Government Regulation of the Economy

[Mr.Conley]

One of the issues most commonly touched on at USMB is regulation. A lot of people support it a lot of people can't stand it. This seemingly trivial issue is in reality one of the most important and affects each of us everyday. I thought I'd bring up the issue, see if anyone wants to state their opinion, and try to reach a consensus.

Here's what I think.

I believe that too much regulation hurts the economy, but that regulation is always needed. As anyone whose has ever entered, among other things, the Chinese healthcare system will tell you, KNOWING that that is antibotics in that syringe and not say Windex is a definite plus about medicine here in the states. Indeed, one of the biggest healthcare problems in the 2nd and 3rd worlds is ensuring that a presciption drug companies are selling you the product as advertised. A surprising number of people have met less then happy endings because of this lack of regulation. This lack of standards and regulations is also the reason why many people don't support the idea of importing drugs from overseas.

Indeed, it is because of situations like the one above that drive me to support regulation. We already have enough snake oil salesmen as it is. If we can't hold them accountable for their actions because of a lack of regulations, then it's only the little guy who gets screwed. Without regulations, ADM suddenly has very little incentive to make sure that thoses apples aren't poisonous. After all, without regulations, who is ever going to find out? Not the FDA for sure. And even if someone does figure it out, technically ADM didn't do anything wrong. They just sold you some apples, and no one said they were good apples. Sure, you can take your business elsewhere the next time you buy apples, but that becomes problematic if your dead.

As for hiring and workplace regulations, these are also needed. What is it that allows sweatshops to exist? There are no regulations that forbide those conditions from existing in those countries, the employers have no incentive to improve conditions and thereby hurt profits, and for the workers, it's either this, similar work at another factory, unemployment, or back to the paddy fields and subsistence farming for the next few generations. Workplace regulations are essential, a minimum wage prevents a race to the bottom, workplace safety ensures that Bob can go to work everyday without fear of dying and knows that he'll have a least the minimum to feed the kids at night. Sure Bob could try to find work somewhere else, but that's problematic if Bob winds up 1. Dead because of a lack of workplace safety or 2. Can't feed the kids because every job pays the same $1.50 for the work he does. Bob could try to go to community college to develop new, higher paying jobs skills, but employers wouldn't accept his credentials because the lack of regulation in higher education prevented them from knowing if his degree was legit. The already well known institutions faced a similar problem, they couldn't trust the applications they recieved from the unregulated secondary school system, and have no idea the actual quality of the students they are accepting.

Basically what I am saying is that sure, regulations can cause a lot of hassle and red tape, but we do need a set of agreed upon standards or else who knows what could happen. Regulations provide these standards and ensure a well run,and safe, economy and workplace.

 

[LOki]

So...full...of logical...fallacy...factual...distortion...socialist...fascist...propaganda

 

[PsuedoGhost]

So...full...of logical...fallacy...factual...distortion...socialist...fascist...propaganda

We'll just throw you back to 1890. We'll see how long you like it there.

 

[LOki]

We'll just throw you back to 1890.

H.G. Wells LOLs.

We'll see how long you like it there.

Bullshit presumptuous implications galore LOLs.

 

[Hobbit]

I believe that a free market economy can eventually work out any problem in itself as long as competition is allowed to flourish. However, the government is capable of helping out the process as long as it uses its power sparingly.

First off, monopolies should be flat-out illegal. Monopolies can and will occur in a free market, and will hurt everyone in the long run.

As for other regulations, there's such a thing as too much. Now, in a free market, there's a demand for people such as consumer reporters to tell people how clean and safe the places they do business with are. Some companies even hire the inspectors themselves to make sure the places stay safe and clean and so they can publish the good reports with their ads. This isn't always enough, though, which is why there are federal and state standards that can get a place shut down. Not everybody reads consumer reports, and people will get sick or even die without the more forceful regulations. Sometimes, wierd or overly strict regulations pop up as a side affect of bureacracy, but it's a necessary evil.

All in all, little regulation is needed, as a free market polices itself, but sparse use of regulations helps make the process a bit safer.

 

[Mr.Conley]

So...full...of logical...fallacy...factual...distortion...sociali st...fascist...propaganda

Ohh... the problems exist, and don't you think they don't, because they do. However, if I showed you it would so awesome that your head would explode. So you see, I'm not doing this because I can't, it's because I don't want to hurt you.
I know there are problems, and that this is is really oversimplified, but I wanted to encourage debate. Hopefully this will piss you off enough to post a real rebuttel.

 

[LOki]

I believe that a free market economy can eventually work out any problem in itself as long as competition is allowed to flourish. However, the government is capable of helping out the process as long as it uses its power sparingly.

Truth. Particularly by limiting their "help" to protecting the market from force and/or fraud.

First off, monopolies should be flat-out illegal.

Nope. Bad idea. Monopolies are good.

Monopolies can and will occur in a free market, and will hurt everyone in the long run.

Coercive monopolies cannot occur in a free market--they only can occur by government sanction. Non-coercive monopolies are good for everyone in the long run. They establish infrastructural standards that are indispensible.

As for other regulations, there's such a thing as too much.

There certainly is.

Now, in a free market, there's a demand for people such as consumer reporters to tell people how clean and safe the places they do business with are. Some companies even hire the inspectors themselves to make sure the places stay safe and clean and so they can publish the good reports with their ads. This isn't always enough, though, which is why there are federal and state standards that can get a place shut down.

Why must there be special regulatory standards for the marketplace when fraud is already illegal?

Why can't the participants in the market, market the validity of their claims regarding their product; why should they not market their reputation as well? If they market under false assertions, it's fraud and you put them in jail.

Not everybody reads consumer reports, and people will get sick or even die without the more forceful regulations.

Morons are not an endagered species, we should stop treating them like one.

Sometimes, wierd or overly strict regulations pop up as a side affect of bureacracy, but it's a necessary evil.

No it's not.

All in all, little regulation is needed, as a free market polices itself, but sparse use of regulations helps make the process a bit safer.

Nope. The less regulated the process, the safer it becomes. Being as safe as possible is a marketable asset that is destroyed by governemt imposed minimums--these minimums become industry maximums because there is no market incentive to improve beyond the lowest common denominator already set by fiat. In fact, the incentive becomes to lower that lowest common denominator, either explicitly through the lobbying (bribing) of legislators, or implicitly by manipulating (bribing)enforcement. Illustrating precisely why legislators, enforcement, and those who can buy them, are all so enthusiastic about regulation.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Health care: As a general rule, companies do not get richer by killing customers

Food: ditto. OMG that guy is selling fruit out of the back of his truck! We're all going to die!

Sweatshop conditions: It's better than the alternative, which is often child prostitution or picking through garbage dumps or something else awful. The real question we ought to be asking is "Why aren't better jobs available?" And the reason is almost always "government". Specifically, governments which present enormous barriers to new businesses and/or ill-defined property rights. See [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465016154/sr=8-1/qid=1149815277/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3767693-1855314?%5Fencoding=UTF8]The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else[/ame] for details.

Minimum wages are a form of price floor. Price floors cause artificial surpluses. A surplus in labor is called unemployment. Most places in the US are paying above minimum wage to begin with, not because they're generous, but because they have to or they won't be able to fill a certain position.

Monopolies: In the absence of government intervention (key word here), monopolies follow one of two paths. Either they are serving customers and using resources efficiently; or they are constantly being undermined by innovative new companies who are looking to get a piece of the action. Standard Oil worked feverishly to discourage new competitors, and cut the cost of oil dramatically. But even that wasn't enough. They had 90% of the market at time antitrust investigations started, but by the time they were split up, they were down to something like 50~60 percent.

Now if you're talking about official, government-enforced monopoly priviledge--yes, that's a big problem, a problem with government, not the market. The meaning of the word "monopoly" has changed over the years. It used to strictly mean "a priviledge,granted by government, to be the exclusive seller of a certain good". Also, it's important to remember that most regulations have a disproportionate effect on smaller firms rather than big ones. A great deal of legislation in the progressive era was either licensing type regulations designed to limit new competition (in the name of promoting quality or safety), or underhanded tactics by one tycoon to punish another's empire. In particular, a lot of the regulations during this era were little more than battles between the Morgan and Rockefeller empires.

And finally, the free market can provide standards. For example, UL certifies electrical products, API certifies petroleum pipeline products, ISO certifies and standardizes all sorts of crap, etc. My company for example is audited every few months. If we lost our API and ISO certificates, no one would buy our products. If the regulations are good and valid, people seek out products with that particular seal of approval. If they go overboard, people can ignore them.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I've got to go, so I can only post a partial rebuttal.

Health care: As a general rule, companies do not get richer by killing customers.

Here is an interesting article from The Asia Times. The first part is about the lack of protection (ie. regulation) of drug patents and its effects on Western drug manufacturers. The second part deals with fake drugs.

Against this background, the new focus is off piracy and on counterfeiting of drugs, where the intent is to deceive the public by selling substandard drugs, placebos or even dangerous variants of a known drug, thereby endangering lives.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines counterfeiting as a criminal activity, often occurring in countries where drug regulation is ineffective, smuggling of drugs is rampant, clandestine manufacturing exists, sanctions are absent or very weak, and there is high corruption. According to the WHO definition, a counterfeit is a "a medicine which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit products may include products with the correct ingredients or with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, with insufficient active ingredients or with fake packaging."

Though no firm estimates of counterfeit and substandard drugs are available, the WHO pegs estimates at roughly 10 percent of the global drug trade. "Counterfeiting is an underworld activity," states the WHO. "It is hard to detect and investigate. Moreover, countries and companies that detect the problem do not report. So, it is hard to know or even estimate the true extent of the problem." What is known is that they occur worldwide, are more frequent in developing countries and they affect all countries, says the WTO.

That the counterfeit drug menace has the global community worried is reflected by the fact that in 2000, a US House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations probed counterfeit drugs. The subcommittee's investigations revealed that the US Food and Drug Authority (FDA) had linked adverse drug reactions in 155 US citizens to drug ingredients originating from China. The FDA informed the subcommittee that the 4,600 foreign, bulk drug suppliers to the US had not been inspected. Of these, 5-8 percent could be substandard, fake or unapproved.

The US has been concerned since 80 percent of the active ingredients in its prescription drugs are made overseas. Hence the pressure from the US to resort to tough regulatory norms in developing countries, testing at the point of entry in the US, as well as global information sharing to nab counterfeiters.

For India, the concerns are as severe, with estimates of fake or spurious drugs being pegged in the range of 10-35 percent of the total annual pharmaceutical manufacture in value terms. That could be a lot of fake drugs in circulation, though India is contesting these figures. In 2000-01, India's pharmaceutical production in value terms stood at $4.52 billion, as against an estimated global trade of $3 trillion. Of this, formulations (medicines ready for consumption by patients) accounted for $3.64 billion and bulk drugs (chemicals having therapeutic value used for production of formulations) for $886.5 million. The value of Indian exports stood at about $1.35 billion in 1999-00 (as against global exports in pharmaceuticals exceeding $94 billion), while import of drugs and pharmaceuticals amounted to about $400 million during this period.

As you can see, although there are laws that ban counterfeiting, there are no day to day regulations that have prevented counterfeiters from controlling 10-35 percent of India's drug market. While technically these companies have no incentive to let patients die, they have less incentive to make sure their drugs are clean.

I'll respond to you four other point (food, sweatshops, minimum wage, and monopolies) either really late tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Link to the article
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DL21Df02.html

 

[LOki]

Here is an interesting article from The Asia Times. The first part is about the lack of protection (ie. regulation) of drug patents and its effects on Western drug manufacturers. The second part deals with fake drugs.

As you can see, although there are laws that ban counterfeiting, there are no day to day regulations that have prevented counterfeiters from controlling 10-35 percent of India's drug market. While technically these companies have no incentive to let patients die, they have less incentive to make sure their drugs are clean.

I'll respond to you four other point (food, sweatshops, minimum wage, and monopolies) either really late tonight or tomorrow.

It appears that this article supports an assertion already made:<blockquote>"Being as safe as possible is a marketable asset that is destroyed by governemt imposed minimums--these minimums become industry maximums because there is no market incentive to improve beyond the lowest common denominator already set by fiat. In fact, the incentive becomes to lower that lowest common denominator, either explicitly through the lobbying (bribing) of legislators, or implicitly by manipulating (bribing) enforcement. Illustrating precisely why legislators, enforcement, and those who can buy them, are all so enthusiastic about regulation."</blockquote>Patent protection is protecting the owner of intellectual property from the instigation of force to obtain something of value--from theft. The failure of those countries to enforce law is no argument for creating more laws.

The same goes for counterfeiting. The failure of those countries to enforce their counterfeiting law is no argument for creating laws that burden legitimate producers of legitimate products.

The security sold to you by regulators is false. It is security sold to you under the false premise that legitimate businessmen, if free to conduct their business, must commit fraud, and steal, in order to earn profits. The truth is, only criminals must commit fraud, and steal, in order to obtain something of value that they did not produce by legitimate means. Regulations illegitimately place, under the premises they are enacted, legitimate businessmen equivalent to criminals--convicted of crimes not committed, and then punished, without trial or jury.

The reason for regulatory complicity in this is rather obvious--those politicians, who are being paid by lobbyists to regulate the businesses of the lobbyist's competitors, are not making money by producing anything of value and exchanging it freely as legitimate businessmen would. Where should this regulator get get money (aside from that compensation stipulated by the electorate) then except by theft and fraud? If anything, this article of yours illustrates quite nicely the consequences of regulation.

 

[Hobbit]

Coercive monopolies cannot occur in a free market--they only can occur by government sanction. Non-coercive monopolies are good for everyone in the long run. They establish infrastructural standards that are indispensible.

Not true. Anti-competitive practices can and will occur naturally in an unregulated market. Remember, we made anti-trust laws because anti-competitive trusts actually did form. Microsoft is another example, where they made themselves the standard in operating systems and then strongarmed others out of the business of a) offering other operating systems and b) making software for other operating systems. Fortunately, the Microsoft stranglehold on the market is on the way out.

Why must there be special regulatory standards for the marketplace when fraud is already illegal?

Because some companies would get away with serving things like sub-standard food and medicine, harming many people, because they never claimed their stuff was safe.

Why can't the participants in the market, market the validity of their claims regarding their product; why should they not market their reputation as well? If they market under false assertions, it's fraud and you put them in jail.

That's how it works. The point I'm making is that the regulation is needed because the free market does not correct dangerous behavior fast enough. Once it's discovered that, say, a medicine can cause heart failure, the news will get out and people will stop buying. However, without FDA standards, it would be a while before the word got out to everybody. In the meantime, people would die. The government, on the other hand, has the power to shut down the supply immediately.

Morons are not an endagered species, we should stop treating them like one.

As much as I'd like to just let the morons kill themselves, I like to think of myself as a little more compassionate than that.

Nope. The less regulated the process, the safer it becomes. Being as safe as possible is a marketable asset that is destroyed by governemt imposed minimums--these minimums become industry maximums because there is no market incentive to improve beyond the lowest common denominator already set by fiat. In fact, the incentive becomes to lower that lowest common denominator, either explicitly through the lobbying (bribing) of legislators, or implicitly by manipulating (bribing)enforcement. Illustrating precisely why legislators, enforcement, and those who can buy them, are all so enthusiastic about regulation.

To a point. I think that a small amount of government is always needed. However, the current system is way too bogged down. Remember, that which governs best, governs least.

 

[LOki]

Anti-competitive practices can and will occur naturally in an unregulated market.

Demonstrate without using examples of force and fraud.

Remember, we made anti-trust laws because anti-competitive trusts actually did form.

Anti-trust laws were formed because anti-competitive trusts were created in response to anti-competitive government regulation. If the governemt did not engage in punishing business for being the best in the market, then anti-trust laws would not have been necessary to respond to those best businesses protecting themselves from their lesser competitors who were using government force to gain market share.

Microsoft is another example, where they made themselves the standard in operating systems and then strongarmed others out of the business of a) offering other operating systems and b) making software for other operating systems.

Nonsense. This is just rich guy bashing. Microsoft provided a product so useful to the 98th percentile that even free OSes and applications could not compete.

You should just look at the arguments of that case Hobbit; distributors of free software pointing the dirty finger of accusation at MS for distributing free software; software vendors restrictively "bundling" their OS and applications accusing MS of "bundling." Not until Apple got away from it's proprietary machine/OS/App marriages and Linux started becoming more accessible to lay-users would they stand a chance at Microsoft's marketshare--and guess what--that is precisely what is happening.

Fortunately, the Microsoft stranglehold on the market is on the way out.

Maybe, maybe not. As long as Microsoft refrains from force and fraud to gain and keep market share, I see no problem with them enjoying the benefits of 100% of the market.

Because some companies would get away with serving things like sub-standard food and medicine, harming many people, because they never claimed their stuff was safe.

Why? Why would a company, in business to make profits, poison their clients? What bullshit nonsense is that?

That's how it works. The point I'm making is that the regulation is needed because the free market does not correct dangerous behavior fast enough.

How so? How fast did the market shut down ground beef production in the midwest after a dozen or so folks picked up a coliform infection at a fair? Days? Regulation works faster than days? You're going to demonstrate this? How lightning fast the governemt is?

Once it's discovered that, say, a medicine can cause heart failure, the news will get out and people will stop buying. However, without FDA standards, it would be a while before the word got out to everybody. In the meantime, people would die. The government, on the other hand, has the power to shut down the supply immediately.

How many people die waiting the years and years for the FDA to approve a medicine that is proven to prevent heart failure?

As much as I'd like to just let the morons kill themselves, I like to think of myself as a little more compassionate than that.

I will not stop you from saving them--just don't use the government to force me to help you. Agreed?

To a point. I think that a small amount of government is always needed. However, the current system is way too bogged down. Remember, that which governs best, governs least.

I agree. A small amount of government--only that small amount required to protect us from force and fraud.

 

[Hobbit]

Demonstrate without using examples of force and fraud.

You mean like Microsoft threatening to pull all of its liscences from all computer manufacturers if they began pre-loading any non-Microsoft OS?

Anti-trust laws were formed because anti-competitive trusts were created in response to anti-competitive government regulation. If the governemt did not engage in punishing business for being the best in the market, then anti-trust laws would not have been necessary to respond to those best businesses protecting themselves from their lesser competitors who were using government force to gain market share.

Maybe, but even before that, there were guilds. Often times guilds would get together and set prices artificially high. After all, if everybody's price is high, people HAVE to pay it.

Nonsense. This is just rich guy bashing. Microsoft provided a product so useful to the 98th percentile that even free OSes and applications could not compete.

You should just look at the arguments of that case Hobbit; distributors of free software pointing the dirty finger of accusation at MS for distributing free software; software vendors restrictively "bundling" their OS and applications accusing MS of "bundling." Not until Apple got away from it's proprietary machine/OS/App marriages and Linux started becoming more accessible to lay-users would they stand a chance at Microsoft's marketshare--and guess what--that is precisely what is happening.

This is not what I bash Microsoft for. First off, Microsoft is an inferior product. I'm typing this up in Mozilla for Linux because Microsoft has a tendancy to crash, among other things. The reason Microsoft is as big now as it is is because it made a standard and charged next to nothing for it. Once they were the only standard, they charged an arm and a leg for it and threatened to pull liscences for that standard if anybody dared use a different one. The reason we have Windows is because Microsoft extorted code for the Macintosh operating system in return for not pulling its liscence for its .doc format (Microsoft Word). I have been using a computer since I was about 3. I've used DOS, OS-2, Windows, Linux, Unix, and Mac, and the only thing worse than Windows is DOS. Windows is unstable, expensive, and bloated. The only reason most peope do it is because, until they began to be scrutinized under anti-trust laws, only the largest software manufacturers could muscle Microsoft into not pulling its liscence for programming for other operating systems.

Maybe, maybe not. As long as Microsoft refrains from force and fraud to gain and keep market share, I see no problem with them enjoying the benefits of 100% of the market.

But they do use force, economic strong-arming that only technically isn't extortion, thus the existance of anti-trust laws.

Why? Why would a company, in business to make profits, poison their clients? What bullshit nonsense is that?

If the money they save from not inspecting food is less thn the cost of lost customers and lawsuits, then yes, they'll do it. It's all about the bottom line.

How so? How fast did the market shut down ground beef production in the midwest after a dozen or so folks picked up a coliform infection at a fair? Days? Regulation works faster than days? You're going to demonstrate this? How lightning fast the governemt is?

What if the health inspector had discovered bad practices leading to the infection before any infections occurred? If the health department finds you doing something really gross, they shut you down that second.

How many people die waiting the years and years for the FDA to approve a medicine that is proven to prevent heart failure?

I didn't say the current system was good. The FDA needs to step back and check for anything blaring. Those years and years of tests usually don't catch more than that, anyway. Look over the drug companies data. Test anything fishy. Move on.

I will not stop you from saving them--just don't use the government to force me to help you. Agreed?

Both extremes are bad. I'm all for minimalism.

I agree. A small amount of government--only that small amount required to protect us from force and fraud.

Pretty much. I'd add gross negligance to that list, but yeah, minimal government.

 

[LOki]

You mean like Microsoft threatening to pull all of its liscences from all computer manufacturers if they began pre-loading any non-Microsoft OS?

Foul. Neither force nor fraud. No one is forcing computer manufacturers to do business with Microsoft at all.

Maybe, but even before that, there were guilds. Often times guilds would get together and set prices artificially high. After all, if everybody's price is high, people HAVE to pay it.

There is truth regarding the existence of guilds, but no truth in how they operated. Those guilds strong-armed--the actual use of physical violence--to enforce their high prices, and to discourage lower priced competition. And Hobbit, when those guilds could no longer perform that dirty work themselves, what did they turn into? You guessed correctly if you said "unions." Now the governmet does the strong-arming for them, as well as for management--all legal-like because now it's LAW. Welcome to regulations!

This is not what I bash Microsoft for. First off, Microsoft is an inferior product.

Not so for your grandmother. It's all GUI easy like and thinks about shit for you like AOL and every other product targeted at the 98th percentile.

I'm typing this up in Mozilla for Linux because Microsoft has a tendancy to crash, among other things.

People who have better things to do than compile thier linux kernel can deal with crashes on the occaisions they occur. I am fully aware that there are better products for those who can use them and appreciate their value, but that does not guarantee market share--historically consider Auburn-Cord-Duesenburg.

The reason Microsoft is as big now as it is is because it made a standard and charged next to nothing for it.

But they charged significanly MORE than nothing, which is what you pay fo Linux.

Once they were the only standard, they charged an arm and a leg for it and threatened to pull liscences for that standard if anybody dared use a different one.

What of it? There were other OSes available, yes? And you assert thaey were better, yes?

The reason we have Windows is because Microsoft extorted code for the Macintosh operating system in return for not pulling its liscence for its .doc format (Microsoft Word).

Explain this. I do not follow how MS could extort MAC over a file extension.

I have been using a computer since I was about 3.

Not in dispute.

I've used DOS, OS-2, Windows, Linux, Unix, and Mac, and the only thing worse than Windows is DOS.

Not in dispute.

Windows is unstable, expensive, and bloated.

Not in dispute.

The only reason most peope do it is because, until they began to be scrutinized under anti-trust laws, only the largest software manufacturers could muscle Microsoft into not pulling its liscence for programming for other operating systems.

Nope. MS enjoys market share solely because it appeals to the larger market. That doesn't make MS better by any objective standard, but it certainly is successful based on the subjective opinions of those who use it and are unable, or unwilling to fiddle incessantly with their machines.

But they do use force, economic strong-arming that only technically isn't extortion, thus the existance of anti-trust laws.

No they don't. They hold a gun to no-one's head. You are free to go Linux without MS strong-arming you back into the fold, am I correct Mr. Mozilla-for-Linux-user?

If the money they save from not inspecting food is less thn the cost of lost customers and lawsuits, then yes, they'll do it. It's all about the bottom line.

Are you asserting that poisoning customers is more profitable than feeding them? Killing your customers, or just making them sick, is a sound business plan? Come off it, you are making ZERO sense.

What if the health inspector had discovered bad practices leading to the infection before any infections occurred? If the health department finds you doing something really gross, they shut you down that second.

Big ifs there. And you clearly have no idea howe these inspections occur. And these big ifs of yours were actually answered, in reality, not so favorably to your argument. Rather, does it not make more sense to not reward, by issuing them governemt sanction, unproven producers with the credibility of proven producers? Wouldn't an unproven producer have to start by having at least equivalent quality of product as the proven producers they compete against, before they go off on their hairbrained scheme to poison their clients? Would they not have to maintain themselves as quality producers to maintian their profit share in the market with their proven producers (before they started poisoning everyone for the money )? Why should we grant, without merit, the fine reputation of safe, quality production that one firm has earned through years of service, by granting an unproven new-comer the same standing in reputaion by government fiat? This ponzi scheme is senseless!

I didn't say the current system was good. The FDA needs to step back and check for anything blaring. Those years and years of tests usually don't catch more than that, anyway. Look over the drug companies data. Test anything fishy. Move on.

I'm fully aware of what the FDA does, Hobbit, and the have to go beyond "move on", they need to pack up and leave so we don't have to subsidize, with taxpayer dollars and taxpayer lives, a dozen years of bullshit to get decades old technology into the hands of doctors.

Both extremes are bad. I'm all for minimalism.

What is so extreme about not forcing me to subsidize your charity missions?

Pretty much. I'd add gross negligance to that list, but yeah, minimal government.

Gross negligence is fraud anyway, but fuck yeah, minimal government!

 

[Mr.Conley]

It appears that this article supports an assertion already made:

"Being as safe as possible is a marketable asset that is destroyed by governemt imposed minimums--these minimums become industry maximums because there is no market incentive to improve beyond the lowest common denominator already set by fiat. In fact, the incentive becomes to lower that lowest common denominator, either explicitly through the lobbying (bribing) of legislators, or implicitly by manipulating (bribing) enforcement. Illustrating precisely why legislators, enforcement, and those who can buy them, are all so enthusiastic about regulation."

1. If government regulations require the highest- or higher than industry- standards, then they're a success.
2. Companies that previously didn't have an incentive (ex. Indian drug companies) then have to get their act together.
3. Government minimums don't nessicarily become industry maximums. Beyond government standards sounds pretty good in a car commercial.
4. While many companies would maintain safety standards even without regulations (now at least). There are always snake oil salesmen.

Patent protection is protecting the owner of intellectual property from the instigation of force to obtain something of value--from theft. The failure of those countries to enforce law is no argument for creating more laws.

The problem with India's patent laws isn't that they aren't enforced, it's that (until recently) they didn't provide adequate protection. India doesn't have the regulations to enforce what it does have. What your basically saying is that if there were a lot of murder, then the government shouldn't do anything (even if the type of murder is somehow legal) because the murders are already happening and since the current system is failing, the government should just leave it along and let the killings continue.

The same goes for counterfeiting. The failure of those countries to enforce their counterfeiting law is no argument for creating laws that burden legitimate producers of legitimate products.

So the government should do nothing to ensure that the drug supply isn't contaminated?

The security sold to you by regulators is false. It is security sold to you under the false premise that legitimate businessmen, if free to conduct their business, must commit fraud, and steal, in order to earn profits.

No one is saying that. Regulations prevent criminals from pretending to be legitimate businessmen and screwing over the little guy. They also make sure the legitimate businessman doesn't do anything like say, duming mercury into kiddie pools.

The truth is, only criminals must commit fraud, and steal, in order to obtain something of value that they did not produce by legitimate means. Regulations illegitimately place, under the premises they are enacted, legitimate businessmen equivalent to criminals--convicted of crimes not committed, and then punished, without trial or jury.

Yea, it's kind of like drivers licenses. In a truely free world, everyone could drive whenever, wherever. But we know that if we used that system, some 14 year old numbskull whose never driven a car in his life is going to eventually crash into the schoolbus. Licences are a sort of regulation that ensure everyone on the road is a good driver (or at least they attempt to). But, as you can see, they operate under the premise that unless we initially license drivers, and regulate them by requiring them to buy car insurance, have a minimum safety level for the car, and come in every few years to make sure their eyesight hasn't gone. These regulations of drivers are essentially, "convicted of crimes not commited, and then punished, without trial or jury." It's still done though because we know, whether they mean it or not, bad drivers are going to wind up killing a lot of people who didn't have to die. Regulations of business essentially do the same thing. We know that if left to their own, people are going to screw up, so if we want to prevent or reduce the impact of these screw ups, we reduce the risk of a lot of people getting hurt. Why? Because we know that otherwise, something is going to happen.

The reason for regulatory complicity in this is rather obvious--those politicians, who are being paid by lobbyists to regulate the businesses of the lobbyist's competitors, are not making money by producing anything of value and exchanging it freely as legitimate businessmen would. Where should this regulator get get money (aside from that compensation stipulated by the electorate) then except by theft and fraud? If anything, this article of yours illustrates quite nicely the consequences of regulation.

Yes, because GM had Congress pass laws saying that Ford had to have minimum safety standards.

No, regulations apply to an entire industry.

I don't think regulators have that much sway over the electorate (unless you have links to prove me otherwise).

 

[LOki]

1. If government regulations require the highest- or higher than industry- standards, then they're a success.

They can't, they don't, and thus they aren't. Nice "if" statemet though.

2. Companies that previously didn't have an incentive (ex. Indian drug companies) then have to get their act together.

Addressed. They buy favorable regulation, or they buy favorable enforcement--they don't try to be better--the incentive has been cut off by the governemt regulation.

3. Government minimums don't nessicarily become industry maximums.

Well, up to this point they have.

Beyond government standards sounds pretty good in a car commercial.

It does sound pretty good, but so does "meets governemt standards." Does it really sell any differently?

4. While many companies would maintain safety standards even without regulations (now at least). There are always snake oil salesmen.

What of it? There will always be suckers for snake-oil salesmen--why protect them?

The problem with India's patent laws isn't that they aren't enforced, it's that (until recently) they didn't provide adequate protection.

If they weren't enforced, they were not providing adequate prtection. Correct?

India doesn't have the regulations to enforce what it does have.

And now there's no sense to the nonsense you're speaking of.

What your basically saying is that if there were a lot of murder, then the government shouldn't do anything (even if the type of murder is somehow legal) because the murders are already happening and since the current system is failing, the government should just leave it along and let the killings continue.

I say absolutely NOTHING of the kind. Bad form. In fact, I say the opposite--I maintain, and have maintained, that murder is wrong, and government has a legitimate role in protecting us from it.

So the government should do nothing to ensure that the drug supply isn't contaminated?

Contaminated with what? Water? No. Arsenic. Yes. The latter is murder, while the former is nothing.

No one is saying that. Regulations prevent criminals from pretending to be legitimate businessmen and screwing over the little guy. They also make sure the legitimate businessman doesn't do anything like say, duming mercury into kiddie pools.

You completely contradicted yourself and asserted EXACTLY what I said you were saying. BRAVO!!!!

Yea, it's kind of like drivers licenses. In a truely free world, everyone could drive whenever, wherever. But we know that if we used that system, some 14 year old numbskull whose never driven a car in his life is going to eventually crash into the schoolbus.

As if an 18 year old with a license crashing into a school-bus is somehow preferrable.

Licences are a sort of regulation that ensure everyone on the road is a good driver (or at least they attempt to).

But they don't, despite their alleged intent. I'll tell you that the more likely purpose of driver's licenses is state revenue, federal revenue and tracking your residence--citizen.

But, as you can see, they operate under the premise that unless we initially license drivers, and regulate them by requiring them to buy car insurance, have a minimum safety level for the car, and come in every few years to make sure their eyesight hasn't gone. These regulations of drivers are essentially, "convicted of crimes not commited, and then punished, without trial or jury." It's still done though because we know, whether they mean it or not, bad drivers are going to wind up killing a lot of people who didn't have to die.

Right that exact same premise I stated--you're a criminal, or a likely one, so we'll take care of your [fair] trial and sentencing, now rather than later.

Regulations of business essentially do the same thing.

Yes, and it's wrong for the same reasons.

We know that if left to their own, people are going to screw up, so if we want to prevent or reduce the impact of these screw ups, we reduce the risk of a lot of people getting hurt. Why? Because we know that otherwise, something is going to happen.

It's fair to speak so for yourself, but not others. You should just regulate yourself, and leave the rest of us out of your authoritarian command and control schemes.

Yes, because GM had Congress pass laws saying that Ford had to have minimum safety standards.

No, regulations apply to an entire industry.

I don't think regulators have that much sway over the electorate (unless you have links to prove me otherwise).

The Big 3 in the US pushed hard for safety standards that they felt they could achieve, but their foreign competitors couldn't. Of course they were wrong and have had to be bailed out of their bullshit ever since.

And if you're already under the impression that Detroit has no influence in Washington, then no links I provide will convince you otherwise.