- Banned
- #376
..which is why agencies like the FDA, NHTSB, EPA, SEC etc. exist.
Even with the regulatory agencies in place, an example of a few I've mentioned, profiteers are frequently caught cutting corners if not outright ignoring them and consumer expense.
@jaldeborgh, let's say a new biostartup just created a medicine that they claim will cure your illness (there's not FDA in this scenario.) Would you take it?
I wouldn't. You know not of the company's reputation. Think of the risks. Think of the risks to people who die NOT taking this medicine which turns out to truly be as revolutionary as the company claims.
Alternative scenario:
@jaldeborgh, a new biostartup just created a medicine that they claim will cure your illness, and the FDA has certified the double blind peer reviewed clinical trials documenting the treatment's efficacy, indications, and contraindications. Would you take it? I would under physician's advice.
====
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for the freest markets that can exist. But some marketplaces need overseers. As it is, we're finding out that the NHTSB is forced to turf out some of its oversight to the very companies designing the plane (e.g. the Boeing 737.)
(Disclaimer, the NHTSB works tirelessly. Boeing is very concerned about the safety of its planes for profit and moral reasons. The problems, whatever they turn out to be, could have happened with impartial overseers.)
Food company survive...? How's about your kid? Regulatory agencies insure the food company, in order to be licensed to do what they do, is conforming to basic standards regarding ingredients, packaging, shelf life, etc. so that there's less likelihood of the scenario you describe in the first place.
In your model the principles operators of said firm open up as another business afterwards to perpuate future fraud.
Fortunately, I think sir, the populous of both parties doesn't hold your views. Either side "of the aisle" may differ on the degree to which regulation is best, but neither feels it smart for regulation/oversight to be absent.
Are you serious or trolling...I really have to ask. Have you forgotten about the mortgage debacle of a decade past?
In the absence of regulation, desperate consumers have and will ingest the equivalent of antifreeze in belief it may help their advanced illnesses when all else fails. Just recently pharmaceutical companies have been taken to task by the Justice Department for the irresponsible labeling of Oxycontin, to sell more product at the expense of an addiction epidemic.
Roads were simply an example I offered of an imposition placed on the freedoms of the individual...(i.e. the tax) for the benefit of all. Paying that tax restricted your freedoms. You couldn't use the money for things that many would have preferred spending it on than those taxes, but the imposition is deemed less than the importance of safe roads.
This is true and fair.
Define equitable. Do you mean for the individual who paid more for the ICE vehicle not incentivized? These incentives exist so the market will more smoothly adapt to the new paradigm, and more of these vehicles will be made, reducing average cost until they become viable options over ICE only solutions, at which time the incentives will be withdrawn.
In the free market solution, crude oil prices could shoot up, and the market cannot adapt as fast as people get into fights in gas station lines.
So true @jaldeborgh (sarcasm.) Labeling cigarettes and medicines, forcing manufacturers of appliances to clearly label their power consumption so consumers can make informed decisions about true cost of ownership over the appliance's life, the nutrition content labels of foods, the rating of TV shows so we can more easily block violent content, (crash) testing vehicles and products....the list is endless. All a waste to your freer market paradigm.....?
You may call the above simply informing consumers. I call it managing societal outcomes...and for the better.
@jaldeborgh : an anecdote. One Saturday in 1970's my mom let me sleep in, and I woke up, 3 blocks from the nearest gas station, to look out my window and find cars waiting in line in front of my house for gasoline yelling at each other and honking their horns.
I'm sorry, markets don't adapt as fast as they need to.
This is the point you are missing from the "Econ textbook." Free markets are predicated on consumers having 100% of the information they need to make informed decisions, and that they act in accordance.
Neither is true. If they did, they would have known that Thalidomide caused birth defects....that the Corvair was a dangerous vehicle. Then there's the people who know stuff is bad and do it anyway.
So we don't have free markets. We have the next best thing: as free markets as are possible, with competition, when that model works (and sometimes it doesn't, like initial capital intensive companies like utilities), with oversight.
And while the oversight isn't perfect, it's far better than non-existant.
My posts above this suggest I can debate and respect with those who have different opinions and priorities.
But I simply can't debate someone who thinks the marketplace is the place to determine the efficacy and safety of something as important as, or like a pill. A pencil: sure.
Sponsored
