Customers in America have more and more begun to avoid High-fructose corn syrup, and not without reason. HFCS is in general regarded as less healthy than other forms of sweeteners/sugars, being more likely to cause diabetes, obesity and the like. The consumption of HFCS has predictably fallen as a result of this.
No worry though, because the HFCS lobby is now trying to have the name changed to Corn Sugar. It's a very arch-typical example of rebranding. HFCS is not popular so they want to change the name in hopes that customers will not know that Corn Sugar is actually HFCS.
Source
There are numerous examples of things like this, including the famous shift from Blackwater to "Xe". I won't list them all, because I think you get my point.
Does rebranding weaken the invisible hand of the market? Normally, when a company fucks up big time or a product is shown to be bad for you, the market will shift away from these products in favor of better products and companies that does not have these negative aspects. Because of this, the quality of products will slowly increase as companies try to outdo each other. Technology is researched and applied to these products to win an edge. It causes innovation and progress!
But with the rebranding, it seems that his effect is lessened. It's not like it breaks the free market or anything, but it seems like people tend to stay with inferior products to a greater degree due to not being able to connect their knowledge and experiences to the product in question. One could argue that this is a part of the free market, but I think it's apparent that if companies rebrand rather than increase the quality of their products then that doesn't cause progress overall. How many manhours are spent trying avoid bad press rather than rising above it and proving everybody wrong?
http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested
It's great to see so many of the free-market lobbyists commenting this thread :)
Since the invisible hand is just an illusion and not reality, and wouldn't have even in a capitalist minarchy, there's not much to be said from me. Of course rebranding is a standard tactic to make people buy bad stuff, and the less the brand are controlled by society the more the companies will do this.
You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.
Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.
the hilarious thing is that the only reason that HFCS is used is because of government intervention....
anyway in today's ridiculously regulated economy, large firms are under extremely little competitive pressure (compared to a free market)
As such, these kinds of manipulations are obviously far more profitable than actual increases in quality.
On a free market, competition would be far greater, and I dare say that in such conditions, sensationalist 'the corporations are evil' type of news story could quite easily be all that's necessary to keep things in check.
At 11/4/10 08:36 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Since the invisible hand is just an illusion and not reality, and wouldn't have even in a capitalist minarchy, there's not much to be said from me.
WOW TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR OBVIOUSLY GRAND UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS MR "MY PREFERRED ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAS BROUGHT POVERTY AND DEATH WHENEVER INTRODUCED"
Of course rebranding is standard tactic to make people buy bad stuff, and the less the brand are controlled by society the more the companies will do this.
in reality by society you mean some central government oligarchs
a government OF BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE RIGHT??
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 11/4/10 09:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: the hilarious thing is that the only reason that HFCS is used is because of government intervention....
I knew you were going to jump there instead of answering the question.
The truth?
You don't have an answer. If there is no agency to protect a company's brand name, anyone can copy it and sell you anything they want with whatever ingredients they want.
Enjoy your lead toys and your melamine milk. I'm sure that's the government's fault too and you will handily prove it by demonstrating there is a government in China!
WOW TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR OBVIOUSLY GRAND UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS MR "MY PREFERRED ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAS BROUGHT POVERTY AND DEATH WHENEVER INTRODUCED"
Unlike every other system of social organization, of course.
Actually the information issue has been treated extensively by Austrians. The emergence of economic profit is almost exclusively related to information advantages. In this particularly dreadful example, the "profit" (more like consumer surplus) means not dying.
Also, what's with your sig (again)? Krugman didn't advocate the creation of a bubble, he merely stated that to reflect on the dire situation the US was in 2001.
The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth -- JMK
At 11/4/10 02:47 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: In this particularly dreadful example, the "profit" (more like consumer surplus) means not dying.
Could you clarify this? I don't understand what you're trying to say
I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs
Forgot to say that Krugman was a Neokeynesian. I'm not correcting you, but precision is needed because neokeynesians are also known as bastard keynesians by postkeynesians.
Anyway.
At 11/4/10 02:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Oh right, well it worked in Cuba!
Oh right, well it worked in Greece!
Oh right, well it worked in Venezuela!
Oh right, well it worked in China!
Oh right, well it worked in France!
Oh right, well it worked in, uh, nowhere!
Define Marxism, please.
The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth -- JMK
At 11/4/10 02:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
It's cheaper than sugar. If the gov't didn't tax the living fuck out of these companies, they'd be able to appeal to the consumer interest (real sugar) instead of using cheapo BS.
This has nothing to do whatsoever with the subsidies.
The point is simply made that consumers are easily fooled by a simple name change on a product.
It has nothing to do with the government, it's simply one in a billion examples of how easy it is to trick people into buying stupid and dangerous shit.
At 11/4/10 03:00 PM, Musician wrote:At 11/4/10 02:47 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: In this particularly dreadful example, the "profit" (more like consumer surplus) means not dying.Could you clarify this? I don't understand what you're trying to say
The idea of economic profit, and what makes it different from the layman's definition on profit, is that it includes opportunity costs, ie the costs of not taking another action. If my explicit costs are only labor costs, let's say of $100 a year, and my sales are $300 a year, then one would say that profit is $200. However, if I use $2000 of capital and the interest rate is 10%, even if I didn't take a loan to pay for it, my implicit capital costs are $200 (because, having lent it at interest, I could've got $200), and therefore my economic profit is zero.
The whole idea behind economic profit is basically beating the market. If all firms are the same, and there are no barriers of entry, then economic profit for all will be zero, because if their economic profit is negative, then it means they could do better, and therefore change industry, and if it's positive, then more firms will enter the industry until they have no incentives to do so, ie, until economic profit is zero.
However, firms are not equals, some have advantages. Austrians emphasize this is a dynamic process, entrepeneurs are always looking around for positive economic profit opportunities, if not creating them. That's what makes markets shift, and economic variables be in constant motion.
And well the excess "utility" (benefit) over the costs paid for goods is not called economic profit, but consumer surplus, profit is reserved to firms. So instead of smart entrepeneurs making a kill on a new manufacturing process, or creating the most fashionable good, we have smart people that know the adverse effect of a good, and therefore they can avoid death.
The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth -- JMK
At 11/4/10 09:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: a government OF BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE RIGHT??
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
At 11/4/10 03:45 PM, poxpower wrote:At 11/4/10 02:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:It's cheaper than sugar. If the gov't didn't tax the living fuck out of these companies, they'd be able to appeal to the consumer interest (real sugar) instead of using cheapo BS.This has nothing to do whatsoever with the subsidies.
The point is simply made that consumers are easily fooled by a simple name change on a product.
And that simple name change can prove disastrous or even deadly.
High-fructose corn syrup is a product of genetically modified (GM) corn. That genetic modification has been shown in rodent studies to cause long-term health problems as a result of irreparable DNA damage. Consumers are now getting the picture and avoiding GMOs like the plague. The companies that use HFCS are feeling the burn and rather than replace the sweetener (since doing so would likely be too expensive because Monsanto already forced them to shell out a fortune to use the GMO corn) they are renaming it "corn sugar" to trick consumers into thinking they're getting a healthier product when they aren't. It's called "greenwashing," and it solves nothing, only making us consumers look stupid.
It has nothing to do with the government, it's simply one in a billion examples of how easy it is to trick people into buying stupid and dangerous shit.
Believe it or not, this DOES have to do with the government, though not in the way RWG thinks it does.
Monsanto, the company that holds the patents for HFCS, has the government wrapped around its little finger and can and will force Congress to pass laws tricking and forcing the public into buying its deadly products. Since this is SUPPOSED to be a free-market economy (yeah, I'm looking at you Pox) consumers should have the right to choose what they want to purchase to put into their own bodies. The way things are now, that choice is rapidly being taken away from us by large corporations so eager to squeeze every last penny out of us that they deliberately force us to purchase and consume products they know will cause us harm so they can make new products that claim to rectify the damage they did themselves while causing more long-term harm and so on and so forth. Greenwashing is yet another deceptive means designed to ensure this end. They clearly do not care who or what they hurt, as long as they make money while spending little to nothing, as evidenced by the lead toys and melamine milk cited earlier in this thread. We can no longer rely on our government to protect us from grabass companies; today's career politicians are too scared of not being elected that they will take hush funds from Monsanto, AquaBounty or whoever just so they can secure their jobs. We as consumers have to stand up and fight back or else our whole food supply will be tainted.
At 11/5/10 05:14 PM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote:
High-fructose corn syrup is a product of genetically modified (GM) corn.
Not really.
First off, the corn we've been eating for millenia is genetically modified corn. In fact, almost all the plants we eat are genetically modified. It's called "natural selection". Wether you do it in a million years, 10 000 years or 10 days is the same system.
Being against" genetically modified food" makes no sense. Are you against dogs? Because they're "genetically modified" wolves.
And second off, you can make corn syrup with any corn : O
You can probably make some kind of sugary syrup with just about anything; rice, wheat, fruits...
The reason they use corn is because it's the cheapest.
That genetic modification has been shown in rodent studies to cause long-term health problems as a result of irreparable DNA damage.
I want a link to that one : O
Consumers are now getting the picture and avoiding GMOs like the plague.
Only costumers who don't understand anything about biology.
Genetically modified crops have saved BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borl aug
Believe it or not, this DOES have to do with the government, though not in the way RWG thinks it does.
I'm talking about any company's ability to rebrand.
I knew people where going to instantly go to the "yes but the government subsidizes corn!" argument like it somehow was the only thing that made it possible for a company to write "corn sugar" instead of "corn syrup" on a package of Fruit Roll Ups.
The way things are now, that choice is rapidly being taken away from us by large corporations so eager to squeeze every last penny out of us
Actually they have gotten on the "organic" bandwagon because there's money to make there. The result is that they sell basically the same shit to people like you who will pay double for food that is the same but pollutes more, costs more and feeds less people.
"Organic food" is the biggest joke in the last 10 years. Those companies you hate so much are laughing all the way to the bank with your money and you're not getting any health benefits out of it.
We as consumers have to stand up and fight back or else our whole food supply will be tainted.
I suggest you start by actually educating yourself instead of basing your entire life around conspiracies.
At 11/4/10 02:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: It's cheaper than sugar. If the gov't didn't tax the living fuck out of these companies, they'd be able to appeal to the consumer interest (real sugar) instead of using cheapo BS.
Oh come on. There are places where corporate tax rates are higher than they are here yet they use real sugar in their drinks there. That's not even a half-decent excuse for why American food is practically junk now.
Oh right, well it worked in Greece!
Oh right, well it worked in France!
Oh right, well it worked in, uh, nowhere!
You accuse him of using a strawman yet you don't even explain why socialism didn't work in those countries. Great job there. And for your information Marxism wasn't ever adopted in France or Greece.
At 11/4/10 04:09 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Excessive government entitlement programs and/or excessive gov't intervention in the market.
lol @ your absolutely moronic definition of Marxism
What amuses me isn't that you're defining it incorrectly at this point, it's that you're creating your own definitions for socialism as 'everything that contrasts with your own political views.' Just like those idiotic Tea Party activists. While we're at it, I might as well define 'red' as everything that isn't a shade of blue.
At 11/4/10 04:09 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:At 11/4/10 03:37 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Define Marxism, please.Excessive government entitlement programs and/or excessive gov't intervention in the market.
Then your statements have all been tautological, you define marxism with the word "excessive", which has a negative connotation, and then conclude it is not desirable.
The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth -- JMK
SadisticMonkey and RightWingGamer have, incorrectly, stated that there's too much regulation in the free market. I, however, am of the opinion that the free market hasn't had enough governmental regulation, and that's pretty much how it's been all of American history.
On February 28, 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote:
:And yet, in spite of this, there would be hams found spoiled, some of them with an odor so bad that a man could hardly bear to be in the room with them. To pump into these the packers had a second and much stronger pickle which destroyed the odor - a process known to the workers as "giving them thirty per cent." Also, after the hams had been smoked, there would be found some that had gone to the bad. Formerly these had been sold as "Number Three Grade," but later on some ingenious person had hit upon a new device, and now they would extract the bone, about which the bad part generally lay, and insert in the hole a white-hot iron. After this invention there was no longer Number One, Two, and Three Grade - there was only Number One Grade.
It saddens me that even after more than a century, similar rebrandings are occurring today, though admittedly not as bad as once was.
WOW TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR OBVIOUSLY GRAND UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS MR "MY PREFERRED ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAS BROUGHT POVERTY AND DEATH WHENEVER INTRODUCED"
Incorrect, one example of this is the Spanish revolution. Even though it only lasted for 2 years before it was violently destroyed by a counter revolution conducted by a combination of fascists and statist republicans, the revolution was responsible for many successes. In Aragon, Levant and Castile there were about 1,650 collectives and more than a million people and 70% of the rural population of Aragon lived in Collectives (organised voluntarily). Capitalism, on the other hand, has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and suffering
At 11/6/10 06:15 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Capitalism, on the other hand, has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and suffering
Right.
Because Stalin didn't do any of that.
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
At 11/6/10 06:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Because Stalin didn't do any of that.
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
What are you doing here Mez? I thought you hated my topics?
http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested
At 11/6/10 06:34 PM, Memorize wrote:At 11/6/10 06:15 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Capitalism, on the other hand, has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and sufferingRight.
Because Stalin didn't do any of that.
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
Who said I was in favor of Stalin or anything he did?
Socialism, in it's purest form, means a classless society where everyone owns the means of production. To argue that this was the case in the Soviet Union would be ridiculous. The Soviet Union was more akin to a military dictatorship. Examples of true socialism include the Spanish revolution, the Zapatista revolution in Chiapas, southern Mexico, the Israeli Kibbutzim and examples of things that have got, or are getting, close to socialism include the recent Venezuelan and Bolivian revolutions involving large federations of communes etc., the recent democratic planning experiment in Kerala, India and many others. If you look at all these examples you will see that they have, at least partially if not greatly, improved the lives of the people in them.
You might want to stick with empiricism and not insults, you'll at least appear smarter.
At 11/6/10 07:54 PM, Drakim wrote:At 11/6/10 06:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Because Stalin didn't do any of that.What are you doing here Mez? I thought you hated my topics?
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
Pft, only the religious threads... so... many of them... *Head S'plodes!*
At 11/6/10 08:34 PM, Lithium-I wrote:
Who said I was in favor of Stalin or anything he did?
The point is that any system can exploit people.
The irony of your statement is that some of the most anti-imperialist people in United States History happen to be the most Free Market/Capitalist oriented.
The other piece of hilarious being that that the most anti-freedom Governments in the past couple hundred years weren't Free Market whatsoever.
Socialism, in it's purest form, means a classless society where everyone owns the means of production. To argue that this was the case in the Soviet Union would be ridiculous.
No one is saying they were socialist.
The only point I made is that imperialism isn't only applied to Capitalism.
Hell, the total opposite of capitalism, Marxism, specifically states to exploit land for resources.
Or were you saying that the UK and France weren't being imperialistic when they exploited the land and labor of the Ottoman empire?
You might want to stick with empiricism and not insults, you'll at least appear smarter.
How about you get a clue and realize that economic systems in and of themselves aren't the cause of imperialism, moron.
How about you get a clue and realize that economic systems in and of themselves aren't the cause of imperialism.
I'll concede to that, but time and time again Capitalism has shown to be more imperialistic than Socialism.
1) Information Antisymmetry is a vicissitude of life. Lousy products can be rebranded, but so can lousy political ideas. Since voters are systematically more lazy and ignorant than consumers, Statism does not solve the problem of re branding. If Consumers whose personal income and health is on the line cannot distinguish between corn sugar and high fructose corn syrup, what hope is there that they can distinguish between the 'contract with america' and the 'pledge to america'?
Consumers have a distinct advantage over voters in that they are generally less militant and ideological in their decision making. Some consumers might be ignorant of the fact that HFCS = Corn Sugar, but Consumers are less likely to vigorously DENY that HFCS = Corn Sugar after they are told that the two are equal, [provided they didn't know this before and they knew and understood the problems with HFCS]
2) Genetically modified foods are not an evil in themselfs, and much harm would be done to society if they were banned outright.
3) HFCS is linked strongly to subsidies for Corn, and the HFCS problem would be less of one if Corn products were not made so artificially cheap. Taxing or banning HFCS would simply be the equivalent of ending the subsidies except taxing and banning is exceedingly inefficient relative to simply ending the subsidies.
And again, if there isn't enough political pressure to end the subsidies, how could there be enough political pressure to ban HFCS altogether?
4) There is no reason to assume that State agents will not be 'controlled' by the influence of HFCS any less than HFCS wields influence over its consumers, and there is no reason to believe the general mass of voters can more easily regulate the behavior of politicians against the pressure of the HFCS lobby.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 11/6/10 09:45 PM, Lithium-I wrote:How about you get a clue and realize that economic systems in and of themselves aren't the cause of imperialism.I'll concede to that, but time and time again Capitalism has shown to be more imperialistic than Socialism.
Even though the Soviet Union was one mega-empire, all thanks to it being communist. Of course, communism is NOT socialism by definition, it's really all the same when you get right down to it.
I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss
At 11/13/10 09:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Lousy products can be rebranded, but so can lousy political ideas.
Once again trying to shift the argument away from something you can't deal with.
You can put in place agencies that severely punish rebranding of products and therefore protect the consumer.
but Consumers are less likely to vigorously DENY that HFCS = Corn Sugar after they are told that the two are equal, [provided they didn't know this before and they knew and understood the problems with HFCS]
Yeah, that's not the problem.
3) HFCS is linked strongly to subsidies for Corn
See again, missing the point of the topic entirely.
Predictably so.
and there is no reason to believe the general mass of voters
That's why we have agencies in place to guarantee the safety / provenance / branding of products and they do a great job by and large.
Pretty much every country has their own version of the FDA, patents and copyright protection acts that punish companies who would try to get away with lying to consumers or selling them dangerous products.
Look back at history and you'll notice that these agencies rose out of necessity because, guess what, capitalism isn't about selling you the BEST SHOES POSSIBLE, it's about making the most money.
It's about nothing else. NOTHING. What you sell is completely irrelevant.
Caveat emptor.
If the customer is too damn lazy to research what they are buying then it is only their fault if they are scrwed over. I do believe regulation is needed against major screw overs like selling people polts of sky, or "valuable" Florida Real Estate that is actually undevelopable swamp land.
There's no need for the government to get involved in the minor tricks companies play. The consumer has a choice to investigate the little items, and if the little items they buy are slightly different than expected it is of very little consequence and harm. If you really look at it, the reason for most of the small regulations (such as the definition of ketchup) is for the protection of businesses, not consumers.
At 11/14/10 01:34 AM, poxpower wrote:At 11/13/10 09:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Lousy products can be rebranded, but so can lousy political ideas.Once again trying to shift the argument away from something you can't deal with.
You can put in place agencies that severely punish rebranding of products and therefore protect the consumer
And this is what happens when you put the State "Above" and "Outside" your Analysis of human institutions and behavior, which is what you always do. The agency you describe is not any more immune to the problem of information antisymmetry
Youassume this agency is somehow qualitatively different from any other agency that serves a similar function [albeit in a less aggressive manner].
It's very simple. I run for office, I lie about what I intend to do while in office. I establish a regulatory bureaucracy which can establish rules about product quality and can enforce them as they see fit, the agency is then staffed with employees who plan to later take jobs [or have taken jobs previously] with the same private companies that are being regulated. [Known as the Revolving door]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_d oor_(politics)
This isn't a simple 'minor flaw' in the system, it is a systemic feature of a state run "Regulatory agency" that is almost completely detached from the citizens it is supposedly serving. It is unrealistic to assume that the diluted public is more interested and mobilized to manipulate regulatory agencies to their favor than concentrated interest groups.
And this is the danger of state regulators, in the best scenario the regulators will simply fail to do their job and the public will be aware of it; in worse situations the rules can be made such that the situation is worse than it was in the absence of a regulator, and that the public will ASSUME that the Government has 'taken care' of the problem.
So I guess we'll need another government agency to make sure that the other government agencies operate the way i described above, hence the paradox.
I'm not obligated to prove that information asymmetry won't be a problem on a total market, only that The state can't provide a solution that doesn't face the same problem and further exacerbate it.
I've said this before, If you and like minded individuals want to choose some politician to manage a third party rating agency that warns you and said individuals about dangerous products; be my guest, but that's not what you're advocating or that's not what the final product of a state managed regulatory agency would be, far from it.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 11/14/10 02:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
The agency you describe is not any more immune to the problem of information antisymmetry
Huh, yes it is, it's composed of experts who have a legal recourse against the companies they police.
Consumers don't have dick. They aren't experts, they don't have time to do the research and they can't punish a company for wronging them other than by not buying their products anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_d oor_(politics)
This isn't a simple 'minor flaw' in the system, it is a systemic feature of a state run "Regulatory agency" that is almost completely detached from the citizens it is supposedly serving.
You know what? It's way WAY better than nothing, which is what you're proposing.
I've said this before, If you and like minded individuals want to choose some politician to manage a third party rating agency that warns you and said individuals about dangerous products; be my guest, but that's not what you're advocating or that's not what the final product of a state managed regulatory agency would be, far from it.
You don't have an alternative. All you constantly do is find flaws in the government and therefore conclude that your idea must be correct.
It's a logical fallacy called "the false dichotomy".
That's basically your entire philosophy, an elaborate logical fallacy.
We know what's bad about government agencies. But we also know what's GOOD about them and I frankly don't see how you've ever proposed an alternative that works, all you do is point out what's bad about the current system.
Congrats, that does nothing.
There is no alternative to government. :P
This is a silly argument.
Where there are people there is government. Arguments about government are far more worth while when you're talking about the method of governing.
As far as the free market, we're all quite aware that free market really means "I want to fuck over stupid people for self enrichment, and possibly destroy/harm the economy/lives too" or "I don't realize that removing some of the obstacles that cause me a bit of annoyance would allow others to fuck over stupid people for self enrichment, and possibly destroy/harm the economy/lives too."
At 11/14/10 04:14 PM, poxpower wrote:At 11/14/10 02:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:The agency you describe is not any more immune to the problem of information antisymmetryHuh, yes it is, it's composed of experts who have a legal recourse against the companies they police.
Consumers don't have dick. They aren't experts, they don't have time to do the research and they can't punish a company for wronging them other than by not buying their products anymore.
You have no proof that they are experts, you accept that they are experts as a premise and then argue for the state upwards from there. It is tantamount to saying that god exists because he does in fact exist. Their money comes from congress which is financed by tax payers, which is composed of the same indifferent body that needs it's
Since congress doesn't pay for the regulators out of it's own pocket, and it has no direct stake in them after the bureaucracy has been established, there is no reason to expect that they are experts.
If you think elections GIVE them a stake, you contradict the premise that the masses need a state to dictate their behaviors. If they elect someone, they'll elect them out of ignorance. If the State forces election results for the good of the ignorant masses, then there is no counterbalance to state power at all, and the state is acting as little more than a private company with a unique set of powers. You keep ignoring this contradiction by holding the enlightenment of state officials as some sort of Axiom.
You're going to respond with the excuse that the CONGRESS is enlightened and therefore the experts must be enlightened as well, but you have no proof for this either; in fact your job is even harder because the general anecdote about most members of congress is that they are incompetent.
You know what? It's way WAY better than nothing, which is what you're proposing.
This isn't a simple 'minor flaw' in the system, it is a systemic feature of a state run "Regulatory agency" that is almost completely detached from the citizens it is supposedly serving.
Again you have no proof. By "Nothing" you don't actually refer to citizens doing nothing, you are referring to the State doing nothing. If the state does anything, the law will necessarily side with the interest group over the diluted masses. You've worsened the situation.
I've said this before, If you and like minded individuals want to choose some politician to manage a third party rating agency that warns you and said individuals about dangerous products; be my guest, but that's not what you're advocating or that's not what the final product of a state managed regulatory agency would be, far from it.You don't have an alternative. All you constantly do is find flaws in the government and therefore conclude that your idea must be correct.
Go patronize a profit or non-profit agency that checks the content of food and rates it's safety for it's subscribers. If there are enough Americans willing to vote for a politician to do this, i'm sure there exists a demand for it in a civil society operating on contract and not compulsion. These agencies already exist in areas where there isn't a misguided expectation that our wise overlords have already seen to and thus taken care of the problem. [I'm thinking, Charity Navigator, Angies List, Ebay [They allow users to rate each other for obvious reasons] and Underwriters]
This solves the problem of unaccountability and permanence of the agency, and ending the agency/replacing it is no longer something that requires a massive "revolution'. I would never expect you to have to patronize a private firm, 'profit' or not, if you didn't think that firm actually served it's function effectively, but what makes the state distinct from any other private firm is the social expectation that, on the one hand, the firm will be patronized regardless of it's quality, and two, [and contradictorily] that it remains to be patronized shows that the system is working.
I might be obligated to propose a 'possible' solution, and my best guess is that consumer protection will operate in the above manner. But I never would have guessed in 1970 [had i been alive at that time] that the "privatization" of first class mail delivery would involve mail and other messages being sent electronically from one house or firm to another, or that private package delivery would allow for consumers to track where their packages are and what their estimated arrival times will be.
If i or anyone knew precisely what the optimal solution would be, then the idea of state management might make sense.
It's a logical fallacy called "the false dichotomy".
That's basically your entire philosophy, an elaborate logical fallacy.
There is a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary patronization.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 11/15/10 10:49 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You have no proof that they are experts,
The experts are the 3rd party labs and inspectors who are commissioned to do the research.They're the ones who do the test, not the politicians.
Well, so much for that line of arguing, eh?
Again you have no proof.
What kind of evidence do you want? We already know that before these kinds of agencies were passed, companies didn't have to disclose the ingredients they put in food, for instance.
Or how about this fun little historical event that spawned the first building codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Balti more_Fire
There's probably thousands upon thousands of stories of horrible avoidable accidents and food poisoning in the 19th century that all stemmed from companies cutting corners.
If there are enough Americans willing to vote for a politician to do this, i'm sure there exists a demand for it in a civil society operating on contract and not compulsion.
Again, this is the "poor people can eat shit" argument.
Under your system, people with enough money can buy everything the government currently offers, and for probably less than it costs now.
But you're just leaving thousands upon thousands of people out to die.
Ebay [They allow users to rate each other for obvious reasons] and Underwriters]
Rating systems don't prevent disasters, they just inform people after the fact. The law gives you a very powerful tool in the form of REVENGE. If I sell you poison on Ebay and your kid dies, Ebay can't do a damn thing about it except exclude my account.
What does this kind of system encourage? It encourages what you see in China, which is to lower your standards as much as possible to make a quick buck and then get out. You're not accountable for any harm that occurs as a result of what you did.
You have to forget the notion that individuals will just set up their businesses according to the best possible model. Crime is stupid financially, but people will still do it and you have to have a plan to deal with it, you can't just imagine that it won't happen because it won't be "profitable".
If i or anyone knew precisely what the optimal solution would be, then the idea of state management might make sense.
Yeah again, the "all or nothing" strategy. If the current system isn't perfect, tear it down!
At 11/15/10 12:37 PM, poxpower wrote:
Well, so much for that line of arguing, eh?
I **hope** i never gave you the impression that the people who actually manage the agencies themselves are politicians. My comment on the matter was twofold. 1) Why is it assume that the federal agency will be staffed with competent technocrats 2) Why do you assume... with technocrats that will act on the behalf of the consumers rather than the agency they are regulating
Though more specifically, why they will act MORE SO on the behalf of the consumers? Because they are appointed by elected officials? But people are ignorant are they not? Because they are angelic by nature?
People are ignorant yes? So they are liable to be fooled by clever but scrupulous individuals yes? So what is needed are certain individuals
What kind of evidence do you want? We already know that before these kinds of agencies were passed, companies didn't have to disclose the ingredients they put in food, for instance.
In the case of food regulation, companies that suffer declining consumer confidence from scandals often times call for a regulation of their industry.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11899850 8806429191.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Now that doesn't mean every business supports regulation of the industry it operates under unconditionally. What matters is how the regulations are written, i.e. Where does the incidence of the regulation fall upon most heavily.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/tcarney4 .1.1.html
If your statist solution is so effective and my voluntarily solution is so idealistic, why aren't lobbyists pressuring congress to do what I am suggesting.
Another food-related example, Chicago meat packers were the chief backers of the pure food and drug act of 1906, not the 'public' [Speaking of the 19th century, [i know 19th century means 1800's, but 1906 is more late 19th century than it is 20th century]
http://www.mackinac.org/4084 - Relevant information towards the bottom of the article
Or how about this fun little historical event that spawned the first building codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Balti more_Fire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/
asia/25schools.html?_r=1
Now what happens when Governments are responsible for making their own buildings, what building codes are they going to obey and what reason they have to obey them? This isn't to divert the conversation, only to get you to think.
The reason your roof doesn't fall on your head isn't because some congressman [you probably never met or voted for] put his heart and soul into some divinely inspired building code, but because no self interested individual or group is going to want to commission a building when the people in charge of it are cutting corners.
in Layman's terms, you're not safe because a politician cares about his reputation with the diluted mass of voters or, in this case, home owners. You're safe because some firm cares about their reputation with EVERYONE.
Again, this is the "poor people can eat shit" argument.
Under your system, people with enough money can buy everything the government currently offers, and for probably less than it costs now.
But you're just leaving thousands upon thousands of people out to die.
Ebay [They allow users to rate each other for obvious reasons] and Underwriters]Rating systems don't prevent disasters, they just inform people after the fact. The law gives you a very powerful tool in the form of REVENGE. If I sell you poison on Ebay and your kid dies, Ebay can't do a damn thing about it except exclude my account.
And somehow "revenge" isn't ex-post-facto? Your "Revenge" typically involves a lengthy and expensive lawsuit [for the state as well as the company in question, which is paid out of the pockets of not only those that consumed the food but those who relied on their own judgement in the matter. ] and may or may not end in the institution actually being 'punished'. Worst of all as a reward for failing to order a recall on the unhealthy products, the federal agency can easily manipulate the scandal as an excuse to demand an increase in their budget and authority; which the congress is eager to provide for the sake of appearing to have 'solved' the problem. Furthermore is the problem that, along side an increased budget, the expanded powers of the regulatory agency
Finally, it gives people a false sense of security, for the same reason you or someone else might be less suspect of dubious sounding financial products if i told you that the SEC was 'keeping you safe'.
And they don't give YOU or I a powerful tool, they give the State a powerful tool.
We see this most clearly in the Hanky panky that goes on with the TSA, in spite of the fact that airports stand to lose the MOST from failing to take proper security measures, people of your mindset labor under the delusion that federal agents [experts mind you, not politicians :D ] are more suited to handle the task of security in spite of their failures.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
