Rand Paul's proposed budget, deficit reduction plan.

[matt0611]

Massive spending cuts right now are extremely risky when unemployment is already so high. Taking so much money out of the economy could cause a chain reaction and another great depression.

Except that money is being taken from somewhere...its not going to be burned if its not spent by washington.

 

[halik]

I don't need a nanny state telling me what I should be eating and where I should be getting that food. I don't need them to tell me how to live my life.

I need the Federal Government to defend me from foreign threats. That's all.

Exactly the misguided illusion of grandeour I'm talking bout.

Do you have an MD or an Epid doctorate to be able to determine which Chinese made food has stuff that will kill you?

Are you an aero-engineer to asses the flammability of materials in the plane you're about to fly?

Are you a mechanical engineer that designs tires to make sure you stay the hell away from trucks on the highway that have jank tires?

Libertopia for the fucking loss.

 

[halik]

Some people can't wait to get the Brawndo flowin'.

Golf clap. This is a great summary of this thread.

 

[Monster_Munch]

Except that money is being taken from somewhere...its not going to be burned if its not spent by washington.

It will get used on the budget deficit. So it goes to the IMF or China or somewhere.

 

[matt0611]

Exactly the misguided illusion of grandeour I'm talking bout.

Do you have an MD or an Epid doctorate to be able to determine which Chinese made food has stuff that will kill you?

Are you an aero-engineer to asses the flammability of materials in the plane you're about to fly?

Are you a mechanical engineer that designs tires to make sure you stay the hell away from trucks on the highway that have jank tires?

Libertopia for the fucking loss.

Strawman for the loss.

 

[halik]

Strawman for the fucking loss.

Hardly a strawman if your position is to abolish all federal gov't agencies aside from defense dept.

 

[drebo]

You plan to inspect all food yourself? You know how much of each individual chemical can be safely added to the food you eat and are prepared to perform tests to measure the chemical composition of what you eat?

With zero government oversight, eventually food products will say things like "cheese and potatoes fuckin' good!" with zero nutritional information or ingredients listed but you do get a free box of ammo with every purchase!

There are some government agencies we need and the FDA is one of them. Should we still analyze these programs and cut waste? Absolutely.

We survived for hundreds of years without government oversight. I think we'd manage.

Companies that make people sick with their food won't last long. You'd be surprised at how fast the market will correct itself, especially in this age of media.

Companies already work to make sure there are no problems with their products. A company gains nothing by driving away customers with an inferior product.

 

[drebo]

Aside from the above, it says nothing about STATES not being able to have regulatory agencies enforcing health and safety requirements. You know, that whole 10th amendment thing.

But, that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about the government deciding what's best for us, not health and safety agencies (although we have way too many of those).

 

[child of wonder]

We survived for hundreds of years without government oversight. I think we'd manage.

Companies that make people sick with their food won't last long. You'd be surprised at how fast the market will correct itself, especially in this age of media.

Companies already work to make sure there are no problems with their products. A company gains nothing by driving away customers with an inferior product.

Yes, we survived before the FDA. We also had a life expectancy of 50 years back then.

Can the market correct itself? You bet. However, even in this age of media and with the FDA in place we still see companies adding unsafe ingredients to foods and cutting corners on safety. Imagine how bad it would be if there were zero government oversight.

 

[Monster_Munch]

Can the market correct itself? You bet. However, even in this age of media and with the FDA in place we still see companies adding unsafe ingredients to foods and cutting corners on safety. Imagine how bad it would be if there were zero government oversight.

Without government regulation, the tobacco companies would probably still be telling us that smoking is good for your health.

 

[drebo]

Exactly the misguided illusion of grandeour I'm talking bout.

Do you have an MD or an Epid doctorate to be able to determine which Chinese made food has stuff that will kill you?

Are you an aero-engineer to asses the flammability of materials in the plane you're about to fly?

Are you a mechanical engineer that designs tires to make sure you stay the hell away from trucks on the highway that have jank tires?

Libertopia for the fucking loss.

Do I need one?

If I look at the newspaper and see that food made by XYZ Corporation is making people sick, I'm not going to eat food made by XYZ Corporation. Amazing how that works, right?

Let's take it further: an airline company buys 10 planes from ABC Planes, Inc. Two of them have constant problems because they used cheap Russian bolts that sheer under weak stress. How likely is it that the airline company buys from ABC Planes again? How likely is it that other airline companies buy from ABC Planes?

Your abject fear of corporations is not becoming. Corporations don't exist to fuck over their customers. Without customers, corporations don't exist. Corporations ALREADY employ large numbers of people and failsafes to make sure their products are safe. They did so before government organizations existed. It is in the corporations best interest not to drive customers away. That fact is inescapable.

But, again, we're talking about the nanny state here. A state which bans a toy because 0.000001% of the people who bought it let their infant play with it and choke to death. The death of personal responsibility over the last 40 years has done more to harm the United States of America than any corporation could have. In fact, the death of personal responsibility is exactly why you feel that a nanny state is required.

So, please, by all means go read your government propaganda rags and take to heart how your authoritarian overlords tell you to live your life. By all means, give your money to them so that they can continue to live like kings and support the untennable businesses of their cronies. I mean, after all, they say they need it right? And we all know that the government can never be wrong.

Just don't expect me to do the same.

 

[drebo]

Yes, we survived before the FDA. We also had a life expectancy of 50 years back then.

Can the market correct itself? You bet. However, even in this age of media and with the FDA in place we still see companies adding unsafe ingredients to foods and cutting corners on safety. Imagine how bad it would be if there were zero government oversight.

I would very much be willing to bet that life expectancy has more to do with medical advances than any government regulatory agency.

You don't work much with the food industry, I take it. The FDA is a corrupt joke at best.

 

[drebo]

Without government regulation, the tobacco companies would probably still be telling us that smoking is good for your health.

And anyone with half a brain would be able to deduce that it's not.

Tell me: how many people have quit smoking because the Surgeon General says it's bad? Probably not many.

Even more important: how many people continue to smoke despite knowing that it's bad for them? How many people START to smoke even knowing that it's bad for them?

You're establishing causation where none actually exists.

 

[child of wonder]

I would very much be willing to bet that life expectancy has more to do with medical advances than any government regulatory agency.

You don't work much with the food industry, I take it. The FDA is a corrupt joke at best.

Of course it's not due to government oversight, but I'm sure it plays a part.

As I said, just because an agency is important does not mean it should be free of scrutiny. The problem with these agencies is the corrupt people and influences that pervade them.

Perhaps this is a market segment where a private business could come in and certify foods as safe and even provide a little competition for the FDA?

 

[drebo]

Of course it's not due to government oversight, but I'm sure it plays a part.

As I said, just because an agency is important does not mean it should be free of scrutiny. The problem with these agencies is the corrupt people and influences that pervade them.

Perhaps this is a market segment where a private business could come in and certify foods as safe and even provide a little competition for the FDA?

You mean like the organizations that already exist that companies already use to certify and test the food they send to market? http://www.nrfsp.com/ as just one example.

 

[Monster_Munch]

And anyone with half a brain would be able to deduce that it's not.

Tell me: how many people have quit smoking because the Surgeon General says it's bad? Probably not many.

Even more important: how many people continue to smoke despite knowing that it's bad for them? How many people START to smoke even knowing that it's bad for them?

You're establishing causation where none actually exists.

You're the one making the assumptions. I just said the companies would be free to tell us lies if there was no regulation.

 

[halik]

We survived for hundreds of years without government oversight. I think we'd manage.

Companies that make people sick with their food won't last long. You'd be surprised at how fast the market will correct itself, especially in this age of media.

Companies already work to make sure there are no problems with their products. A company gains nothing by driving away customers with an inferior product.

You mean like that Chinese baby formula? Lead paint on toys?

Market will correct itself in the long run, individuals face consequences in the short run. You're dealing with principal agent problems left and right - if I spent enough money on marketing, I can sell stuff that kills people while telling them it's good for them (tobacco etc. ).

If my product is cheap enough, people won't give a shit that I'm dumping cyanide into rivers. Especially with a good image management company. Welcome to econ 101, we call this an "externality".

And to answer your question about airlines, they will keep on buying those planes if the $ difference between it and a better plane is higher than the present value of the revenue drop from having more dangerous planes. Simple corporate finance taught in any MBA program.

Your arguments are heavy on dogma and theory and light on substance. Companies make decisions with discounted present values, not whether there will be a drop in revenue alone and those decisions can be suboptimal when you factor in externalities.

 

[child of wonder]

And anyone with half a brain would be able to deduce that it's not.

Tell me: how many people have quit smoking because the Surgeon General says it's bad? Probably not many.

Even more important: how many people continue to smoke despite knowing that it's bad for them? How many people START to smoke even knowing that it's bad for them?

You're establishing causation where none actually exists.

These are fine?

 

[drebo]

These are fine?

If there's nothing inherently false in their advertising, then yes, they are fine.

People decide whether or not they are going to smoke, not the cigarette companies, not the tobacco companies, and not the government. People do.

 

[child of wonder]

If there's nothing inherently false in their advertising, then yes, they are fine.

People decide whether or not they are going to smoke, not the cigarette companies, not the tobacco companies, and not the government. People do.

People do decide. Their decisions can also be influenced by false inferences, innuendo, and propaganda which is exactly what those ads are attempting to do.

 

[drebo]

You mean like that Chinese baby formula? Lead paint on toys?

Market will correct itself in the long run, individuals face consequences in the short run. You're dealing with principal agent problems left and right - if I spent enough money on marketing, I can sell stuff that kills people while telling them it's good for them (tobacco etc. ).

If my product is cheap enough, people won't give a shit that I'm dumping cyanide into rivers. Especially with a good image management company. Welcome to econ 101, we call this an "externality".

And to answer your question about airlines, they will keep on buying those planes if the $ difference between it and a better plane is higher than the present value of the revenue drop from having more dangerous planes. Simple corporate finance taught in any MBA program.

Your arguments are heavy on dogma and theory and light on substance. Companies make decisions with discounted present values, not whether there will be a drop in revenue alone.

If a corporation willfully and knowingly poisons people via their processes or negligence, the people in that corporation should be brought up on charges. Of course, that never happens today because nothing is every anyone's fault. Bring back personal responsibility and your "solutions" become unnecessary.

You're finding solutions to problems that don't exist here.

MY arguments are light on substance? You're the one claiming that corporations are out to kill people. Oh the ironing.

Go back to writing your check to the government please. Oh, wait...you're a hypocrite. I forgot. You don't think that YOU PERSONALLY should actually have to give anything to the government...just everyone else. LOL. Authoritarian liberals are funny.

 

[halik]

If there's nothing inherently false in their advertising, then yes, they are fine.

People decide whether or not they are going to smoke, not the cigarette companies, not the tobacco companies, and not the government. People do.

Just out of curiosity, have you taken any Economics before? As a company, I have an inherent incentive to maintain the image/information about my product and those things tend to fall under 1st amendment protections.

http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Imperfect-Information.html

 

[drebo]

People do decide. Their decisions can also be influenced by false inferences, innuendo, and propaganda which is exactly what those ads are attempting to do.

If more doctors do indeed smoke Camels than any other brand, I don't see how that ad is propaganda.

If someone is going to smoke, they're going to smoke whether there's advertisements or not. If someone isn't going to smoke, advertisements aren't going to make them smoke.

It's the PERSON making the decision. No one else.

 

[child of wonder]

If more doctors do indeed smoke Camels than any other brand, I don't see how that ad is propaganda.

If someone is going to smoke, they're going to smoke whether there's advertisements or not. If someone isn't going to smoke, advertisements aren't going to make them smoke.

It's the PERSON making the decision. No one else.

Then it is your position that all advertisements are colossal wastes of money because companies have no way of influencing their customers' decisions.

 

[drebo]

Just out of curiosity, have you taken any Economics before? As a company, I have an inherent incentive to maintain the image/information about my product and those things tend to fall under 1st amendment protections.

http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Imperfect-Information.html

False advertising has been against the law for a long time. A cigarette company can't go out and say "Cigarettes will make you grow wings and fly away to a happy place where you'll live forever because they're so healthy for you". But to say that "more doctors smoke Camels" or "Luckys are more smooth" is not false advertising. Those may well be statistics backed up by surveys and tests. That doesn't make them wrong.

And, more importantly, those advertisements don't cause a person to start smoking. They may influence which brand a person smokes, but that's not what were talking about here.

It still is, and always will be, the person themselves who decides to start (or continue) smoking. No matter how much nanny state bullshit you spout or believe in, it's still the person's decision and the person themselves responsible for whatever harm comes to them from smoking. That will never change.