You guys like to beat up on perch

[Clubfoothead]

For some businesses like law firms I doubt it will be burdensome at all. For other businesses like construction companies, it will be a major PIA. I'm guessing most businesses will fall somewhere in between making it a minor PIA.

 

The fact that you'd have to translate "keep your reciepts" into Spanish and get Execl would be the businesses problem. Everybody collects their reciepts and gives them to one person. Pretty simple other than the translation. Them tax cheats sure to throw a big fit over a minor inconvenience.

[Perchoutofwater]

The fact that you'd have to translate "keep your reciepts" into Spanish and get Execl would be the businesses problem. Everybody collects their reciepts and gives them to one person. Pretty simple other than the translation. Them tax cheats sure to throw a big fit over a minor inconvenience.

 

I have never cheated on my taxes. I've told my accountant that if it is even questionable, error on the side of the IRS. I have annual audits by an accounting firm. This will be a PIA as it will probably cost my company an additional $2,500 to $3,500 to comply with. That is money I could use to increase salaries, benefits, or take myself and spend on new equipment that would help stimulate the economy. The government is punishing us all for the transgressions of a few. I believe I've also heard one of the tax lawyers here say that by the time the IRS goes through all this paperwork it is going to be pretty much a zero sum gain, so you have basically taken money out of the economy and produced nothing with it except possibly a few more IRS jobs.

[detlef]

well, I guess that's why most small business owners are in favor of less government and why, faced with the choice of the two, they tend to prefer republican candidates over democrats. maybe they're irrational and stupid, maybe they aren't. but somehow, politicians of both parties are always trying to find ways to blow smoke up their butt and show how much they luuuuuuvvv small business, perhaps because they realize on some level that is a key component of the economy.

I'm also not implying that they're irrational or stupid either. I'm just saying that this whole deal is not news given who they're talking to. Maybe it's a needed component of getting things done, maybe it's not, but everyone is always looking out for #1. I'm a member of the NC Restaurant Association and some of what they fight for "on my behalf" is not something that I agree with because I feel it's too narrow minded. Anything and everything that is proposed that could cost restaurants money is fought against tooth and nail, without a notion of whether or not it makes sense. I'm a member because much of what they fight for makes sense as well as other benefits, but not all of it.

 

I guess my issue is this. I believe certain things need to get done by the group as a whole. However, the way it is set up, the burden ultimately lies on who does the worst job of pushing it off on someone else.

 

For example, the meat and dairy and egg lobbies are stronger than the service industry lobby. Thus, instead of creating or upholding regulations on making sure the meat and eggs are clean, we end up with regulations that say you have to cook said potentially dirty meat and eggs long enough to make them safe. That's why you can't get a medium rare burger and soon may not be able to get an over easy egg in most restaurants. Seems pretty lame and basically everyone loses except the producers who's "plight" is championed by those who are tired of "Big government stepping in and telling people what's good for them." Problem is, somehow we need to make sure that people aren't getting sick, so somebody has to take up the slack. And since it doesn't cost me any more to cook a burger well done than it does to cook it med rare, I'm the obvious candidate. However, the right thing to do is for "Big Brother to go all nanny state" on the guys who are putting tainted food into the marketplace. Even though that solution actually costs someone money.

[Azazello1313]

I'm also not implying that they're irrational or stupid either. I'm just saying that this whole deal is not news given who they're talking to. Maybe it's a needed component of getting things done, maybe it's not, but everyone is always looking out for #1. I'm a member of the NC Restaurant Association and some of what they fight for "on my behalf" is not something that I agree with because I feel it's too narrow minded. Anything and everything that is proposed that could cost restaurants money is fought against tooth and nail, without a notion of whether or not it makes sense. I'm a member because much of what they fight for makes sense as well as other benefits, but not all of it.

 

I guess my issue is this. I believe certain things need to get done by the group as a whole. However, the way it is set up, the burden ultimately lies on who does the worst job of pushing it off on someone else.

 

For example, the meat and dairy and egg lobbies are stronger than the service industry lobby. Thus, instead of creating or upholding regulations on making sure the meat and eggs are clean, we end up with regulations that say you have to cook said potentially dirty meat and eggs long enough to make them safe. That's why you can't get a medium rare burger and soon may not be able to get an over easy egg in most restaurants. Seems pretty lame and basically everyone loses except the producers who's "plight" is championed by those who are tired of "Big government stepping in and telling people what's good for them." Problem is, somehow we need to make sure that people aren't getting sick, so somebody has to take up the slack. And since it doesn't cost me any more to cook a burger well done than it does to cook it med rare, I'm the obvious candidate. However, the right thing to do is for "Big Brother to go all nanny state" on the guys who are putting tainted food into the marketplace. Even though that solution actually costs someone money.

 

seems like an egg producer could really do well if he added extra levels of protection selling "safe" eggs (at a higher price) to restaurants who want to serve them over easy. or maybe he could even get together with other, like-minded egg producers to create some sort of industry-certifying board whose recommendation and/or designation of quality egg makers could either strive to attain or not, depending on what portion of the egg market they are after. I mean, I think the demand for over-easy eggs and mid rare burgers is sufficient to initiate an appropriate market solution to this problem. maybe government regulation is the best answer, maybe it isn't....but so many of us have become knee-jerk conditioned to consider it the only possible solution.

[detlef]

seems like an egg producer could really do well if he added extra levels of protection selling "safe" eggs (at a higher price) to restaurants who want to serve them over easy. or maybe he could even get together with other, like-minded egg producers to create some sort of industry-certifying board whose recommendation and/or designation of quality egg makers could either strive to attain or not, depending on what portion of the egg market they are after. I mean, I think the demand for over-easy eggs and mid rare burgers is sufficient to initiate an appropriate market solution to this problem. maybe government regulation is the best answer, maybe it isn't....but so many of us have become knee-jerk conditioned to consider it the only possible solution.

Well, to a degree, that already exists. We buy our eggs from a small, local producers so don't have to worry about such things. There are also ways that places can be allowed to serve med rare bugers (by using certain approved ranchers and/or grinding the meat themselves.

 

However, I don't think that simply producing a safe and edible product should be something that is basically an up-sell or something that producers should voluntarily do to make themselves more appealing. There are basic quality floors that people should expect. Maybe you don't care that the chickens who laid the eggs you're eating never saw the light of day and was pumped full of drugs. (Not saying "you" in particular, of course). However, if you walk into a store, you should be able to assume that the food you are purchasing is not disease ridden. The absence of disease should not be a special feature and I'm not so sure that I want those who stand to profit from sales of said product to decide where the line should be drawn.

 

Having insiders govern what deserves pedigree is another thing entirely. Take AOC in French wines. Those districts are often governed by reputable producers within the region. However, that is a luxury product and is in direct competition with luxury products from other areas. Thus, there's a vested interest in upholding standards. Eggs, not so much. It's probably ultimately cheaper to do things as normal and just play damage control with some ads whenever the specter of salmonella rears it's ugly head.

 

Sure, right now everyone is freaked out about eggs, but that will pass in no time. Then, you're right back to normal. Some of us will seek out, and pay for good eggs because we like the flavor, the fact that the yolks are deep yellow, and the fact that we're not ingesting chemicals. But everyone else just wants their eggs as cheaply as possible. Unfortunate, actually because even when they cost twice as much, a plate of two eggs and toast, made at home from the most expensive eggs you are typically going to find is still a damned cheap breakfast. If you're looking to save money, there are more effective ways to do so.

[Azazello1313]

Well, to a degree, that already exists. We buy our eggs from a small, local producers so don't have to worry about such things. There are also ways that places can be allowed to serve med rare bugers (by using certain approved ranchers and/or grinding the meat themselves.

 

well there you go

 

Having insiders govern what deserves pedigree is another thing entirely. Take AOC in French wines. Those districts are often governed by reputable producers within the region. However, that is a luxury product and is in direct competition with luxury products from other areas. Thus, there's a vested interest in upholding standards. Eggs, not so much. It's probably ultimately cheaper to do things as normal and just play damage control with some ads whenever the specter of salmonella rears it's ugly head.

 

well like I said, there's plenty of "vested interest" in being able to serve over-easy eggs that won't make you puke your guts out. but on the other hand, there are other consumers who buy eggs and they cook the begeezus out of every one of them. they don't need the higher level of salmonella control, any latent germs would get nuked by their own processes, so they'd rather buy cheaper eggs.

 

see how it kinda works out for everyone even without the government coming in and tripping all over their dicks trying to mandate what everybody should be doing?

[detlef]

well there you go

 

 

 

well like I said, there's plenty of "vested interest" in being able to serve over-easy eggs that won't make you puke your guts out. but on the other hand, there are other consumers who buy eggs and they cook the begeezus out of every one of them. they don't need the higher level of salmonella control, any latent germs would get nuked by their own processes, so they'd rather buy cheaper eggs.

 

see how it kinda works out for everyone even without the government coming in and tripping all over their dicks trying to mandate what everybody should be doing?

I have a vested interest in being able to serve over easy eggs and perhaps this will be a watershed moment for the market actually being able to fix something like this because people don't seem to mind the fact that they can't get a medium rare burger but I'm guessing will not tolerate the fact that they can only get either scrambled or set yolk eggs. However, someone is still going to have to confirm which eggs are suitable to be cooked in any manner and which ones need to be cooked through, right? And I'd guess the eggs would have to be stamped accordingly because you are basically endorsing "dirty eggs" as viable option to produce provided you're prepared to label them as "must be cooked through". Seems like more work than simply not allowing egg producers to employ techniques that are prone to producing contaminated eggs, is it not?

 

Are you seriously advocating making it optional whether or not an egg producer sells disease ridden eggs? Isn't that taking the free market to a rather extreme level?

[Azazello1313]

makes you wonder how people ever ate eggs before the government came along to "fix" the problem.

 

again, I'm not saying government regulation is necessarily right or wrong in any particular instance, just that the knee-jerk response that it is the solution to every possible problem and the only way we can ever expect quality products to come to market is rather absurd. I think a producer who sells "disease-ridden eggs" would not have many buyers. unless, like I said, "they don't need the higher level of salmonella control, any latent germs would get nuked by their own processes, so they'd rather buy cheaper eggs."

 

what is so wrong with people choosing what they buy according to their own needs? what is with the need to force people against their will to buy organic eggs, expensive crappy light bulbs, etc? (not to mention the need to coerce them away from buying happy meals).

[detlef]

makes you wonder how people ever ate eggs before the government came along to "fix" the problem.

 

again, I'm not saying government regulation is necessarily right or wrong in any particular instance, just that the knee-jerk response that it is the solution to every possible problem and the only way we can ever expect quality products to come to market is rather absurd. I think a producer who sells "disease-ridden eggs" would not have many buyers. unless, like I said, "they don't need the higher level of salmonella control, any latent germs would get nuked by their own processes, so they'd rather buy cheaper eggs."

 

what is so wrong with people choosing what they buy according to their own needs? what is with the need to force people against their will to buy organic eggs, expensive crappy light bulbs, etc? (not to mention the need to coerce them away from buying happy meals).

Maybe the government didn't come along to fix the problem until it existed. But some time about halfway through the last century, "the greatest of all generations" started aiming the quality bar lower and lower in the name of profits. And that is when a third party needs to step in and start enacting standards. Think about beer in America from 1950 to 1980. Every single "innovation" to brewing was done to make the product cheaper to produce and with no regard to quality. Now, the quality is one thing, but the government had to step in when they started adding cobalt salts to create foam that would have happened on its own if what they were making actually resembled beer. And these salts were making people sick. Now, I suppose we could have left it up to the consumer to navigate the market of beers and avoid those that contained toxic chemicals. Who knows, perhaps some were tolerant of these salts. However, it doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable to demand these standards.

 

As for your last point, I'm not talking about making people buy organic eggs. In fact, I specifically mentioned the opposite. Regardless, what say you about the fact that it would likely require more effort to police the industry and stamp each egg for it's intended use as it would be to simply have basic levels of quality that one can't go below? And, again, who's in charge of deciding which eggs are cool and which ones are not? Is it up to the producers to police themselves? Good luck with that. You haven't removed any bureaucracy, you've just made it that much more complicated because there is no longer a default of acceptable standard. It's just one more thing that can go wrong. One more thing the consumer needs to confirm before they do something as simple as cook a plate of eggs.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think a producer who sells "disease-ridden eggs" would not have many buyers.

Perhaps you should live close to Iowa, where the latest outbreak emanated from. The company in question has millions and millions of battery hens and has been cited hundreds of times for everything ranging from animal cruelty through unsafe handling processes through vile fetid conditions for workers and birds alike, plus defrauding and intimidation of workers. The owner is a notorious scofflaw. IMO, the entire operation should have been shut down and sold off to the highest bidder years ago.

 

Only one thing drives the buyers of eggs from an operation like this - price.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Azazello1313]

Think about beer in America from 1950 to 1980. Every single "innovation" to brewing was done to make the product cheaper to produce and with no regard to quality.

 

great f*cking example! thank you!! let's look into that, shall we....

 

 

If you’re a fan of craft beer and microbreweries as opposed to say Bud Light or Coors, you should say a little thank you to Jimmy Carter. Carter could very well be the hero of International Beer Day.

 

To make a long story short, prohibition led to the dismantling of many small breweries around the nation. When prohibition was lifted, government tightly regulated the market, and small scale producers were essentially shut out of the beer market altogether. Regulations imposed at the time greatly benefited the large beer makers. In 1979, Carter deregulated the beer industry, opening back up to craft brewers. As the chart below illustrates, this had a really amazing effect on the beer industry:

 

 

!

[redrumjuice]

Democrats said they backed the bill because small businesses had trouble getting loans after the financial crisis that began in December 2007. They estimate the incentives could provide up to $300 billion in new small business credit in the coming years and create 500,000 new jobs.

 

Caaaaaan you feeeeeeel the loooove toniiiight.

 

The hatred of small business is blinding . . . oh wait.

 

Will this keep the unemployment rate under 8% too?

 

President Obama is crowing about his small-business bill, signed into law on Monday. "It was critical that we cut taxes and made more loans available to entrepreneurs," he said. Trouble is, small businesses and community banks don't want Obama's $30 billion program. That's right. They don't want it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

we just need to pull back on those child labor laws and many things will be fixed.

[Azazello1313]

I personally find it particularly meaningful that government and industry and (I presume) anti-drinking scolds colluded to criminalize a behavior that wasn't just victimless, but downright awesome; and that the removal of that appalling bit of illiberal nannyism helped usher in a phenomenon I would have bet the house against two decades ago: a thriving and variegated American industry of delicious beermaking.

 

And given that, what's wrong with making deregulation a "starting point"? Imagine for a crazy moment a world in which the default expectation would be for government not to flop its grotesque belly onto the forehead of various industries, not to meddle in the affairs of pre-pubescent drink vendors, not to redistribute $20 billion a year (give or take) of our money to mostly well-heeled agriculture companies just to make sure they don't face competition from poor people. I'm not talking about no regulation here, but rather the idea that if such-and-such activity isn't hurting anybody it shouldn't be subject to governmental micro-managing, license-imposing, winner-picking, and even arrest.

 

One of the common misconceptions about libertarian enthusiasm for deregulation is that it's some kind of (presumably paid-for) philosophical cover for wanting the very richest Corporates to be even richester. Speaking as a libertarded conspiracy of one, my favorite bedtime deregulation stories are about stuff like beer, air travel, and talking about politics on radio and TV, where after you lifted restrictions that in retrospect sound like they came from another planet, people do what the normally do when left alone—create all kinds of interesting new artifacts, businesses, and even ways of life. Regulations so often piss me off because they so often fall disproportionately on the backs of the little guy, while the big guy—even/especially the one whose misconduct precipitated the regulation in the first place—walks off with a well-lobbied exemption. Generally speaking, the fewer activities are illegal, the freer us opposable-thumbs types are.

 

[detlef]

great f*cking example! thank you!! let's look into that, shall we....

 

 

 

 

 

!

I'll have to take that guy's word for it that it went down exactly that way. I have no idea what the regulations were but they obviously were not aimed towards consumer protection, but rather to protect monopolies. And that is exactly why we should not just let the government do whatever any more than we should let industry do whatever. Hell, I can give you examples of codes regarding restaurants that are just as bad for the little guy (and thus for quality in general) as I would imagine the regulations on beer were that Carter abolished.

 

Regardless, you and I could go back and forth. You pointing out government regulations that were actually bad for the public. Me pointing out where deregulation came back to bite us in the ass.

 

Of course, it would be nice, if along the way, you did bother to answer my question about how your egg labeling system is any simpler than just making sure there aren't dirty eggs on the market.

[Azazello1313]

Of course, it would be nice, if along the way, you did bother to answer my question about how your egg labeling system is any simpler than just making sure there aren't dirty eggs on the market.

 

I don't know the simplest answer, and that is kinda the point. people who buy and sell them probably have the best idea what can be done to get the best quality product to market at the best price. they will probably come up with the best process of their own volition because there are strong incentives for them to do so. if there is demand for quality at the expense of price, they will respond, and if there is demand for price at the expense of quality they will respond to that too.

 

Regardless, you and I could go back and forth. You pointing out government regulations that were actually bad for the public. Me pointing out where deregulation came back to bite us in the ass.

 

except the back and forth to this point has consisted of you providing an example that was actually a rather perfect example for MY side of the argument. I would love to go "back and forth" like this all day.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Scooby's Hubby]

you mean this is NOT what is my favorite Perch thread? I thought everyone was doing the "my favorite ____ song"

[detlef]

I don't know the simplest answer, and that is kinda the point. people who buy and sell them probably have the best idea what can be done to get the best quality product to market at the best price. they will probably come up with the best process of their own volition because there are strong incentives for them to do so. if there is demand for quality at the expense of price, they will respond, and if there is demand for price at the expense of quality they will respond to that too.

 

 

 

except the back and forth to this point has consisted of you providing an example that was actually a rather perfect example for MY side of the argument. I would love to go "back and forth" like this all day.

Or you doing the same? From your post linked above...

I'm not talking about no regulation here, but rather the idea that if such-and-such activity isn't hurting anybody it shouldn't be subject to governmental micro-managing, license-imposing, winner-picking, and even arrest.

 

See, I am talking about activity that is hurting people and you are advocating having the government get out of the way of people selling contaminated product just so long as they label it such. But if somebody has to bother inspecting facilities to determine what eggs should and shouldn't be labeled "contaminated", why not just not allow those eggs to be sold? Why take the guesswork out of the equation. Because now you've got the chance of some unscrupulous restaurant buy the crappy eggs and not say that he's using them. After all, it's not a given that each and every person is going to get sick. In fact, the odds are rather slim. Maybe dude is tight on money and just wants to save a buck. And then some child or old lady dies. Sure, dude gets sued out of business, but someone has still died. Or are you also implying that we should also inspect the walk-ins of each and every restaurant to make sure they're not buying crappy eggs and not putting up a sign that says, "I buy diseased eggs but it's OK as long as you don't want them cooked over easy". Sure seems like a whole lot of work when we could simply enforce a rather humble quality floor of "don't sell food that is disease ridden".

 

Either that, or we can simply get in the way of the all-mighty market and not allow people to take contaminated food to market. Honestly, it amazes me that we're even having this argument. You have to be fishing.

[Azazello1313]

Or you doing the same? From your post linked above...

 

 

See, I am talking about activity that is hurting people and you are advocating having the government get out of the way of people selling contaminated product just so long as they label it such. But if somebody has to bother inspecting facilities to determine what eggs should and shouldn't be labeled "contaminated", why not just not allow those eggs to be sold? Why take the guesswork out of the equation. Because now you've got the chance of some unscrupulous restaurant buy the crappy eggs and not say that he's using them. After all, it's not a given that each and every person is going to get sick. In fact, the odds are rather slim. Maybe dude is tight on money and just wants to save a buck. And then some child or old lady dies. Sure, dude gets sued out of business, but someone has still died. Or are you also implying that we should also inspect the walk-ins of each and every restaurant to make sure they're not buying crappy eggs and not putting up a sign that says, "I buy diseased eggs but it's OK as long as you don't want them cooked over easy". Sure seems like a whole lot of work when we could simply enforce a rather humble quality floor of "don't sell food that is disease ridden".

 

Either that, or we can simply get in the way of the all-mighty market and not allow people to take contaminated food to market. Honestly, it amazes me that we're even having this argument. You have to be fishing.

 

ok, let's twist what I said into absurd strawmen and flights of moronic fancy, and then act "amazed" and accuse me of fishing.

[detlef]

ok, let's twist what I said into absurd strawmen and flights of moronic fancy, and then act "amazed" and accuse me of fishing.

Did you or did you not say that it's OK to allow egg farms to sell potentially disease-ridden eggs provided the consumer agreed to cook them through?

 

My point is this. It is often not the consumer who makes that decision, but rather the person who stands between the farm and the consumer. So, because you have allowed these eggs to come to market (surely you're not implying you said otherwise), now there's one more person that you have to check up on. You need to check up on the farmer to know whether his eggs need to be labeled accordingly and the restaurants to make sure they're using the right eggs for the right use.

 

So, how did my last post twist your argument?

[Azazello1313]

Did you or did you not say that it's OK to allow egg farms to sell potentially disease-ridden eggs provided the consumer agreed to cook them through?

 

My point is this. It is often not the consumer who makes that decision, but rather the person who stands between the farm and the consumer. So, because you have allowed these eggs to come to market (surely you're not implying you said otherwise), now there's one more person that you have to check up on. You need to check up on the farmer to know whether his eggs need to be labeled accordingly and the restaurants to make sure they're using the right eggs for the right use.

 

So, how did my last post twist your argument?

 

why do you persist with this childish nonsense? ooooohhh, who's gonna label this and who's gonna label that?

 

here is my point: there are strong incentives for those who farm, convey, sell at market and/or serve eggs in restaurants to put systems in place that meet the market demand for fresh, tasty eggs that are unlikely to make you violently ill. now some producers may try to skirt by with crappy procedures that lead to unacceptable safeguards against contamination. like this iowa plant recently in the news. my point is that this is not necessarily a problem in need of a government solution. supermarkets don't want to deal with customers returning eggs or getting violently sick...if they think this factory is producing substandard eggs and not fixing the problem, they will seek out another supply. and det, I know that you would buy only good eggs to serve your patrons because you, unlike all those other evil profit-mongering free market operators, have fine moral character. but you know, there is also the possiblity that you, or other restauranteurs, would go out of business if your customers were getting salmonella poisoning from you, and this is something all those other evil profit-mongers need to consider from a purely evel profit-mongering perspective. if there is a demand for fresh, safe-to-eat at any temperature eggs, then the market might just be perfectly capable of adequately responding to that demand without any government hand-holding. now I'm not saying the FDA should be completely abolished, or nothing should ever be regulated by the government. just that the knee-jerk response that more government regulation is needed may miss the mark. let's recall how this whole exchange started: you said...

 

the meat and dairy and egg lobbies are stronger than the service industry lobby. Thus, instead of creating or upholding regulations on making sure the meat and eggs are clean, we end up with regulations that say you have to cook said potentially dirty meat and eggs long enough to make them safe. That's why you can't get a medium rare burger and soon may not be able to get an over easy egg in most restaurants.

 

notice what you are actually describing here: stupid regulatory schemes governed by the strength of various lobbies. it's a regulatory failure, not a market failure. my response was that, as long as there is sufficient demand for over-easy eggs and mid rare burgers, you'll be able to get them regardless of the stupid regulations in place -- and that the solution to your perceived problem may not be more regulations of the sort that seem to have created the problem in the first place.

 

I guess it just comes down to which you trust more to strike the appropriate balance, the forces of supply and demand, or the forces of politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats.

[detlef]

why do you persist with this childish nonsense? ooooohhh, who's gonna label this and who's gonna label that?

 

here is my point: there are strong incentives for those who farm, convey, sell at market and/or serve eggs in restaurants to put systems in place that meet the market demand for fresh, tasty eggs that are unlikely to make you violently ill. now some producers may try to skirt by with crappy procedures that lead to unacceptable safeguards against contamination. like this iowa plant recently in the news. my point is that this is not necessarily a problem in need of a government solution. supermarkets don't want to deal with customers returning eggs or getting violently sick...if they think this factory is producing substandard eggs and not fixing the problem, they will seek out another supply. and det, I know that you would buy only good eggs to serve your patrons because you, unlike all those other evil profit-mongering free market operators, have fine moral character. but you know, there is also the possiblity that you, or other restauranteurs, would go out of business if your customers were getting salmonella poisoning from you, and this is something all those other evil profit-mongers need to consider from a purely evel profit-mongering perspective. if there is a demand for fresh, safe-to-eat at any temperature eggs, then the market might just be perfectly capable of adequately responding to that demand without any government hand-holding. now I'm not saying the FDA should be completely abolished, or nothing should ever be regulated by the government. just that the knee-jerk response that more government regulation is needed may miss the mark. let's recall how this whole exchange started: you said...

 

 

 

notice what you are actually describing here: stupid regulatory schemes governed by the strength of various lobbies. it's a regulatory failure, not a market failure. my response was that, as long as there is sufficient demand for over-easy eggs and mid rare burgers, you'll be able to get them regardless of the stupid regulations in place -- and that the solution to your perceived problem may not be more regulations of the sort that seem to have created the problem in the first place.

 

I guess it just comes down to which you trust more to strike the appropriate balance, the forces of supply and demand, or the forces of politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats.

Childish nonsense? It's a simple question. If we just wait out the market to sort out those who run dirty shops then one of two things has to happen. Some agency needs to identify which shops sell eggs that are suitable for all uses and which are not or the burden is on the consumer to do so themselves. Or, more likely, the merchant. Great, now I've got one more thing to worry about. Now I need to go tour egg farms and decide if they run a shop worthy of my patronage. Which is only more complicated because I have absolutely no idea what to look for. Because, guess what? I don't raise freaking chickens. Side note: That wouldn't be all that bad, actually, if the consumer actually did care about what they ate enough to reward those of us who do buy locally from good sources. However, as it stands, it's a rather quixotic way of going about things that earns you more friends than money. The consumer loves to demand these things of their restaurants. They just love $15 entrees more. I digress.

 

Well, I guess there's a third option, I can just hope for the best. Because we're really just waiting for people to start getting sick and then follow the trail back to the source, driving each "offender" out of business along the way. And apparently it's a "childish notion" for me to insist that some impartial body label the various egg farms and take the guess work out.

 

So, again, it comes back to this. If you're going to wait for the market for over easy eggs to demand all eggs be suitable for that use, you still need someone determining which eggs are suitable for that use and which ones are not. Otherwise, how do we choose? How does anyone along the supply chain make the informed choice based on how they intend to use the eggs? I mean, that was part of your point. If someone just likes their eggs scrambled hard, why should they not be allowed to save some cash and buy eggs rated unsuitable for other uses? So, again, someone needs to tell everyone which are which unless we just go by trial and error.

 

So you haven't taken regulation out of the picture, you've just taken the power to not allow substandard product to reach market away from them and replaced it with a grading process that ultimately may have the same effect but be more complicated. Because now, instead of the choice being adequate or fancy (free-range, hormone free, veggie diet, what have you) you will add a third grade, "may get you sick unless you cook it through". Congratulations. Way to do away with red tape.

 

As for my initial point. It was simply this: That if we're going to crap all over government regulations for being useless and out of touch because they don't know what it takes to run a business. We might want to also recognize that those in the business may not always understand the effects their business has on others. So we can't assume that they're any better at policing themselves than the government is. And no, realizing this is not a "knee-jerk pro-gov't" stance. It's just in opposition to a knee-jerk anti gov't stance. And if we just assume that government is going to be tripping over their dicks and should just get out of everyone's way, the policies are going to get more random. Like the egg and burger thing. Because ultimately, the public is going to demand that someone take the fall. They always do. So we're constantly going to be reacting as opposed to looking forward, and we're going to find the path of least resistance even if that path isn't the smartest one.

[Azazello1313]

Or, more likely, the merchant. Great, now I've got one more thing to worry about. Now I need to go tour egg farms and decide if they run a shop worthy of my patronage.

 

a few posts ago you said you already do this. so you "don't have to worry" about such things.

 

As for my initial point. It was simply this: That if we're going to crap all over government regulations for being useless and out of touch because they don't know what it takes to run a business. We might want to also recognize that those in the business may not always understand the effects their business has on others.

 

and your example was an area where, in your estimation, government regulations favor one lobby over another in setting the "standard" in a moronic way. and you blame business for that. regulation failed, so we must need more regulation! and that's not a knee-jerk response, oh no.

 

Because ultimately, the public is going to demand that someone take the fall. They always do. So we're constantly going to be reacting as opposed to looking forward, and we're going to find the path of least resistance even if that path isn't the smartest one.

 

hey, damn, I think you've convinced me. government never passes stupid (over)reactive laws to try and fix some perceived problem. if there's one group we can trust to be forward "outside the box" thinkers it's government bureaucrats. small business owners and entrepreneuers? gimme a break, what the hell was I thinking?

[bushwacked]

There is no way I'm going to read this, but I'll just assume Az is wrong.

[Clubfoothead]

So we should now be required to pay extra to not have salmonella infested eggs? I already do voluntarily but I don't think we should be required to pay extra to not be poisoned. Blaming me for not cooking the disease infested meat long enough is a government that represents it's companies over its people.

 

I think it's called an implied warranty of merchantability. You can't just cover an hiv taitned dog terd in chocolate and sell it as a Baby Ruth.