Quote:Original post by Jan Wassenberg
The mind boggles.
You quote "laissez faire" and "robber baron" (both phrases distinctly evoking a certain era), yet cannot think of a 'true' monopoly?
You believe the evil hand of the government meddled and 'intervened' to boost e.g. Standard Oil to its harmful monopoly position?
Maybe you'd prefer to forget all about the Gilded Age and its lessons for us?
Or are you now resorting to asymmetric forum warfare by merely writing one-liners and bandying semantics (viz. use of the phrase "_true_ monopoly")?
Oh, the possibilities.

Aye, the mind boggles so much you neglected to name a single instance of a monopoly not enabled by government. Instead you wrote a paragrpah assuring me how easy it was. Name one.

Quote:
Maybe they are capable and would prefer not to, or maybe they are actually incapable. Whatever the case may be, I note that several recently privatized services here are now MORE EXPENSIVE than before:
- garbage collection
- the armed force's motor pool
- water in England (200%) and France (130%)
Whee, this last one is especially interesting. I am given to understand that water quality metrics are no longer published there - that's always a good sign.

Frankly, I wonder how anyone can call for more privatization with a straight face. Doesn't seem to have gone very well in these cases, and that's just off the top of my head and from a 30 second search.
As with capn's faith in capitalism and the market, I'd imagine that similar starry-eyed ideals are in play here. Wouldn't it disappoint you to realize that governments like privatization because one-time fire sales shore up the budget in the short term, which is all that counts?

It's hard to rebut your sneering because I don't know the details in England and France. My guess would be that they were "privatized" just like California's energy consumption was "deregulated". Meaning not at all. No bid contracts and commerce by committee aren't examples of privatization, no matter how it was framed to the public.

Quote:Original post by LessBread
Please cite examples of those fixes and how they created the problems.

Sarbanes-Oxley - the kneejerk reaction to Enron, was a windfall profit for the oversight industry, closed no substantial loopholes in accounting fraud, increased the cost of trading on the NYSE, which drove a lot of up and coming smaller cap companies to the DAX. It raises the barrier to entry for companies going public, which ultimately costs the pool of consumers right in the pocketbook. Not to mention that as consumers and as taxpayers, we pay for both ends of compliance.

Quote:
Corporate media doesn't seem to have troubles reporting on that populist message when it comes from Huckabee or when it gets watered down and repeated by Clinton or Obama. Corporate media is painting Edwards as "angry" in an effort to downplay his candidacy. It seems to me they fear that the electorate, with it's pent up anger with corporations (Oil, Pharmaceutical, Health Insurance, Managed Care, Utilities and Tobacco Top the List of Industries That Many People Think Need More Regulation), will galvanize behind a candidate with corporations in the cross-hairs. For additional references see: Big Business Is Even More Unpopular Than You Think.

The reason they report on Huckabee's idiocy is because it's news. You can't throw a stick without hitting a democrat that's crying about corporate power, or "soft facism" or what giveaways he'll guarantee "the people" in exchange for a vote. To see a Republican play the same game is uncommon. One could argue that Republicans more often speak "in code" to "big business" about what they'll give them if you're a cynic.

The only thing scary about Edwards is he's bought and paid for by the trial lawyer special interest, and supports no limit tort, and doesn't support requiring an attorney that files a frivolous lawsuit to be liable for the costs.


The electorate is angry about corporate welfare, and it's angry about "public" welfare. This has always been the case. Any time you redistribute earnings you create anger. Your shortcoming is only looking at one symptom and not recognizing the root cause. Thus your analysis is rather lopsided. You've tailored your analysis to understand only a portion of the electorate so your mastery of the subject is incomplete.

Quote:Original post by LessBread
You can thank a Republican Congress and a Republican administration for that one. Those guys talk up deregulation and then turn around a regulate a monopoly for their campaign contributors.

Sure, I have no issues with your statement. My goal is not to defend a specific political party but to force you to defend a monopoly, which is what you are attempting. We can't say, with any degree of surety, what a Democratic president might have done, although I'm sure you can point to a campaign promise. The socialization of medicine, which all thee of the major candidates support on the democratic side would be a windfall profit for big pharm, so I'm sure they are shaking in their boots.

Quote:
That's not the reason Keynes had a job. It seems to me that you have a very cursory grasp of Keynesianism. Keynes advocated priming the pump when the economy needed it, not all the time and not in every situation.

When Keynesian economics was embraced by the court jesters that serve the government, it was to cover the fact that all of the new social programs being suggested couldn't possibly be paid for. Any person with a solid grounding in econ could see the writing on the wall. When this was pointed out he stated, famously, "In the long run we'll all be dead." which is the redneck equivalent of "fuck it". It's silly to question my understanding of Keynes, given each of our backgrounds.

Quote:
And what's to prevent Poison Food Inc. from buying Safe Food and Drug Inc. in order to use it as a shield? That's the gripe that people have with the FDA - that it's been sold out to Poison Food Inc. and no longer protects consumers adequately. The difference is that with the FDA consumers can vote in a new board with the next elections. They have no such hope with Safe Food and Drug Inc (subsidiary of Poison Food Inc).

People should have that gripe with the FDA. They should have that gripe with any monopoly. Your argument is based on the idea that certifying food and drugs as safe to consume is a "public good", meaning it is both indispensable and irreplaceable. In an open market, several companies would be trying to service this need. What keeps consumer reports from being bought by Sony and giving all of Sony's products a perfect review?

Quote:Original post by paulcoz

Quote:
"I don't even call for abolishing the FDA. I'm asking that its monopoly status be revoked and allow competing firms in the market.

So Safe Food and Drug Inc. can test and verify a product, also making its sale legal in the US. If you don't trust them, don't use products that aren't run through the FDA. If you do, enjoy the product that is now legal at your own rational risk. Ultimately the FDA would be defunct and we could quit getting milked to pay thousands of bureaucrat's salaries."

Hi Dredd,

Mithrandir seems to be saying that some companies in their haste to compete cannot be trusted and that their products should not go on the market without stringent testing (a rubber stamp that actually means something). Your argument above suggests that you are happy for harmful products to be released onto the market because you believe that the companies producing (or certifying) these products will ultimately go out of business (noone wants to buy their products, or unsafe products they have deemed fit for consumption). In the latter scenario, aren't people more likely to get hurt?

If the FDA is not doing its job then reform is needed, however this broad strategy of yours seems motivated by a specific dislike of the FDA. I agree with your anti-monopoly stance, but your solution seems to go too far in one direction.

Paulcoz.

Hiya Paulcoz.

I think you misunderstand my position. I am not suggesting that individual companies test and certify their own products. There are several reasons for this.

The obvious one is how would you know that you could trust the product? As you you pointed out, the profit motive may well cause a company to just "risk it", and while they would likely go out of business eventually, there would be a lot of problems caused by the product they issued that was faulty.


The other issue is one of specialization. Why would each company want to develop their own testing facility and try to wrap up what is in essence a new service into their brand? It violates the economic advantages of specialization and would end up costing as much or more as the FDA does, so no benefit.(no cost benefit at least.)


What I'm saying is you should offer a path, whereby a third party company could test and certify food and drugs to be safe for consumption, thus making them legal for sale in the states, while at the same time maintaining the FDA for the interim.

Several companies would spring up to offer this service. Their marketability and profitability would be based on their accuracy and their track record. They would build a brand established on trust because that would be how they would increase profits. Further, market dynamics would both push them to be accurate and to be swift and cost effective.

Over time, As a consumer, I would recognize that the big green Safe Foods Inc. stamp meant it was as safe or safer to consume than the old FDA approval. Failure to accurately test and certify food or drugs would mean a market backlash.

The businesses wouldn't be infallible, but then neither is the FDA.

Instead of one monopoly fits all, which is what we have now, One could reasonably expect several different companies that offered several different services. No GMO foods could be certified and approved.(This is a service we don't have in the states, in the EU you don't have the opposite.)

A company could offer an "organic only" certification, and by seeing their stamp I could know exactly what I was getting. Instead, in the states, organic only is a brand name, with no assurances to the content of the food.

Instead of voting, one among millions for a president that will appoint by decree who will determine the rigour and quality of my food supply, as well as the defacto law that it operates under I could pick and choose what is best for me by the act of looking at the label.

Choice is increased, economic efficiencies are increased, liability for failure becomes more pronounced, incentives to master the task at hand are monetized, and ultimately the FDA is defunct.

If you yearn for a half pregnant solution then have the government regulate the private industry instead of declaring a monopoly for itself. Of course, that will ultimately devolve into something similar to what we have now.

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
What do you mean "too bad"? I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure that there is no legal barrier to an organization approving foods to a higher standard than the FDA, so that the food product can be approved to further standards after gaining FDA approval. Do you know of any such barriers?

USDA Sued Over Organic Food Certification Records

Quote:
WASHINGTON, DC - The Center for Food Safety (CFS) here recently filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, seeking the release of documents which it claims details the qualifications and background of organic food certifiers that it allows to participate in the national organic food program.

The Center claims that the documents are essential to maintaining Ads by Google

Organic Health Food Store
Taste Organic Valley Products TodayCheck Here For A Store Near You!
www.OrganicValley.coop

Food Delivery
Save 63% on Food DeliveryGet Free Offers on Food Delivery!
Hintstar.com

The Whole Food Farmacy
Healthy Raw Organic Meals & SnacksNon-Toxic Personal Care Items
WholeFoodFarmacy.com
the integrity and food safety of the certification process.

The CFS emphasizes that certification of organic farms is the fundamental enforcement mechanism of organic food standards. However, the CFS claims, the public is concerned by what it perceives to be a reduction in the integrity of the new "organic" label through the appearance of many new, previously unknown certifying agents applying to the USDA for accreditation.

Since 2000, the number of organic certifying agents has jumped from 49 to more than 120. This unexpected increase in the number of accreditation applicants raises troubling questions about possible "sham" certifiers and the USDA's ability to properly assess the qualifications of the large volume of new certifiers seeking accreditation, the CFS said.

The Center believes that recent accounts of inconsistent and potentially illegal clarifications on organic standards from the USDA call into question whether it is adequately reviewing all organic certifying agents it has allowed into the national organic program.

In an effort to ensure that USDA is not allowing "sham" certifiers into the organic program, in June of 2002, CFS had filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking all USDA documents used in reviewing the application of certifiers to participate in the program. However, for the past two years the USDA has failed to comply with the CFS' request, the Center said.

"USDA's failure to release these documents threatens the integrity of the "organic" label," stated Joseph Mendelson, CFS legal director. "The decision on who is to certify organic produce needs to be in full view of the public, where it cannot be influenced by large corporate interests."

"The refusal to provide these records is another step in the Bush Administration's attempt to cut the public out of the debate concerning organic foods," continued Mendelson.
"Consumers and organic producers want to ensure that use of the organic label adheres to a high standard."

Any meaningful certification must be approved and managed by the FDA. As with all monopolies it is very covetous of its market. Slap a private certification on a third party product and you'll be in court shortly.(Low sodium - No MSG - Organic - etc.. all subject to FDA approval) No GMO isn't even allowed. The newest ruling states that cloned meat will not be marked as such but maybe non-cloned meat will be able to be marked as such.

Quote:
Again, I'm not well-versed in the subject, but I tentatively agree with what you're saying here about the FDA. However, I still choose a public monopoly over privatization. In theory and in practice, you're going to get screwed less by throwing in with the party whose every member, from the very bottom to the very top, has as their job description to serve you directly and whose salaries come directly from your wallet. This is in contrast to throwing in with organizations whose top-level members' job description is to maximize profit for other people and whose paychecks don't come directly from your wallet.

I'd prefer to have the people responsible for my food and drug quality be answerable to the people it serves, not the government that employs it. Your "public servant from the bottom to the top" scenario ignores the polity of the FDA. Less earlier alluded that it was those damn republicans that caused drug reimportation to be illegal, the article I linked and quoted blames that damn Bush administration. Thus it's a political issue. I would rather have my breakfast cereal not be an ideological battle.

Quote:
Whenever the notion of government bureaucracy comes up from the pro-privatization crowd, I wonder how much time you guys actually spend in the real world. The public sector is no more inherently bureaucratic than the private sector.

A government program that runs over budget receives additional fund for the next appropriation. A business is required to turn a profit to exist. A government program that doesnt effect the desired outcome is considered underfunded and expands, a business that doesnt effect the desired outcome is downsized or dissolved.

Don't kid yourself.

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
I'm not going to play with your "funding" distraction. I'm only interested right now in which approach does the better job.

Which is a method of dodging my point, which you apparently cant rebut. The "funding" distraction speaks to the motive force of the FDA. It's pertinent, unless you attempt to divorce incentive from the issue. WHich is like trying to divorce motive from a murder.

Quote:
A gov program that doesn't effect the desired outcome is answerable to the voters. The most striking feature of Libertarian Land is that voting with your dollar always works, but voting with an actual vote never works.

As in the other thread, rather than address my point you try to introduce pre-approved labels to buttress your point, or lack of. Rather than concede what should be an easily concedable point you attempt to confuse the issue and twist logic to support a monopoly.

Nothing magical happens when you slap the word government on something. The people that work at the FDA get paid to be there. It's a job. The difference is that rather than being payed by the people it serves directly, government bureaucracy implements layer after layer of indirection, and the service it provides becomes so generic as to be ineffectual.

Have you ever heard of a blob class?