Are you sure you wouldn't rather talk about the EPA threatening our precious bodily fluids? Our very rum and cokes? I think that's the best path for solving our massive budget problems.
The feeling is then stupid. I tend to lean to the right politically, but let me tell you why government should be involved in scientific endeavor. There are some things that can only be developed through intense research. Many things that we cannot even begin to fathom now. Given that research is expensive, the private sector is not likely to spend the money because if there is profit from it, it will be decades down the road.
Explain to me how the EPA protects the rights of the citizenry, but the FDA and OSHA do not? This ought to be good...
Why would their be no benefit for the private sector? the guy who creates a cheap alternative for oil would make trillions. The food you eat is of your own choice. The air you breathe; not so much. What China puts in the air, I breathe. Nobody is threatening my right to life by selling something poisonous, unless they force me to eat it. I am in full control of what I eat. Do you require further explanation?
you're really not in control of what you eat if you're given information asymmetry, which is the economic problem the FDA deals with. unless the conservative position on responsibility has shifted to getting E-coli poisoning because nobody is forcing you to eat tainted meat you don't know about.
Economically speaking then, you're losing. Information asymmetry between producer and consumer only benefits the producer, and in turn, leaves your eating habits to the whim of penny-pinchers. If you believe in the power of the market, then you believe in the power of incentives, and what better incentive is there for companies to have lax enforcement of manufacturing processes then if no one knows about it and no one can expose them for it? If their expected utility from lower costs is greater then the one or two isolated and toothless complaints vigilant citizens will pose without the threat of any credible government agency action, well, so much the better for producers-and so much the worse for citizens, who's "citizens' right" to a fair exchange is threatened by the fact that they simply cannot possess the knowledge required to make a good decision. Agencies like the FDA ensure that citizens will be treated fairly in transactions, and that they will get their "money's worth." Your logic essentially puts the consumer in a precarious position of having to rely on their emotional instinct, which is fraught with irrationality, and perhaps unduly addled by marketing psychology (for a quick example of this->the bottled water industry). That is simply unfair when they are dealing with companies who have most of the cards in their hands. and my god, this is not even considering the implications of true misfortune, where good companies are beset by tragedy and no one knows the killers lurking within their products. Think of all the e-coli cases, now imagine there was no agency dedicated to scanning for that problem proactively.
How does that even work? A lot of modern information about the health dangers of certain food only came from the government, not the private market? For example it took a groundbreaking Surgeon General's report to connect smoking to lung cancer. Up until then, blatant misinformation from cigarette companies would have had you believe otherwise. If things were your way, we'd still be operating under the illusion that cigarettes were safe.
Don't you want to know how much poop is on the food you eat? Are you ok with not knowing that? Oh, and do you know how much ROI putting a man on the moon generated? Do you know that if it had not been for the gov't, it still would not have been done as the private sector does not think that long term. You are demonstrating a lot of ignorance here.
How the hell do yo know that? I can think of lots of ways a private company could make profit from being the first to fly to the moon. The footage would have been worth plenty. The patents alone would before worth millions.
And the effort would have cost tens of billions. Do you ever ponder how utterly rediculous some of your posts are? You should, because here you've reached a new level of absurdity, with all due respect, and I didn't think that was possible.
Yes he does - that's why he has multiple user id's and responds to his own posts. I leave it to you to calculate the proper amount of due respect.
Yeah, I should have posted "with all respect due," which I've used a couple of times in the past with other members. It might more clearly express just how much respect I hold for this cat. Somewhere approaching zero.
What's ridiculous about my comment? I would say it is nuts that I have to explain to multiple liberals on this board that the FDA tells me what I can and can't eat (this is one of it's primary functions). I would say it's ridiculous how many useless posts get put on this forum (who gives a **** how much respect you have for me? why would you post that? nobody cares. Or people like bob posting worthless insults).
uh....perhaps DOCTOR it's because the FDA doesn't tell you what you can and can't eat? It just suggests things that might not be good for you? What you eat is your own business. anyway, can we get back to discussing the proposed budget cuts by our conservative friends?
That's not true. If I tried hard enough, I could get my hands on stuff that the FDA would really not recommend, such as unpasteurized milk. That stuff isn't safe, but the FDA doesn't prevent you from drinking it if you want to. You won't find it in your supermarket not because the FDA bans it, but because stores don't want to sell unsafe junk as it's not good for business. So blame the businesses for not selling stuff that's unsafe, if you really want to do that. Irrelevant. You have to prove that today I cannot go to a store and buy Crown and Coke, or sleeping pills and alcohol at the same time. That's a claim that anyone who has ever gone grocery shopping knows is BS. Jesus Christ, to think I used to subscribe to this libertarian junk.
Oprah isn't determining govt. policy. CEO's are. You can continue to do the bidding of the CEO's who are after their own personal financial gain all day it's your choice. For the record I've spoken out against Oprah several times, and I can't stand her. I will say that your personal and juvenile insults make you sound like a prepubescent 13 year old rather than someone to have a serious conversation with. It makes it appear like you can't hold a rational thought but rather have to insult people based only the superficial. Again that's your choice if that's how you want to present yourself. But don't expect for any of your ideas to be taken seriously.
