[sdduuuude]

Whoever you are, please stop. Rich isn’t going to ban the actual markmax33 just because you add a period to the end of a username and post this stuff.

[sdduuuude]

You asked “Have we ever had a system like this that worked ?” I have two answers – the first is – I don’t care. If you require something to have existed before you adopt it, you will never find anything better than anything that has ever existed.

Also, I prefer freedom and some mistakes over government intervention and fewer mistakes, though I’m confident there would be fewer in a free environment.

Second – the answer could be “yes.” I think early America was very much like this. There were problems, but (as long as you weren’t a Native American), there was freedom.

The way I see it is – the worst offenses of the kind you describe are when the government wrongly supports corporations, backs off on punishment, or bails them out. The Liberals always say “see how bad those awful corporations are” and the Conservatives always say “see how horrible the government is” The recent Gulf spill is a clear case where this happened and the bank bailout, of course

So, I agree that we need recourse. At some level, there has to be a body that steps in to do the dirty work to smack-down corporations when they screw up and it doesn’t happen enough. But recourse against mistakes or fraud is different from the government dictating what can and cannot come to market.

Also, putting faith in one government agency can lead to false confidence in the system. I think the SEC is a shining example of an agency that is really messed up. The regulations are wrong and the important ones are not enforced.

People often assume that “no government agency” is synonymous with “no recourse” and “free market” means anyone can do whatever they want. This is not what I’m saying or have ever said.

poorgradstudent said it well earlier – regulated free markets are the right answer. I would say “properly” regulated markets. By that I mean, markets where the transactions between people are regulated to ensure that fraud or deception or property rights violations are punished, but the products or services themselves are unencumbered.

In this light, the USDA inspections and meat-grading are not much of an issue, I suppose because it provides information to consumers, but the requirement of FDA approval for new products is bad stuff. Ask someone in the pharmaceutical industry what they think of the FDA sometime. See what they say.

—

If we don’t like paying for wars we don’t want why do we ? We just live with it because that is the way it has always been. Again – I see complacency. But, if you think about it, we revolted against England for exactly that reason – taxation w/o representation. I suppose you could say we have representation now – certainly more than English citizens in the 1700s – but that representation has broken down remarkably in the last 100 years. A tiny percentage of the population support the $700 billion bank bailout, yet it was approved. To me, this is taxation without representation.

We just accept the fact that the gov can take our money and do whatever they want with it, even if it is flies in the face of our ethics, morals, or interests. It is a true sheeple mentality.

Ron Paul isn’t very flashy, but calling his campaign the Ron Paul “Revolution” is extremely clever and appropriate, because today’s conditions are reminiscent of England in the 1700s and I’m surprised and pleased with how today’s youth understand his message. It’s a good one and the right one.

—

By the way, have you even looked at that blue line on the redfin chart ? It’s amazing.

[sdduuuude]

Reading these responses, one would think that women get no fulfillment out of sex at all and the only reason they partake in it is to get something material out of it, unrelated to the actual act itself.

Well, maybe true for those women having sex with you guys, but for the ones having sex with me it’s a different story …

[sdduuuude]

I would first look up the definition of “living” before getting to worried about it.

I doubt many inspectors will be willing to work the night shift necessary to catch someone sleeping in there. And, without plumbing, they’ll be hard-pressed to prove anything.

I think they care about someone renting it out and cooking/sleeping, etc.

Still – I’d ask a lawyer what, exactly, you can’t do just so he can get his story straight if anyone ever asks.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]If they go too far someone dies and they just file an insurance claim.[/quote]

And what happens to the USDA inspector if they screw up? Maybe they get fired. I’d say there is even less accountability there.

If people die from something that was inspected by a private company, that company lose the public trust and would be doomed, and criminal charges would not be inappropriate. Suing the federal government, however, is not easy.

[quote=harvey]They may start out that way but eventually power concentrates[/quote]

You want to concentrate it into 1 place – the government agency.

[quote=harvey]The reason that there was a call for government oversight in the past … [/quote]

Just because there is a government agency doesn’t mean that people were clamoring for government oversight. It means some government offical made a power-grab. Big difference.

[sdduuuude]

Harvey –

One benefit would be lower food prices and a wider set of options for people.

But, let me change the approach a bit …

I believe in letting people make their own decisions on what they buy. If you have someone who wants to buy meat and someone who wants to sell meat and neither of them want the USDA involved, then I feel that it is wrong to force either of them to have to deal with the USDA just because you (and others) want the meat inspected. If you want the meat inspected, then get the meat you buy inspected. Let everyone else be.

I believe that Ron Paul’s issues with the FDA stem directly from this issue – that the government is telling people what they can and cannot buy and telling businesses what they can and cannot produce. That should not be their role and I don’t believe it is their right. This is what is broke.

As pri_dk once said on a different type of meat market, it “… is an independent transaction between consenting adults – we should all have the ‘freedom’ to participate”

The way these arguments always go is – the guy proposing more freedom says “The government is involved in X when they should just leave people be and let them make their own decisions” Then someone says, “If the government agency involved in X disappeared, all these bad things would happen.”

Then the freedom guy says “the market would figure out a way that is better” and the other guy says “I don’t think the market could possibly come up with better so therefore the gov has the right to tell all of us what to do and how to live our lives”

A better answer than “the market would figure out a better way” is “I would rather choose freedom and let those bad things happen because the people would be making their own decisions”

So, you say it aint broke because these agencies are doing a job of protecting against bad things and you appreciate that. In reality it is broken because they are forcing people to make decisions – an approach I loathe.

So, I feel the FDA/USDA could serve us more appropriately by letting us know their opinion of things that could potentially harm us, but not as an agency that dictates what can and cannot come to market. And, they should be funded, in the end, by people who buy the products that are inspected, not by the population as a whole through taxes.

Lets say someone is dying of cancer and there is a drug that could help them but it is not available on the market because the FDA has either not gotten to it or they have disapproved it for some reason. Why shouldn’t the cancer victim be able to deal directly with a drug manufacturer directly, knowing full-well that it is not FDA approved ? As long as the risks are known and the sign the paper that says this is not a fully tested drug and it could kill them and they see the FDA report on that drug, how can you justify giving anyone the authority to tell them they can’t ?

So, whether or not you think something would evolve to replace the FDA is not material to the most important reason why the FDA should be stripped of their power to dictate what can and cannot come to market.

Just because you want someone to inspect your products before they hit the market doesn’t mean that the rest of the country should pay for it and be forced to live within your restrictions.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdrealtor]FLU
You can rescue RIM and eliminate the FDA in one swoop. Create an app for Blackberrys that scans meat for contamination. Better yet add a social networking aspect to it so you can cash in on the IPO frenzy. Call it Meatbook.[/quote]

Or you could just cook the meat.

[sdduuuude]

Harvey – you ask me all these questions like I know exactly how the market would emerge if the USDA disappeared. I don’t. Neither does the USDA. Neither do you. You make it sound complicated and you seemed worried about you having to rework the system. In actuality, all these transactions happen within the meat industry itself as a part of business and the needs of the consumer really would drive how the inspection certification would work.

I think that is really what bothers most about the idea of removing government agencies – the uncertainty of how a replacement would emerge, probably because such replacements won’t be designed by a single, central agency or person. It has never bothered me because I’m not a control freak. I’m OK letting lots of little decisions between individuals bring about solutions instead of entrusting one government official, who – if he is wrong – screws over millions of people in one fell swoop.

Likely many different solutions would be tried and the cheapest, most-effective would remain. I would guess that the consumer would still want to see some sort of stamp or certification on the meat that comes from somewhere that they can trust. If the meat industry is stupid enough to make consumers check a magazine every time they buy meat, then they go out of business. And I agree that it would be best for the consumers or retailer to pay for the inspection fee.

In some sense, the consumers would have to be less complacent and insist on a workable solution, which I think is a good thing. Your response above is screaming “complacency” Here your health is on the line and you just want the government to handle it for you. Really ? Wouldn’t you want more control of who, exactly, is in charge of this?

(As a side note – why should vegetarians pay for the USDA to inspect meat? makes no sense. That should be funded only by meat buyers, I think. )

Another role of government I see is to provide information to consumers, rather than dictate what the consumers can and cannot do.

The existence of the FDA and the fact that they approve or disapprove products doesn’t bother me so much as the fact that you can’t sell something until it has FDA approval. In other words – if we had products on the market that were FDA approved and other products that were not FDA approved (clearly labelled, of course), I’d be fine with that.

Or, if they issued reports on who is putting problematic products out there.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdrealtor]If the market for meat dried up would it be a boom for jerky?[/quote]

Nice.

See, if I were MM, I would totally freak out and get pissed off …

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]You could start with explaining how private-sector is going to do a better job of “inspecting our meats.”

Seriously though, are the functions of agencies like the FDA/USDA/FAA/NTSB etc. really going be better served by a yet-untested private solution?

(Question is for sduude, not mm)[/quote]

Hey harvey. Thanks for asking. I’m not sure I really need someone to inspect my meat and if I did, I’m pretty sure I could find someone to do it for less than the FDA.

I also tend to put some faith in people. I don’t think our meat is safe because we have the FDA. I think it is safe because there aren’t any ranchers/butchers in the world that want to kill people with their meat. It is bad for business. Yes, people make mistakes and get sloppy and even greedy, so you need some way to keep that from happening.

Likely this role could be fulfilled by insurance companies. Killing people with food you sell is bad business and insuring companies that kill people with food they sell is even worse. If I could see a stamp on there that says “Insured by xxx financial” then I would know that there is someone who is protecting not only my interest but their own interests as well by making sure that meat is safe.

Businesses like Consumer Reports could take on an increasing role as well.

Also, I would like to see the role of government be more of a facilitator than funder. Maybe they certify several capable inspectors who could compete for the inspection business and earn reputations for certifying meat that doesn’t kill people.

And, after all is said and done – if the private market can’t provide a way to ensure that the meat is safe, then the market for meat would probably dry up, which means the FDA has been keeping an industry in business that shouldn’t be which means a whole lot of malinvestment.

I’m not saying or implying this is the case in that particular market, but just showing how sometimes these government agencies that people think they need can bring about unintended consequences.

[sdduuuude]

I like Ron Paul, not because I think he will be the next great president, but because he is starting to give people, especially young people, a perspective on our government, government spending, and crony-capitalism that I believe is right-on.

The sad thing here is that MM does Ron Paul a terrible disservice in the way he attempts to lend support.

I’d be glad to step in and support some of these ideas with some reasonable arguments, but I just can’t bring myself to align myself with MM, especially when I see him fall prey to people, like harvy or henry or whoever he is and pri_dick, who just goad him into saying stupid things.

His (MM’s) overly defensive position is beyond annoying and when the “killer argument” brings us to plastic surgery, I’m out..

Oh, and to FLU’s point – if this weren’t a real-estate blog that is now full of Ron Paul posts …

I mean – look at that redfin graph to the right. The blue line is out-of control !

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sdrealtor]DVR. It changes the way you watch. You watch what you want, when you want and as much at a times as you want.[/quote]

I’m behind the times. I still don’t have a DVR.

PBS has more interesting programming that I could ever watch. Still trying to watch the Frontline series on power and money.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/%5B/quote%5D

Yes, but the reason you are still trying to watch it is because you have to be in front of a TV when it is broadcast. Spend the money at http://www.tivo.com and you will be able to record it when it is on and save the episodes. This way, when you have time to watch, the shows you want to watch will be “on”

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]How do you guys find time to watch TV?[/quote]

Rather than optimizing my life around making the most money, I have optimized it around making the most time.

[sdduuuude]

See IM

[sdduuuude]

It holds a prominent position on the Tivo and has for many months but we have seen every single episode. The Texas version keeps us entertained while waiting for new episodes of the original.

Funny thing is, I showed my wife this stupid show I was sure she would hate, just for a laugh. And she loved it! It’s nice to find something we both like, stupid as it is.

I keep telling her we could get out there to some auctions and be the new Brandi and Jarrod, but she is content to just watch the show.

[Author]

Posts