toys recalled for having magnets in them.
Some consumer oriented-blogs are waking up. For the love of God, writes Fussbucket. Where are the outraged bloggers, writes Robert Roger Anderson. Can regulation cure Mattel’s problem, asks The Everyday Economist, before giving the answer no. (Since worthless regulation didn’t help, that means regulation is worthless. Sheesh.)
What has happened, in the last few decades, is that we have gone so
far down the track of protecting businesses and businessmen from
accountability for their actions that they have gotten immunity. Just
as our government officials have gotten immunity.
As a result, our leaders think all they have to do is explain things
to us as though we’re children, then we’ll understand, accept, and
forgive.
Bullshit. The fault here does not lie with CEOs and government
officials, who are bound to do all they can to protect themselves. And
it doesn’t have a thing to do with too much regulation — if
regulation doesn’t find problems like this before they occur we need to
get regulation earlier in the process.
The fault lies with us.
We’re too forgiving of the rich. We have one standard for our masters and one for the rest of us.
If Michael Vick can be sent to jail for 5 years, and lose his future
livelihood, because he fought dogs to the death, what is the penalty
for corporate executives who show willful disregard for their
customers, and who wind up creating products that will doubtless lead
to some serious injuries and deaths among children. (That fallout hasn’t been reported
yet, but now that people know where to look it’s coming.)
For Mattel to face a bunch of civil suits in this case is not good enough. We need real accountability.
When the gang at Law & Order have their office scenes, noodling
around about who might be responsible for some heinous crime, you can
bet someone, usually Sam Waterston’s Jack McCoy, is going to pipe up
with "willful disregard, murder two."
If your actions show a willful disregard for human life, and those actions cause someone to die, you killed them.
Time for some D.A. to make his bones on Mattel CEO Robert Eckert. Time for the punishment to fit the crime.
Time for some Chinese accountability. Time to send a message. Execute a couple of CEOs and the rest will start to toe the line.
Dana,
Thanks for highlighting my post. (it is Roger not Robert but that is not that important)
You and I seem to be on the same line – the fault lies with the people who are not checking the quality, design, and materials. Toxic products can come from anywhere. We as consumers need to do more to make our disgust apparent.
Keep up the good work. – Roger
Dana,
Thanks for highlighting my post. (it is Roger not Robert but that is not that important)
You and I seem to be on the same line – the fault lies with the people who are not checking the quality, design, and materials. Toxic products can come from anywhere. We as consumers need to do more to make our disgust apparent.
Keep up the good work. – Roger
Websites that showed Outrage – Mattel Recall Part Deux
I found a lot of blogs that mentioned the recalls, but few that really railed against China, Mattel, or greed for it. If you know of any where outrage or at least disgust was expressed I would like to add…
Free market economists such as myself are often criticized for being too friendly towards big business. However, I would point out that it is quite the contrary. As the great free market thinker Milton Friedman once explained, businesses want freedom for everyone else, but special privileges and protection for themselves. I do not favor giving business immunity. I simply believe that those companies who make shoddy products should be punished on their bottom line by customers who choose to abstain from purchasing said products, not by government officials.
Thus by criticizing regulation I am not condoning the behavior of Mattel, but rather pointing out that regulation has not worked. I prefer to judge policies based on their results rather than their intentions. The purpose of my post was to point out that the knee-jerk reaction to always turn to the government for a solution often fails to produce the results that we truly desire.
Also, although I failed to go into detail in my original post, I think it is important to note that it is not the role of the United States to design regulations for the Chinese government as was suggested in the NYT editorial to which I was responding. China is a sovereign nation, and whether we like their government’s policies or not, they have a right to design policies as they wish.
Finally, and most importantly, I would point out that the free market as well as possible litigious action against the company are more appropriate reactions that creating more arbitrary regulations. Consumers have every right to punish Mattel by failing to purchase their products in the future. Similarly, if individuals would like to take Mattel to court for potentially putting their children at risk, I would have no qualms. Even if the government wants to take the company to court for violating already established regulations, I would not stand in opposition. However, creating further regulation that will skirted by other companies will do very little to help solve this problem.
Free market economists such as myself are often criticized for being too friendly towards big business. However, I would point out that it is quite the contrary. As the great free market thinker Milton Friedman once explained, businesses want freedom for everyone else, but special privileges and protection for themselves. I do not favor giving business immunity. I simply believe that those companies who make shoddy products should be punished on their bottom line by customers who choose to abstain from purchasing said products, not by government officials.
Thus by criticizing regulation I am not condoning the behavior of Mattel, but rather pointing out that regulation has not worked. I prefer to judge policies based on their results rather than their intentions. The purpose of my post was to point out that the knee-jerk reaction to always turn to the government for a solution often fails to produce the results that we truly desire.
Also, although I failed to go into detail in my original post, I think it is important to note that it is not the role of the United States to design regulations for the Chinese government as was suggested in the NYT editorial to which I was responding. China is a sovereign nation, and whether we like their government’s policies or not, they have a right to design policies as they wish.
Finally, and most importantly, I would point out that the free market as well as possible litigious action against the company are more appropriate reactions that creating more arbitrary regulations. Consumers have every right to punish Mattel by failing to purchase their products in the future. Similarly, if individuals would like to take Mattel to court for potentially putting their children at risk, I would have no qualms. Even if the government wants to take the company to court for violating already established regulations, I would not stand in opposition. However, creating further regulation that will skirted by other companies will do very little to help solve this problem.