Answer To Economic Frets Is: More Government?

[kenrockthefirst]

[img]http://www.uclick.com/feature/08/04/01/ta080401.gif[/img]

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1489641' date='Mar 31 2008, 01:07 PM']so are you guys seriously advocating throwing out the FDA?
cause if you're not, then i'm not sure what you're point is.... cause i don't ken or me or anyone would disagree the government isn't effcient, and coudl be reduced in a lot of areas.
and if you are not arguing that throwing out of FDA and type things, then i'm not sure where this is headed or what the point is.

i mean, most people would not abuse the system and risk juries or send their kids to sweat shops, but, we can prevent the ones who do do bad things like that.[/quote]

The FDA is useless. They've made importing inexpensive drugs from Canada illegal because "drugs from Canada are unsafe," but allow importing drugs from China which have deadly contaminates.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1489612' date='Mar 31 2008, 02:14 PM']I work in the pharmaceutical industry, which is of course regulated by the FDA, so this is one area where I really know whereof I speak. And in this case, I'll speak one word: Vioxx. Despite safety studies which clearly indicated an increased risk of heart attack as a result of using Vioxx, Merck tried to "cook the books" by suppressing those results and marketed the drug anyway. This despite a modern regulatory framework. This isn't a theoretical civics or economics conversation we're having. People die as a result of bad drugs. As I stated in an earlier post, people will (try to) get away with whatever they can. Ideally, we'd all be faithful Catholics who try to live our lives in accordance with the Gospel. But the flip side of that is recognition that we all fall short, sometimes by weakness, oftentimes deliberately.[/quote]

people die as a result of muggings and murders, but we don't regulate humanity with beaurocracy to try to prevent that: we punish those responsible.

the law should be reformed to make it easier to try and convict people such as the CEOs and all involved in the decision making processes for things such as Vioxx for manslaughter, even murder, should they ignore safety studies and market a deadly drug. if no one dies but it is discovered, then they should be tried for attempted murder, and the law should make it very easy to try them for that. The way to try to prevent things is to POLICE them, not regulate them... does not your very statement "despite the modern regulatory framework" indicate quite plainly that the modern regulatory framework doesn't work anyway?

what I have most of a problem with as regards the FDA is the very broad scope of its power, it is very abusive of that power and that hinders our freedom in very real ways. certain aspects of its regulatory nature to prevent dangerous meds from coming out do not irk me so much, but I do not believe that we need such a regulatory framework and that it is incompetent, unwise, and ineffective.

oh, and dairy, not just sue them: if they put out mortally dangerous products, you try them for attempted murder. if those products do indeed kill, you try them for murder.

I know the greatest problem with such a case is that you need to prove that the individual being tried for murder actually had direct knowledge of it being dangerous, a very tough thing to do. So in addition to trying them for murder, any company which put out a mortally dangerous product ought to be severely fined; depending on the severity of its offense, it ought to be fined all the way even to the point of bankruptcy, and broken up and sold down to lower levels of ownership so that regulation from the management of the company can be more direct. strict and harsh punishment is the best way to police against companies abusing people, not centralized powerful regulatory systems which themselves simply abuse people in a way which is further out of their control. The FDA is certainly not the most serious perpetrator of central power abuse (they just mess with freedom as in the example of canadian drugs and alternative medications and supplements), but things like the Federal Reserve and the FDIC and such do serious harm to the middle class.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1490424' date='Apr 1 2008, 01:10 PM'][img]http://www.uclick.com/feature/08/04/01/ta080401.gif[/img][/quote]
put a large shotgun in Uncle Sam's hand, don't give him a lasso and a muzzle and get him to tame the beasts (as he clearly is incompetent to do so, unless we could resurrect Steve Erwin and elect him president); just let him stand there and threaten them by firing a few shots in the air and actually shooting those that get out of line. that's policing rather than regulating.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1489641' date='Mar 31 2008, 03:07 PM']so are you guys seriously advocating throwing out the FDA?
cause if you're not, then i'm not sure what you're point is.... cause i don't ken or me or anyone would disagree the government isn't effcient, and coudl be reduced in a lot of areas.
and if you are not arguing that throwing out of FDA and type things, then i'm not sure where this is headed or what the point is.

i mean, most people would not abuse the system and risk juries or send their kids to sweat shops, but, we can prevent the ones who do do bad things like that.[/quote]
actually, no we can't prevent that. Ken's Vioxx example shows that quite clearly. A system of justice with more teeth would've prevented the Vioxx fiasco much better than the incompetent regulatory system. but in the end, those who are going to try to make a profit off of it will either learn how to navigate the loopholes and blind-spots of an incompetent regulatory system or else they will try to hide all evidence and try to navigate the loopholes of the justice system with high priced lawyers. The difference between my proposal to strengthen the judicial system against such problems and the current regulatory system is that it is far more risky for them to break the law when the legal system is sitting like a shark in the water ready to devour them should they mess up than to learn all the ins and outs of the regulatory system and get by it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, we can make laws against it, Andy 'dat would help be preventative.
if there iz no law, there iz nothing ta' violate, as YOU!!! said, criminally. i suppose we could change tha' criminal system such 'dat even having a jury find YOU!!! wrong iz wrong, though i doubt htat'd be constitutional.
fining ta' tha' point oven breaking them, iz good, but something's not right if vey can't face criminal charges including imprisionment too.

i think reducing tha' FDA would work, but there needs ta' be some sort oven stardard fo' preventative violations which would necessarily embody an agency, like tha' FDA.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so ninja what!?'s tha' diff oven regulating Andy policing? it seems both AARRGGH!!! from standards. policing would be either civil tort law, or from laws, which iz essentially regulating.

if YOU!!! got oversight, like examinging products before vey AARRGGH!!! sent out, like pills, 'dat would be preventative, Andy seems more like regulating than policing.

just trying ta' distinguish ninja what!?'s being said cause i don't find it clear.

[dUSt]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1490607' date='Apr 1 2008, 03:44 PM']just trying ta' distinguish ninja ninja what!?!?'s being said cause i don't find it clear.[/quote]
I concur.

[dairygirl4u2c]

don't YOU!!! mean.... "i ninja ninja attack ninja what!??? concur!!!"?

[Aloysius]

with policing, you investigate and punish offenders.

with regulators, you have a central powerful agency which can say things like we can't get cheap drugs from Canada because they're "dangerous", you get lots of red tape that keeps alternatives from being able to establish competition. hence the main result of the FDA is that big drug companies are protected against competition whilst they have the resources available to navigate the incompetent regulatory systems. regulation harms competition and freedom, policing does not; it's the difference between saying "you all might do something bad, so we're going to punish all of you" and saying "don't do anything bad or we will punish you". in the first case, it is the big businesses that can easily weather the 'punishment' of regulation and stay in power, but a company starting up is unable to afford to establish itself through the amount of regulation.

not everything the FDA does is about protecting us from mortal danger, of course. in a lot of things it does, it looks like it's just an advocate for the major companies to squelch all competition. why, pray tell, must we be kept from information about various supplements and vitamins and alternative health products, for instance? all information for and against it should be available in the marketplace of ideas, and those who sell these things should be free to tell us what they think those things do for you.

but again, the FDA is not the principal institution that I'm arguing against by this principal. stuff like the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel are much more damaging and dangerous, and they are the principal concerns of this thread right? all of this applies to the regulation done by the Fed as well, or even more so... it keeps the bigger companies in power and pushes down the little ones; it pulls the rug from under the value of currency in such a way that it only affects the money down the ladder at the middle and poorer classes, whilst the rich classes spend the money from the same cycle as the poor classes at the higher value.

harshly police against any and all bank practices that harm people, but stop regulating the banks and the currency.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1491071' date='Apr 2 2008, 07:11 AM']with policing, you investigate and punish offenders.

with regulators, you have a central powerful agency which can say things like we can't get cheap drugs from Canada because they're "dangerous", you get lots of red tape that keeps alternatives from being able to establish competition. hence the main result of the FDA is that big drug companies are protected against competition whilst they have the resources available to navigate the incompetent regulatory systems. regulation harms competition and freedom, policing does not; it's the difference between saying "you all might do something bad, so we're going to punish all of you" and saying "don't do anything bad or we will punish you". in the first case, it is the big businesses that can easily weather the 'punishment' of regulation and stay in power, but a company starting up is unable to afford to establish itself through the amount of regulation.

not everything the FDA does is about protecting us from mortal danger, of course. in a lot of things it does, it looks like it's just an advocate for the major companies to squelch all competition. why, pray tell, must we be kept from information about various supplements and vitamins and alternative health products, for instance? all information for and against it should be available in the marketplace of ideas, and those who sell these things should be free to tell us what they think those things do for you.

but again, the FDA is not the principal institution that I'm arguing against by this principal. stuff like the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel are much more damaging and dangerous, and they are the principal concerns of this thread right? all of this applies to the regulation done by the Fed as well, or even more so... it keeps the bigger companies in power and pushes down the little ones; it pulls the rug from under the value of currency in such a way that it only affects the money down the ladder at the middle and poorer classes, whilst the rich classes spend the money from the same cycle as the poor classes at the higher value.

harshly police against any and all bank practices that harm people, but stop regulating the banks and the currency.[/quote]
So back in the day, when companies were selling meat with rat feces, dead rats, people's fingers, etc., and there were no laws that specifically proscribed those things, how would those companies have been prosecuted?

[Aloysius]

....by making laws...

[kenrockthefirst]

[img]http://www.uclick.com/feature/08/04/04/tt080404.gif[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

if teh FDA makes techincal regulations, and enforces them... that is essentially policing.
cutting competition is a result often of not allowing things that killing people etc. sometimes we should allow people to take what they want, but that's more a specific problem with the FDA going too far, not in their existance.
i don't really see what the distinction is still.
or, at least i don't see wanting to advocate getting rid of the FDA. regs provide guidance and consistency. maybe reducing it etc but.

(also techincally we don't get rid of FDA, cause they make water standards for drinking, which is what gov does who needs guidance, but as per the private system stuff i'm ignoring that point. just sayin the broad "get rid of the FDA" langauge is a bit narrow sighted)

they ensure labeling, which is good to have standardized as it's something everyone needs.

i don't see much the FDA does that's so far reaching.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Food_and_diry_supplements"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug...ary_supplements[/url]

also, it's easy to say a jury can say they were unreasonable in making X drug. but, it's gotta go through human testing first, which most would say should have oversight to not be too dramatic in killing subjects. and if human trials are inherent, how far can you be willing ot kill people before it's unreasonable? they'd claim killing is sometimes necessary, when they are going too far, and if th FDA gave oversight, they'd be cool to work wthing a well established system and have immunities.
in fact, without the FDA, the killing that would occur, would deter a lot of businesses from even trying bc law suits and guinea pigs from taking their wild drugs.
it's like... how much unreasonableness is reasonable, in killing patients? that's something a jury would be all over the place with.

just ideas, i know theories can work either way you manipulate htem, but i tend to defer to thinking the FDA is a good idea. the average person would laugh i'm at all apologetic about that but...

Edited April 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dUSt]

If the government wouldn't have bailed out the airline industry after Sept 11th, the entire industry would be a whole lot better off today. Why can't the government simply let businesses fail? Now, the airline industry is in a horrible state--one that it might not be in if a few airlines folded a few years ago, leaving the well run, healthy airlines to pick up the slack and a better share of the market.