You guys like to beat up on perch

[Perchoutofwater]

Det, Az, why couldn't you just use an independent testing agency instead of federal regulators? That is what we do with most construction materials. Of course the cost of these tests are passed on to the customer, but it is now in the form of taxes anyway. Just saying, there would be a real easy way to do this, that could get the politics out of it all together.

[Clubfoothead]

Det, Az, why couldn't you just use an independent testing agency instead of federal regulators? That is what we do with most construction materials. Of course the cost of these tests are passed on to the customer, but it is now in the form of taxes anyway. Just saying, there would be a real easy way to do this, that could get the politics out of it all together.

 

Or you could do it the easy way and sell the customer a product that is worth what they paid for. At the very least not biologically attack them for using it.

[bpwallace49]

Det, Az, why couldn't you just use an independent testing agency instead of federal regulators? That is what we do with most construction materials. Of course the cost of these tests are passed on to the customer, but it is now in the form of taxes anyway. Just saying, there would be a real easy way to do this, that could get the politics out of it all together.

 

any way to take politics out of it is a good thing.

[detlef]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

I do this and the market does not come close to rewarding me for it. It just means that I spend more for raw products that go into a dish that I really can't get away with charging any more for. Because doing so would cost me way more customers than I'm rewarded with for doing the right thing. So I do it out of pride and stewardship of our planet, nothing else. It earns me the loyalty of a very fringe consumer and the satisfaction of knowing that I'm supporting a local guy who is doing the right thing. If we're waiting on that to point this ship away from filthy farms, well, let's just get comfy for a bit. So, I guess the point is, I don't know where the line is between practices that don't seem all that cool and ones that are blatantly bad, so I buy mine from a local cop who keeps chickens and doesn't come anywhere near the line of what is and isn't acceptable. But, like you said, people shouldn't be forced to buy premium, so someone needs to determine where the line of acceptability is.

 

Now, do you actually read these posts or just scan through looking for things you can pull out of context, interpret as you choose, and play "gotcha!" with? Because here it is, once again.

 

Every time an administration tries to step in and regulate, they're labeled as socialists and everyone pines for the good old days when the people who knew what they were doing were just left alone. Forgetting, of course, the perils associated with that . So, in other words people typically assume that regulation is bad. That is, until they want it and then they want results yesterday. Which sends the government scurrying around for the lowest hanging fruit. Which, as I mentioned above, leads to random policies, like the egg thing. Because maybe instead of going after the source, which means "expensive changes that may cost jobs because the poor large-scale egg producers simply can't afford to bring a product to market if they can't be allowed to run a dirty shop", they go for the quick and cheap fix. Make people cook their eggs all the way. There you go! Problem fixed! Of course, if we weren't fighting regulation all along, perhaps it wouldn't have come to this.

[bpwallace49]

Every time an administration tries to step in and regulate, they're labeled as socialists and everyone pines for the good old days when the people who knew what they were doing were just left alone. Forgetting, of course, the perils associated with that . So, in other words people typically assume that regulation is bad. That is, until they want it and then they want results yesterday. Which sends the government scurrying around for the lowest hanging fruit. Which, as I mentioned above, leads to random policies, like the egg thing. Because maybe instead of going after the source, which means "expensive changes that may cost jobs because the poor large-scale egg producers simply can't afford to bring a product to market if they can't be allowed to run a dirty shop", they go for the quick and cheap fix. Make people cook their eggs all the way. There you go! Problem fixed! Of course, if we weren't fighting regulation all along, perhaps it wouldn't have come to this.

 

Pretty much spot on.

[detlef]

Det, Az, why couldn't you just use an independent testing agency instead of federal regulators? That is what we do with most construction materials. Of course the cost of these tests are passed on to the customer, but it is now in the form of taxes anyway. Just saying, there would be a real easy way to do this, that could get the politics out of it all together.

This would be fine. Of course, I'm not so sure it truly does take "politics" out of it all together. It may take government out of it but not politics. These agencies would still be posts of influence and thus, would just be mini congresses. No more immune from corruption or sheltered thought. On the bright side, you wouldn't have some random person stuck on a committee ruling on things they just took a crash course on, that's for sure.

 

I mentioned the AOC deal in France. That's something that very much seems to be what you're talking about. And it basically works, except when it doesn't.

[Azazello1313]

Det, Az, why couldn't you just use an independent testing agency instead of federal regulators? That is what we do with most construction materials. Of course the cost of these tests are passed on to the customer, but it is now in the form of taxes anyway. Just saying, there would be a real easy way to do this, that could get the politics out of it all together.

 

that's exactly what I suggested might be the natural response if you didn't have the moronic government regulations det described setting the industry standard.

[bpwallace49]

Det, Az, why couldn't you just use an independent testing agency instead of federal regulators? That is what we do with most construction materials. Of course the cost of these tests are passed on to the customer, but it is now in the form of taxes anyway. Just saying, there would be a real easy way to do this, that could get the politics out of it all together.

 

But who says that you need to get your materials tested? A gubmnet regulation?

[Perchoutofwater]

But who says that you need to get your materials tested? A gubmnet regulation?

 

Nope, the spec writers the architects and engineers employ.

 

ETA: Which a majority of them are probably "suggested" by their insurance carriers. Honestly if you think about it the FDA gives producers and distributors some cover, where if you get that FDA out of the way and used independent agencies, the independent agencies could be on the line as well as the producers and distributor as they hired the agency.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Azazello1313]

Honestly if you think about it the FDA gives producers and distributors some cover, where if you get that FDA out of the way and used independent agencies, the independent agencies could be on the line as well as the producers and distributor as they hired the agency.

 

ding ding ding!

[detlef]

Nope, the spec writers the architects and engineers employ.

 

ETA: Which a majority of them are probably "suggested" by their insurance carriers. Honestly if you think about it the FDA gives producers and distributors some cover, where if you get that FDA out of the way and used independent agencies, the independent agencies could be on the line as well as the producers and distributor as they hired the agency.

So the solution is to get government out of the way and let Insurance companies call the shots? Cool. I mean, we're already doing that on other things and actually forfeiting freedoms along the way. The government can't search without cause, but employers and insurance companies can.

[Perchoutofwater]

So the solution is to get government out of the way and let Insurance companies call the shots? Cool. I mean, we're already doing that on other things and actually forfeiting freedoms along the way. The government can't search without cause, but employers and insurance companies can.

 

Nobody says you have to work for a certain employer or buy the policy of a certain insurer. For that matter if you want to risk financial ruin, you can always go with out insurance, unless of course you are providing services to the government which requires you to meet certain insurance requirements.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[redrumjuice]

I haven't seen someone get PWND so bad in a thread in awhile.

 

mr.toast, you should raise the white flag, you clearly have no idea what you've gotten yourself into.

[detlef]

Nobody says you have to work for a certain employer or buy the policy of a certain insurer. For that matter if you want to risk financial ruin, you can always go with out insurance, unless of course you are providing services to the government which requires you to meet certain insurance requirements.

Of course not. But I don't understand why anyone tired of the oppressive nature of government is so happy to just turn around and be servant to insurance companies. Why should we have any reason to believe that they have any more idea what they're talking about than the government when it comes to how businesses should operate? They're sure no less inclined to "lowest common denominator" thought process.

 

As for "you can always go without insurance"... In what galaxy? I mean, sure. Assuming you're talking about a business and you have enough cash to buy your building outright, I suppose you can do whatever you want when it comes to insurance. However, for the other 99% of people trying get things done, it's about as much an option as simply ignoring laws.

Edited September 30, 2010 by detlef

[detlef]

I haven't seen someone get PWND so bad in a thread in awhile.

 

mr.toast, you should raise the white flag, you clearly have no idea what you've gotten yourself into.

There is likely no stamp of quality on one's argument than having you think it's wrong.

 

So, I thank you for the validation.

[wiegie]

an interesting article on the subject (that I have posted numerous times before and that no one ever seems to read):

 

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/s...ompecon_JCE.pdf

[detlef]

an interesting article on the subject (that I have posted numerous times before and that no one ever seems to read):

 

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/s...ompecon_JCE.pdf

This might take a while.

[Perchoutofwater]

Of course not. But I don't understand why anyone tired of the oppressive nature of government is so happy to just turn around and be servant to insurance companies. Why should we have any reason to believe that they have any more idea what they're talking about than the government when it comes to how businesses should operate? They're sure no less inclined to "lowest common denominator" thought process.

Well unlike when the government regulatory agency fails, the insurance companies are on the line when the procedures they "suggest" fail to protect the public. As a result they spend countless dollars studying the businesses they insure. Most prudent business people already have large liability policies, so they would be no more of a servant to the evil insurance companies than they currently are. The independent testing agencies would also have to have high liability insurance as well.

 

 

As for "you can always go without insurance"... In what galaxy? I mean, sure. Assuming you're talking about a business and you have enough cash to buy your building outright, I suppose you can do whatever you want when it comes to insurance. However, for the other 99% of people trying get things done, it's about as much an option as simply ignoring laws.

 

I'm talking about general liability insurance and if you choose an umbrella policy, not property insurance. Obviously you already carry them, so how would you be more beholden to the evil insurance company? Again the only additional insurance being purchased would be by the independent testing laboratories. Still if you hate the evil insurance companies, there is no reason that you have to have general liability.

 

I can see no way that taking this out of the hands of the FDA and putting it into the hands of an independent testing agency would require anyone to purchase additional insurance, other than the new testing agencies that would fill the void of the FDA. Can you tell me where I'm wrong? Or are you just going off on some kind of tangent so you can continue your rant?

Edited September 30, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Perchoutofwater]

From wiegie's link:

 

Since the days of the Enlightenment, economists have agreed that good economic

institutions must secure property rights, enabling people to keep the returns on their

investment, make contracts, and resolve disputes. By encouraging people to invest in

themselves and in physical capital, such security fosters economic growth.As Smith (1776,

pp. 284–285) wrote, “in all countries where there is tolerable security [of property], every

man of common understanding will endeavor to employ whatever [capital] stock he can

command. . . In those unfortunate countries. . . where men are continually afraid of the

violence of their superiors, they frequently bury and conceal a great part of their [capital]

stock. . . in case of their being threatened with any of those disasters to which they consider

themselves as at all times exposed.”

 

This just reinforces what I've been saying about there being so much money on the sidelines, and so many people sitting on their hands waiting to see how they are going to be taxed, how Obamacare is going to impact their businesses, and if additional proposed regulation such as Cap and Tax is passed not to mention the eventual tax bill that will have to eventually come because our politicians are so busy buying peoples via bailouts, cash for clunkers and stimulus.

[bpwallace49]

However, market discipline does not always work. Market pressures may not eliminate

monopolies. Employers may underinvest in safety and blame accidents on an injured

worker’s own carelessness (Fishback and Kantor, 2000). A fraudulent stock issuer can

undermine confidence in markets by stealing money from investors. In the extreme, the

much-admired private orderings turn into mafia murders. In these instances, societies may

efficiently accept a higher level of government intervention to limit disorde

 

Slowly working through the paper weigie . . . while not a quick read, certainly an informative one

[Azazello1313]

an interesting article on the subject (that I have posted numerous times before and that no one ever seems to read):

 

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/s...ompecon_JCE.pdf

 

OK, I just found my favorite part of this paper:

 

Politics has a bad name in economics. From Marx (1872), to the Austrians (von Mises,

1949; Hayek, 1960), to institutional economists (Olson, 1965, 1982; North, 1990), to

public choice scholars (Buchanan and Tullock, 1962; Brennan and Buchanan, 1980),

to regulation economists (Stigler, 1971), to political historians (Finer, 1997), students

of institutions have maintained that political choice is often responsible for institutional

inefficiency. Generals, dictators, ascendant social classes, democratic majorities, and

favored interest groups all choose institutions that entrench them in power so that they can

collect political and economic rents. Olson (1993), Rajan and Zingales (2000), Acemoglu

and Robinson (2000, 2002), Aghion et al. (2002), and Glaeser and Shleifer (2002b) present

models examining these phenomena.

 

In our framework, inefficiency can take two distinct forms. First, equilibrium might

still lie on the IPF but reflect an inefficient political tradeoff between dictatorship and

disorder. Second, equilibrium institutions may not even end up on the IPF, since Coasean

negotiations often fail in politics (Coate and Morris, 1995; Olson, 2000; Acemoglu, 2003).3

The political perspective predicts that equilibrium institutions can be either excessively

disorderly or excessively dictatorial. Recent research on Yelstin’s Russia argues, for

example, that the oligarchs who gained strong influence over the government preferred

institutional disorder as a strategy for maximizing their rents (Black and Tarassova, 2003;

Sonin, 2003). More typically, as those in power attempt to stay in power, they help

themselves and their supporters through excessive dictatorship. State ownership becomes

a mechanism for dispensing patronage and for maintaining political support for the

incumbent politicians (Shleifer and Vishny, 1994). Regulations with ostensibly benign

goals actually protect incumbent firms from competition, and provide extensive corruption

opportunities to their enforcers (Stigler, 1971; De Soto, 1989; Djankov et al., 2002;

Bertrand and Kramarz, 2002; Besley and Burgess, 2004; Rajan and Zingales, 2003). At the

most basic level, the political perspective explains socialism as a system that concentrates

all political power and economic decision making in the hands of a small elite and thereby

provides this elite with the most powerful lever for perpetuating itself, namely making the

entire population of a country dependent on the elite economically.

[detlef]

Well unlike when the government regulatory agency fails, the insurance companies are on the line when the procedures they "suggest" fail to protect the public. As a result they spend countless dollars studying the businesses they insure. Most prudent business people already have large liability policies, so they would be no more of a servant to the evil insurance companies than they currently are. The independent testing agencies would also have to have high liability insurance as well.

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about general liability insurance and if you choose an umbrella policy, not property insurance. Obviously you already carry them, so how would you be more beholden to the evil insurance company? Again the only additional insurance being purchased would be by the independent testing laboratories. Still if you hate the evil insurance companies, there is no reason that you have to have general liability.

 

I can see no way that taking this out of the hands of the FDA and putting it into the hands of an independent testing agency would require anyone to purchase additional insurance. Can you tell me where I'm wrong? Or are you just going off on some kind of tangent so you can continue your rant?

When pb posed the rhetorical question about who requires you to use agency approved materials, you basically said Insurance. Mind you, you said "suggested" but it sure seemed as if they were basically calling the shots. So, in one case you have the government demanding that you go through an agency (keep in mind that I agreed with you that the agencies did not need to be gov't agencies, it's just that I didn't share your optimism that removing gov't meant removing politics) on the other hand, you have insurance companies "suggesting" the same. So, let's compare.

 

On one hand, you have government agencies. The big knock on them is that they're not very creative or forward thinking. They err on the side of stupid because they don't want anyone to slip through the cracks. This can be maddening to someone who understands how to do something better than others and is not allowed to because, if some idiot can't manage, then nobody is allowed to try. Is this fair? I mean, that's the complaint that guys in my industry have. That there are a lot of ways to make delicious food that we're basically not allowed to do because some idiot may try, screw it up, and get people sick.

 

On the other hand, you have insurance companies. If they're the ones "making the suggestions" on what should and shouldn't be allowed to go down, can you imagine it being any better? Do you think an insurance company is going to be any more flexible in realizing that things don't need to be overbuilt as long as they're well designed, for instance? I have a hard time thinking this would be the case.

 

That's really it.

[Perchoutofwater]

Slowly working through the paper weigie . . . while not a quick read, certainly an informative one

 

I'm about as capitalist as they come, and I'm not for a completely free market. I believe some regulation is necessary. On the other hand some accidents are the fault of the injured workers own carelessness, and yet they still end up in court suing the corporations hoping for a fat settlement. There needs to be balance. We don't need monopolies, and we do need basic safety guidelines, however we do not need the overly obtrusive government that we now have. We don't need people thinking the government is can or should solve all of OUR problems.

[Perchoutofwater]

When pb posed the rhetorical question about who requires you to use agency approved materials, you basically said Insurance. Mind you, you said "suggested" but it sure seemed as if they were basically calling the shots. So, in one case you have the government demanding that you go through an agency (keep in mind that I agreed with you that the agencies did not need to be gov't agencies, it's just that I didn't share your optimism that removing gov't meant removing politics) on the other hand, you have insurance companies "suggesting" the same. So, let's compare.

 

On one hand, you have government agencies. The big knock on them is that they're not very creative or forward thinking. They err on the side of stupid because they don't want anyone to slip through the cracks. This can be maddening to someone who understands how to do something better than others and is not allowed to because, if some idiot can't manage, then nobody is allowed to try. Is this fair? I mean, that's the complaint that guys in my industry have. That there are a lot of ways to make delicious food that we're basically not allowed to do because some idiot may try, screw it up, and get people sick.

 

On the other hand, you have insurance companies. If they're the ones "making the suggestions" on what should and shouldn't be allowed to go down, can you imagine it being any better? Do you think an insurance company is going to be any more flexible in realizing that things don't need to be overbuilt as long as they're well designed, for instance? I have a hard time thinking this would be the case.

 

That's really it.

 

The big difference, is with the insurance companies you have some choice in the matter. If you don't like what your insurance company requires of you, then you can go out and find another carrier. Additionally most insurance companies unlike the government take past performance into account. So with the insurance companies you at least have some choice in the matter, and a way you yourself can improve your situation. With the government you are just stuck with as you say it, "stupid".

[Perchoutofwater]

More typically, as those in power attempt to stay in power, they help

themselves and their supporters through excessive dictatorship. State ownership becomes

a mechanism for dispensing patronage and for maintaining political support for the

incumbent politicians (Shleifer and Vishny, 1994). Regulations with ostensibly benign

goals actually protect incumbent firms from competition, and provide extensive corruption

opportunities to their enforcers

 

Can anyone say GM? Fannie? Freddie? And of course when politicians have nothing on the line, they can be be persuaded by lobbying interest, where as if it was insurance carriers with their capital on the line, there is a lot smaller chance of this happening.