Stewart Parnell - just get those peanuts packaged!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

:roll:

This is a criminal act, and has no bearing on any system of economics.

Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

So, you don't understand any connection between political economics, including the ideological demand for a lack of regulation, and the reckless behaviors that result.

So you don't understand that big government is as corruptible as big business, and that any large system is bound to have some bad apples?

Keep blaming capitalism fool. I'm sure the USSR *never* had anything like this happen. :roll:

Seems to me the key word is "unbound" -- it's unbound capitalism that is the problem. The people who constantly whine about government regulations holding them back ignore the fact that it is usually abuses like this that triggered the regulations in the first place. Capitalism is a great system, but the human greed that drives it is also its Achilles heel. Checks and balances, including government regulation, are essential to keeping a capitalistic system healthy and successful over the long term. This story is an example of the inevitable result of lax checks and balances.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not a matter of capitalism not working, its a matter than the past eight years has seen a dismantling of government regulations across all industries. And we get Enrons, Bernie Madiff, a financial meltdown of the
banking industry, and a Parnell confidently shipping contaminated peanuts.

All avoidable with some common sense regulations that wiser politicians put in place years ago. And today's dumber politicians allowed to lapse.

The guy knew he had a tainted product. Where do you think that information came from? Because the product had been tested per government regulations. He shipped them anyway. Unless you post an armed FDA agent at every food manufacturing plant what regulation can be in place to prevent this?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: rudder
The guy knew he had a tainted product. Where do you think that information came from? Because the product had been tested per government regulations. He shipped them anyway. Unless you post an armed FDA agent at every food manufacturing plant what regulation can be in place to prevent this?

We're talking about SELF TESTING here by a private company he hired as this was how he learned about the salmonella issue in the first place. (Basically this is legally required, but this case shows it clearly was insufficient even though he technically complied with that part of the rules.)

This meant that it was easy for him to bury the information about the results of the private company's testing and not do anything else. There also are no laws requiring the company he hired to report the results to the FDA or anything of that sort.

If the government had conducted the testing and found the results they could investigate the situation and order the plant shut down. It should be noted that apparently TWO plants the individual in question was running had unsafe food processing conditions, but one had actually not been inspected at all.

In other words, a huge portion of the problem here is insufficient government involvement in food safety to catch those not complying with the laws and regulations. This case does emphasize to a degree that pure self compliance is not reliable.

 

[Lemon law]

Sadly, China has seen exactly the same thing, over overt cheating being done at the plant manger level. But the Chinese government does not take the problem lightly, when they find a Stewart Parnell type, they simply kill the miscreant dead, dead, dead.

I certainly hope that our Steward Parnell does serve a long jail sentence, as for Peanut Corp of America, I suspect they will go into bankruptcy very soon.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Probably wont be convicted for murder. Manslaughter or somethig to that effect.

I'd be somewhat surprised if this guy does any time at all; white collar criminals have a much smaller risk of jail time that typical "street" criminals, unfortunately. But certainly, the evidence does suggest criminal charges are warranted here. I'd at least like to see an aggressive prosecuter go after this clown.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

:roll:

This is a criminal act, and has no bearing on any system of economics.

Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

um, what? Do you think he shipped it for the lulz? Nope this is a pretty clear case of the profit motive at work.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

Proof heavly regulated socialism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps regulations, and the government takes the blame for failing to protect us, thereby giving the company a pass to do it again.

 

[Nocturnal]

The thing is, in China, they put this kind of people to death. They don't mess around with this type of stuff. That tainted milk that had melamine in it, they put those guys to death! That is awesome!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

:roll:

This is a criminal act, and has no bearing on any system of economics.

Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

So, you don't understand any connection between political economics, including the ideological demand for a lack of regulation, and the reckless behaviors that result.

So you don't understand that big government is as corruptible as big business, and that any large system is bound to have some bad apples?

Keep blaming capitalism fool. I'm sure the USSR *never* had anything like this happen. :roll:

Seems to me the key word is "unbound" -- it's unbound capitalism that is the problem. The people who constantly whine about government regulations holding them back ignore the fact that it is usually abuses like this that triggered the regulations in the first place. Capitalism is a great system, but the human greed that drives it is also its Achilles heel. Checks and balances, including government regulation, are essential to keeping a capitalistic system healthy and successful over the long term. This story is an example of the inevitable result of lax checks and balances.

So what kind of regulations or monitoring would you suggest that would prevent this from happening again?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

um, what? Do you think he shipped it for the lulz? Nope this is a pretty clear case of the profit motive at work.

Killing people and being jailed/killed yourself does not make a very good profit.

 

[Thump553]

If this guy lived in Red China he would have been executed by now.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

What you're referring to is anarchy, not capitalism/socialism. Capitalism/socialism is merely referring to who controls property, its earner or the community via the government. It also can be used to refer to programs which effectuate one or the other. We are 50% socialist and growing, get it through your skull.

The government does have a purpose even in capitalist libertarian models, and that is to protect rights from being infringed and provide recourse when they are via courts. There's nothing capitalist about what the guy did, he standed to gain nothing but losses and jail time from it. His company will now be sued by the families of those who died and any miniscule profits he may have been trying to save will be dwarfed by the restitution he will be ordered to pay. If we were living in a system that was only socialist to the extent that libertarians want, this is still what would have happened. A businessman with no government aid can only sustainably make a profit by being concerned with what people want, this was not a profitable decision and he shouldn't have made it if he was a smart capitalist.

No, that doesn't bring back the people who died, but you cannot prevent this stuff from occasionally happening anymore than you stop murder. Do you want the government to lock us all in our basements just because it will reduce the murder rate to 0? Do you want the government to allow only the safest cars to be sold and price everyone but the super rich out of the market? Regulations can have costs that outweigh the benefits. The most difficult thing for socialists to understand is that allowing cheap cars in which more lives are lost is actually better in the aggregate in a system where less lives are lost but no one can afford easy transport. All they can do is imagine this perfect utopic system in which no costs exist, politicians have no greed, we all work for a pot that's divied between us without bickering about what to make or who deserves more, and we all just sing effing koombaya all day in Cuba. What in your grand socialist wisdom should we have done differently? Your socialist FDA already failed. How much more expensive should we make food to increase its safety? Should we have one government inspector per peanut? That will cost each family $5billion a year please.

 

[waggy]

nothihng was going to stop this guy. he was shipping the product to diffren places for testing just hopeing one would give it a pass. Even then he didnt care and shipped it anyway. the mails (well few that have been releaseD) show that the time waiting is costing htem money and that th eproduct needs to be shipped.


im waiting for someone in the company to come foreword and say what went on. they are fucked and all it takes is one person to come foreword. with the death of 7-8 people becuase they were looking for a buck they are going to be shut down.

hopefully those that shipped it in jail.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

What you're referring to is anarchy, not capitalism/socialism. Capitalism/socialism is merely referring to who controls property, its earner or the community via the government. It also can be used to refer to programs which effectuate one or the other. We are 50% socialist and growing, get it through your skull.

The government does have a purpose even in capitalist libertarian models, and that is to protect rights from being infringed and provide recourse when they are via courts. There's nothing capitalist about what the guy did, he standed to gain nothing but losses and jail time from it. His company will now be sued by the families of those who died and any miniscule profits he may have been trying to save will be dwarfed by the restitution he will be ordered to pay. If we were living in a system that was only socialist to the extent that libertarians want, this is still what would have happened. A businessman with no government aid can only sustainably make a profit by being concerned with what people want, this was not a profitable decision and he shouldn't have made it if he was a smart capitalist.

No, that doesn't bring back the people who died, but you cannot prevent this stuff from occasionally happening anymore than you stop murder. Do you want the government to lock us all in our basements just because it will reduce the murder rate to 0? Do you want the government to allow only the safest cars to be sold and price everyone but the super rich out of the market? Regulations can have costs that outweigh the benefits. The most difficult thing for socialists to understand is that allowing cheap cars in which more lives are lost is actually better in the aggregate in a system where less lives are lost but no one can afford easy transport. All they can do is imagine this perfect utopic system in which no costs exist, politicians have no greed, we all work for a pot that's divied between us without bickering about what to make or who deserves more, and we all just sing effing koombaya all day in Cuba. What in your grand socialist wisdom should we have done differently? Your socialist FDA already failed. How much more expensive should we make food to increase its safety? Should we have one government inspector per peanut? That will cost each family $5billion a year please.

I equally find that the most difficult thing for people to understand is that cheaper cars are not always better for the system as a whole. Sure more people can afford it. But an unsafe car carries hidden costs in the form of accident clean ups, indirect productivity losses (when hundreds of motorists are stuck on the road), health care costs, and welfare costs (if the victim is paralyzed and the state or his family has to care for him). These costs are not being passed to the company that made the car, they are being passed to the taxpayer, the society as a whole. This guarantees that if a company can get away with doing something that potentially harms the society, but brings them profit, they will do it. Make the profit and pass the costs to the public. That is what happened with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, that is what happened with Ford Pinto, and that is exactly what happened in this case too.

Now, if there was a perfect system where wrongdoers would always get caught nothing of this would have happened and we could have a system that would regulate itself with minimal government oversight. There is no such system, however, and in cases like this it just might be better to have an ounce of prevention in order to mitigate much worse problems later on.

There is a dividing line where you can have optimum balance between regulation and free capitalism, however nobody knows where it is and neither party is really interested in finding it. On one hand you have capitalism which ALWAYS argues for de-regulation because it has much to gain from it, on the other hand you have overbearing moms who scream think of the children.

I do not claim that more regulation is the answer, I'm simply reminding that less regulation is not always the answer.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

What you're referring to is anarchy, not capitalism/socialism. Capitalism/socialism is merely referring to who controls property, its earner or the community via the government. It also can be used to refer to programs which effectuate one or the other. We are 50% socialist and growing, get it through your skull.

The government does have a purpose even in capitalist libertarian models, and that is to protect rights from being infringed and provide recourse when they are via courts. There's nothing capitalist about what the guy did, he standed to gain nothing but losses and jail time from it. His company will now be sued by the families of those who died and any miniscule profits he may have been trying to save will be dwarfed by the restitution he will be ordered to pay. If we were living in a system that was only socialist to the extent that libertarians want, this is still what would have happened. A businessman with no government aid can only sustainably make a profit by being concerned with what people want, this was not a profitable decision and he shouldn't have made it if he was a smart capitalist.

No, that doesn't bring back the people who died, but you cannot prevent this stuff from occasionally happening anymore than you stop murder. Do you want the government to lock us all in our basements just because it will reduce the murder rate to 0? Do you want the government to allow only the safest cars to be sold and price everyone but the super rich out of the market? Regulations can have costs that outweigh the benefits. The most difficult thing for socialists to understand is that allowing cheap cars in which more lives are lost is actually better in the aggregate in a system where less lives are lost but no one can afford easy transport. All they can do is imagine this perfect utopic system in which no costs exist, politicians have no greed, we all work for a pot that's divied between us without bickering about what to make or who deserves more, and we all just sing effing koombaya all day in Cuba. What in your grand socialist wisdom should we have done differently? Your socialist FDA already failed. How much more expensive should we make food to increase its safety? Should we have one government inspector per peanut? That will cost each family $5billion a year please.

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Can any single person here who blames this on "free market capitalism" PLEASE provide a suggestion on how to prevent this from happening again through means of regulation/monitoring/whatever? No?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[Seems to me the key word is "unbound" -- it's unbound capitalism that is the problem. The people who constantly whine about government regulations holding them back ignore the fact that it is usually abuses like this that triggered the regulations in the first place. Capitalism is a great system, but the human greed that drives it is also its Achilles heel. Checks and balances, including government regulation, are essential to keeping a capitalistic system healthy and successful over the long term. This story is an example of the inevitable result of lax checks and balances.

I agree, except that I don't think greed is the achilles heel. Greed is endemic to any economic system, because it exists outside the economics.

The achilles heel of capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power, the fact that one group can benefit greatly from another group being exploited.

Indeed, the history of capitalism - and most economic systems - are built on the backs of exploited people.

Just one simplistic glance at the US would note slavery, which built much of the nation's infrastructure, for the first 250 years, followed by a century of exploited black (racist policies) and immigrant labor, to the modern era of expoited overseas labor of the 'hordes of the poor'.

That concentration leads to inefficiency and suffering.

Capitalism works great among relatively equal people, where the farmer sells food to the auto worker who provides the tractor to the farmer.

But capitalism is always pushing for the concentration of wealth to the point of monopoly, to the point of dominating and countering the democatic political system.

We're in a gray area in the middle, as democracy has let people put some boundaries on the monopolistic pressures.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Can any single person here who blames this on "free market capitalism" PLEASE provide a suggestion on how to prevent this from happening again through means of regulation/monitoring/whatever? No?

I already clearly did, although this is getting notably ignored by several people in this thread since I did. (For the record, I would specify its actually a problem of insufficient regulation of capitalism and enforcement of laws in this area.)

An obvious easy point is at least if they are using an outside testing service, having that service be legally compelled to report the results to the FDA as well as the company in question having to do so legally reduces the risk of this sort of behavoir occuring since both parties have to conceal things from the FDA and risk legal consequences for doing so for it to continue without detection.

As noted, if the FDA knows about the results for sure since they did the testing, (because it was reported by an outside company) they can then inspect the plant specifically to see if proper standards for processing are being maintained, and require them to fix things or otherwise be shut down by the government if necessary for health reasons. This would also be related to more inspectors working for the FDA in the first place to do this sort of thing. This behavoir apparently went on to various degree for years, it was not simply over a couple of months or something. The FDA could also check to see if they see the proper evidence the contaminated product was recalled like it should be. (The law should be set to allow the FDA to legally require recalls in these sorts of cases.) Yes its true this won't 100% guarantee something like this will never occur again without the company promptly being caught, but it should substancially reduce the likelyhood this happening. A greater likelyhood of being caught by the government also likely will discourage this kind of behavoir in the first place, particularly if there are consequences for being caught behaving in that way. (The man in question here presumably persuaded himself he could get away with cutting corners to save money and his company would never get caught with anyone having to face serious consequences.)

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
About a century ago a fellow named Sinclair Lewis wrote a book called the jungle about the meat packing industry, which at the time had similar problems. Which inspired legislation to require inspections of our food.

Its not a matter of capitalism not working, its a matter than the past eight years has seen a dismantling of government regulations across all industries. And we get Enrons, Bernie Madiff, a financial meltdown of the
banking industry, and a Parnell confidently shipping contaminated peanuts.

All avoidable with some common sense regulations that wiser politicians put in place years ago. And today's dumber politicians allowed to lapse.

You mean Upton Sinclair.

Sinclair Lewis is the guy who wrote Elmer Gantry. Also a great writer, mind you; just a different one.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

:roll:

This is a criminal act, and has no bearing on any system of economics.

Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

um, what? Do you think he shipped it for the lulz? Nope this is a pretty clear case of the profit motive at work.

Are government agents immune to profit motive? What's to stop this guy from bribing the government tester to mark everything as clean?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

What you're referring to is anarchy, not capitalism/socialism. Capitalism/socialism is merely referring to who controls property, its earner or the community via the government. It also can be used to refer to programs which effectuate one or the other. We are 50% socialist and growing, get it through your skull.

The government does have a purpose even in capitalist libertarian models, and that is to protect rights from being infringed and provide recourse when they are via courts. There's nothing capitalist about what the guy did, he standed to gain nothing but losses and jail time from it. His company will now be sued by the families of those who died and any miniscule profits he may have been trying to save will be dwarfed by the restitution he will be ordered to pay. If we were living in a system that was only socialist to the extent that libertarians want, this is still what would have happened. A businessman with no government aid can only sustainably make a profit by being concerned with what people want, this was not a profitable decision and he shouldn't have made it if he was a smart capitalist.

No, that doesn't bring back the people who died, but you cannot prevent this stuff from occasionally happening anymore than you stop murder. Do you want the government to lock us all in our basements just because it will reduce the murder rate to 0? Do you want the government to allow only the safest cars to be sold and price everyone but the super rich out of the market? Regulations can have costs that outweigh the benefits. The most difficult thing for socialists to understand is that allowing cheap cars in which more lives are lost is actually better in the aggregate in a system where less lives are lost but no one can afford easy transport. All they can do is imagine this perfect utopic system in which no costs exist, politicians have no greed, we all work for a pot that's divied between us without bickering about what to make or who deserves more, and we all just sing effing koombaya all day in Cuba. What in your grand socialist wisdom should we have done differently? Your socialist FDA already failed. How much more expensive should we make food to increase its safety? Should we have one government inspector per peanut? That will cost each family $5billion a year please.

Damn fine post. :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

:roll:

This is a criminal act, and has no bearing on any system of economics.

Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

um, what? Do you think he shipped it for the lulz? Nope this is a pretty clear case of the profit motive at work.

Are government agents immune to profit motive? What's to stop this guy from bribing the government tester to mark everything as clean?

Haven't you heard? The FDA is incorruptible.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Can any single person here who blames this on "free market capitalism" PLEASE provide a suggestion on how to prevent this from happening again through means of regulation/monitoring/whatever? No?

An obvious easy point is at least if they are using an outside testing service, having that service be legally compelled to report the results to the FDA as well as the company in question having to do so legally reduces the risk of this sort of behavoir occuring since both parties have to conceal things from the FDA and risk legal consequences for doing so for it to continue without detection.

See my post above. Is the outside testing service above profit motive? They have margins too.

The basic problem when looked at from purely a cost/benefit analyis is that 100% prevention is unattainable. Punitive measures happen after the fact. You know something wrong has been done. In this case the company knowingly shipped tainted food. We can punish people who cause harm to others because they can be identified after the fact, and is a known quantity. The cost of preventative measures is infinite. As someone said earlier, do we hire a separate inspector for each peanut? What if a single bad peanut gets through and kills someone?

At some point you do have to draw a line and say that a certain level of preventative actions are sufficient and that beyond that you need to rely on the threat of punitive measures.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Proof unbound capitalism doesn't work. Personal gain trumps concern for other people.

:roll:

This is a criminal act, and has no bearing on any system of economics.

Or are you going to claim capitalism causes rape too?

um, what? Do you think he shipped it for the lulz? Nope this is a pretty clear case of the profit motive at work.

Are government agents immune to profit motive? What's to stop this guy from bribing the government tester to mark everything as clean?

Considering it was a State of Georgia Dept of Agriculture doing the testing, it'd be more likely that Commissioner Tommy Irvin had his palm greased, and made sure the tester "misplaced" the bad results. That guy is as corrupt as it comes.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are government agents immune to profit motive? What's to stop this guy from bribing the government tester to mark everything as clean?

Yes this is theoretically possible, but its quite risky and they could very well run into a honest government tester who turns them in. Not having the same inspector doing the testing all the time, or making multiple people involved with the process and being aware of the results can also greatly decrease the probability that bribery could sucessfully conceal the company misdeeds.

Government regulation and inspections may not 100% elminated the possibility of company misconduct, but it can greatly decrease the odds.

(Most cases may not be as extreme as this one is, but companies might recall the known contaminated product but make minimal changes to their procedures rather than spending the money to fix the underlying issues which caused the contamination if the government doesn't get involved with the testing and inspections.)