What keeps you safer?

Griff · 06-01-2007, 08:54 AM

Competition vs Government Regulation?

U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow

This is just another case where the Feds are trying to keep the little guy from creating a niche market. They pulled the same thing with non-BGH milk.

Aliantha · 06-01-2007, 08:57 AM

Isn't it up to the consumer to educate themselves about the risks and make their own decision about purchasing accordingly?

I think it's a bullshit move and if any company wants to test for any disease at their own expense then there's no problem.

The Eschaton · 06-01-2007, 09:03 AM

And who do you think lobbies the government into doing that? The corporations do, so you trust them to regulate themselves?

The government and FDA is the public tool for keeping corporations in check even if it has been corrupted. Its our fault for not paying attention or valuing the service.

Griff · 06-01-2007, 10:20 AM

They lobby the organization, that they lobbied for the existence of, to limit competition and block access to the market. If the USDA limited themselves to verifying advertising claims, they'd be doing the peoples work, but that is not why they were created. They were created to be the tool of the large established meatpackers.

Beestie · 06-01-2007, 10:44 AM

Greedy politicians will be the downfall of this country. Great men and great women have abandoned politics to corporate stooges. Bush is a veritable poster child for this phenomenon.

The answer to the question assumes - or depends- on whether or not governement functions correctly - as it was designed. Competition is the only safeguard consumers need. But in the absence of competition, the government has to step in and fill the gap. Government can break up monopolies, it can foster competition and as a last resort, it can regulate pricing and industry practices.

So the real question for me is: Is government filling the gap or are they creating and/or perpetuating the gap (by fostering policies that reduce or stifle competition)?

There are numerous examples of government protecting the people from the economic consequences of a non-competitive market and there are many examples of government stifling competition at the expense of the consumer.

The answer, I guess would have to be the average benefit of the protection we get minus the average cost we bear when government doesn't do its job.

TheMercenary · 06-03-2007, 09:23 PM

We need a balance of both. Both controls through some regulation and competition through open and free markets. The balance is the key. Finding and defining it is something else all together.

Aliantha · 06-03-2007, 10:19 PM

There should be minimum standards - which I assume there already are - and if someone wants to make their particular product more attractive and by doing so is able to ask a higher price, so be it.

That's what a free market is all about.

Ibby · 06-03-2007, 10:27 PM

I think that's the first really reasonable thing Merc's said, ever.

skysidhe · 06-09-2007, 10:07 PM

06-01-2007, 08:54 AM	#1
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	What keeps you safer? Competition vs Government Regulation? U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow This is just another case where the Feds are trying to keep the little guy from creating a niche market. They pulled the same thing with non-BGH milk. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

06-01-2007, 08:57 AM	#2
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Isn't it up to the consumer to educate themselves about the risks and make their own decision about purchasing accordingly? I think it's a bullshit move and if any company wants to test for any disease at their own expense then there's no problem. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

06-01-2007, 09:03 AM	#3
The Eschaton Vivacious Vivisectionist Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: The Future Posts: 36	And who do you think lobbies the government into doing that? The corporations do, so you trust them to regulate themselves? The government and FDA is the public tool for keeping corporations in check even if it has been corrupted. Its our fault for not paying attention or valuing the service. __________________ "All i say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed." - Montaigne

06-01-2007, 10:20 AM	#4
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	They lobby the organization, that they lobbied for the existence of, to limit competition and block access to the market. If the USDA limited themselves to verifying advertising claims, they'd be doing the peoples work, but that is not why they were created. They were created to be the tool of the large established meatpackers. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

06-01-2007, 10:44 AM	#5
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	Greedy politicians will be the downfall of this country. Great men and great women have abandoned politics to corporate stooges. Bush is a veritable poster child for this phenomenon. The answer to the question assumes - or depends- on whether or not governement functions correctly - as it was designed. Competition is the only safeguard consumers need. But in the absence of competition, the government has to step in and fill the gap. Government can break up monopolies, it can foster competition and as a last resort, it can regulate pricing and industry practices. So the real question for me is: Is government filling the gap or are they creating and/or perpetuating the gap (by fostering policies that reduce or stifle competition)? There are numerous examples of government protecting the people from the economic consequences of a non-competitive market and there are many examples of government stifling competition at the expense of the consumer. The answer, I guess would have to be the average benefit of the protection we get minus the average cost we bear when government doesn't do its job. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

06-03-2007, 09:23 PM	#6
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	We need a balance of both. Both controls through some regulation and competition through open and free markets. The balance is the key. Finding and defining it is something else all together. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-03-2007, 10:19 PM	#7
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	There should be minimum standards - which I assume there already are - and if someone wants to make their particular product more attractive and by doing so is able to ask a higher price, so be it. That's what a free market is all about. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

06-03-2007, 10:27 PM	#8
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	I think that's the first really reasonable thing Merc's said, ever. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

06-09-2007, 10:07 PM	#9
skysidhe ~~Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.~~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 6,828

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)