On auto safety.

IIHS has set certain benchmarks for "Good" safety based on actuarial assumptions. I am pretty sure they were set based on further assumptions regarding accident probabilities among others.

Both Subaru and Mercedes meet it. Mercedes probably exceeds it a little bit at enormous cost. However, since Mercedes is bought usually by the well-heeled (or Wall Street bonus-mongers), the  higher profit margins for the premium brands jack up the prices still more. The whole thing is not so relevant because the demand for

products bought by the well-heeled is likely to be price-inelastic. I guess the not-so-well-heeled-safety-freaks go for Volvos or Saabs rather than Mercedes. The truly well-heeled, on the other hand would probably sneer at a Mercedes and go for Bentleys or Rolls Royce or a Bugatti (or Lamborghinis or Ferraris if younger).

Mercedes would probably be ashamed if they were required to disclose in their ads by how little they had reduced the probability of losses for the enormous increase in price.

I doubt the Mercedes crowd buys them because they are that safe.  They buy because they can flaunt their wealth at least in their neighbourhood (after all Mercedes ownership is a signal of wealth);  Veblen called it conspicuous consumption. My colleague and good  old friend Bill Danko (he coauthored a popular book "The Millionnaire  next door") was very proud to be the owner of a very old beat up used  Mercedes jalopy. Perhaps not that he could not afford a new one, just  that when he bought it he could not afford a new one. The point he was trying to make in his book was that ordinary people become rich if they are frugal; inheritance is not the only way up.

Free markets give us a wide choice all the way from Bugatti Royale Kellner coupe ($9 million +) to Kia (or should I say Yugo?) for a few thousands.  We all make choices based on our situation. But I doubt safety is the  first concern of the buyer of an expensive car. If safety were the prime factor, Hummer would still be alive.