I believe we have found the economist.

What's the electrical failure rate of every appliance in your home, and the associated risk of death by electrocution? If you don't know offhand, it might be that you are implicitly relying on UL standards to keep you safe and whole.

Consumers don't have perfect information, so the risk is asymmetric. If you assume the market will sort out risk and quality so we don't need standards and enforcement thereof, I don't believe your model is aligned with reality.

Nonsensical. Many companies cut corners to save a buck. You're assuming companies want to be in markets for the long run under conditions of perfect competition (ie total market transparency). In reality many business owners are more than happy to make a million $ selling a shitty product then move on to some other market under a new name. You have to make quite a lot of money before the advantages of a reliable brand that consumers can readily identify exceed the incentives to make a quick buck.

Proof: look at all the craptastic companies that sell ersatz products on Amazon. For some kinds of products they can be almost as good as much more expensive offerings, for others you might get a great deal or you might get an explosive paperweight.

Being good for the consumer is not necessarily the same as being good for the company selling the device.

This is not how incentives work. Companies can and have creates inferior and dangerous products for the sake of profits. See the Phoebus cartel and the BMW emission scandal.

Without government force companies will not act in the interest of the consumer or employees. Seatbelts, airbags, and crash testing are obviously fantastic standards, but require significant and continuous cash expenditure. Few or no auto companies would invest in them without the public mandating it. Indeed, many companies lobbied and vehemently protested it when first implemented.

American companies voluntarily manufacture products to these standards.

Apple is a perfect example of this failing.