I think this is key. Each market needs the regulations (self or governmental) tailored to it. Food is something I prefer under government regulation. Software only needs a certain degree of government regulation, but since food poisoning is not an issue with software I can handle more market forces working on that market.
You seem to be very matter of factly stating that government does a better or more thorough job, so important things should not be left to the market alone.
You also seem to be implying that food safety is a more important/pressing issue than computer safety. Do you know how much damage in dollars each problem causes? (in a vacuum)
Also, are you saying that food is just too important, or are you saying that food safety needs a special tactic of regulation that only a government can provide, and that the simpler problem of software inspection can easily be done by the less able market?
edit: and to clarify my position: I think the task of inspecting software, and what the FDA does are actually quite similar the more I think about it - it's impossible for the FDA to check every product, and it would be impossible for a simple agency to check all software... might be closer to an apples to apples comparison than I initially thought.
You seem to be very matter of factly stating that government does a better or more thorough job, so important things should not be left to the market alone.
You also seem to be implying that food safety is a more important/pressing issue than computer safety. Do you know how much damage in dollars each problem causes? (in a vacuum)
Also, are you saying that food is just too important, or are you saying that food safety needs a special tactic of regulation that only a government can provide, and that the simpler problem of software inspection can easily be done by the less able market?
edit: and to clarify my position: I think the task of inspecting software, and what the FDA does are actually quite similar the more I think about it - it's impossible for the FDA to check every product, and it would be impossible for a simple agency to check all software... might be closer to an apples to apples comparison than I initially thought.
The question is essentially irrelevant, because people want some level of regulation, so in a democracy, that's what we're going to get.
The relevant question is whether we should have more or less regulation than we have now. And I think we should have less. There's this idea that regulations prevent abuses by powerful commercial interests, and sometimes they do. But often they don't. And that's both because the people who draft regulations and the people who enforce them don't always know what they're doing, and because of regulatory capture. Big business loves regulation, because it strangles small competitors, and they can adapt it to suit their needs.
A great example was the whole lead in toys debacle. Mattel had a bunch of lead in toys they manufactured from China, so Congress enacts a new law requiring that toy manufacturers do lots of testing on their toys. The law requires that these tests be performed by 3rd party labs. But Mattel, the company that sparked the whole thing, gets an exemption to do the testing in-house, saving them money. They screw up, and their small-time competitors get the shaft.
You seem to be very matter of factly stating that government does a better or more thorough job, so important things should not be left to the market alone.
It depends on the goals of the specific regulations and markets. In this case I would say government agencies in general are better than market forces in general at securing food safety. There are always outliers but I am talking in general. It is not a matter of importance necessarily, more a matter of which problems and setups work best for each type of market. If market forces could be demonstated to be better at securing food safety I would be okay with moving in that direction. Though I do not think markets of minor import need regulations necessarily. For instance I do not think the color of buildings need to be regulated unless they are tall enough to be hit planes or some other unusual circumstance. The benefit of regulating to that extreme would not be worth the cost. The cost being in general, not just money.
You also seem to be implying that food safety is a more important/pressing issue than computer safety. Do you know how much damage in dollars each problem causes? (in a vacuum)
I would say the cost in poor food safety is greater than the great monetary cost caused by poor software safety. For one, software problems are in general easier to trace. If I fall ill to food poisoning, it is more difficult to objectively determine which meal was the cause.
Also, are you saying that food is just too important, or are you saying that food safety needs a special tactic of regulation that only a government can provide, and that the simpler problem of software inspection can easily be done by the less able market?
I would not say the market is less able as market forces are certainly excellent in many regards. However the pros/cons of market forces versus government regulation are different. Depending on the nature of the market being looked at, a different approach might be necessary. In my opinion government agencies are in general more suited to tasks of health and safety. Market forces generally steer effeciency towards different goals. Government agencies are more flexible in the types of goals they can accomplish.
edit: and to clarify my position: I think the task of inspecting software, and what the FDA does are actually quite similar the more I think about it - it's impossible for the FDA to check every product, and it would be impossible for a simple agency to check all software... might be closer to an apples to apples comparison than I initially thought.
In terms of spot checking, yes it is similar. In terms of what happens when inspection fails, they are different. Software problems would mostly be monetary and frustration issues. Food safety issues are mostly about sickness and fatality. If a software could easily spread a contaminant that could kill people on a regular basis, then the type of regulations needed might be more like food regulations. Since the purpose of this supposed software regulation is mostly about monetary and time effeciency on a personal or business scale, I think market forces are great for that. There is government regulation on software when it affects issues of health and safety. For instance industries using dangerous chemicals have documentation demands that puts a regulatory demand on software. Some programs have to have certain certifications for use in some applications.
Safeguarding Human Life requires resources. Safety has a cost. For convenience's sake, we measure resources and costs in terms of money.
You're welcome to weigh human life with chickens, or ounces of gold, or acres of land, but at the end of the day, weigh it you will. Indeed, you weigh your own life with money every day.
How much do you pay for life insurance? However much it is, that's you weighing your life with money. How much do you pay for health care? How much do you think your government should tax you, for to provide for your health care and the care of your fellow citizens? Do you think your government should tax you 100% of your earnings, for things like national defense and universal health coverage? No? Congratulations, you're weighing human life with money.
Safeguarding Human Life requires resources. Safety has a cost. For convenience's sake, we measure resources and costs in terms of money.
You're welcome to weigh human life with chickens, or ounces of gold, or acres of land, but at the end of the day, weigh it you will. Indeed, you weigh your own life with money every day.
How much do you pay for life insurance? However much it is, that's you weighing your life with money. How much do you pay for health care? How much do you think your government should tax you, for to provide for your health care and the care of your fellow citizens? Do you think your government should tax you 100% of your earnings, for things like national defense and universal health coverage? No? Congratulations, you're weighing human life with money.
How do you feel about software regulation? Would you say we need Homeland Security or FISMA to create some new agency to test all software before it is allowed to be online?
I personally don't download software or drivers or anything really, unless it's from a reputable source, or I can verify it's legit through majorgeeks.com or cnet, many of the other sites that perform that type of ratings for you. You can also just do a quick search and see if people in a forum are saying to stay away from it or not.
Just a thought - sure it might be apples and oranges, but tort is of course not the only tool we use to assure safety in less regulated markets.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything should be regulated.
I think the main difference is that when you buy crap software, you don't die as a result. We've seen what it was like before the FDA. You can actually go look at the history of patent medicines. We also know that lots of people are susceptible to woo. We would be inundated with all kinds of "miracle cures" for cancer and everything else, and while us skeptics might be able to defend ourselves, lots of regular people would fall prey, as they did in the past to traveling medicine shows and such.
And suing them might prove not to work so well. They might not have enough money to make all the people whole who were injured. In the case of companies, executives may not care if the company gets sued into bankruptcy as long as they get paid big bonuses before the ship goes down.
See theprestige's comment, but let me add one thing here:
I value my own life, and the life of a dear friend or family member at x -> infinity.
The Value of a Statistical Life on the other hand... it's probably about 7 million dollars. I didn't just make that up either, look it up for yourself.
edit: I just re-read that and it sounds a bit flippant, wasn't trying to be...
Safeguarding Human Life requires resources. Safety has a cost. For convenience's sake, we measure resources and costs in terms of money.
You're welcome to weigh human life with chickens, or ounces of gold, or acres of land, but at the end of the day, weigh it you will. Indeed, you weigh your own life with money every day.
How much do you pay for life insurance? However much it is, that's you weighing your life with money. How much do you pay for health care? How much do you think your government should tax you, for to provide for your health care and the care of your fellow citizens? Do you think your government should tax you 100% of your earnings, for things like national defense and universal health coverage? No? Congratulations, you're weighing human life with money.
See theprestige's comment, but let me add one thing here:
I value my own life, and the life of a dear friend or family member at x -> infinity.
The Value of a Statistical Life on the other hand... it's probably about 7 million dollars. I didn't just make that up either, look it up for yourself.
One thing I'm certain of in this matter is that requiring a certain level of information to consumers about each product is generally a good thing (ex: nutrition tables on food products, side-effects on drugs, and safety warnings on possibly dangerous goods like gas-grills). This would require companies (or other approved third party sources) to gather this information, which would probably delay the release of the given product, but at least it would ensure a minimum level of safety.
ETA: I do see that the market can assume the role of regulation as well, so governmental regulation is not the only option, but, in my opinion, usually it is the most effective means of regulating (Key example of market based regulation: accreditation institutions like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and MSC (Marine Stewardship Council)).
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything should be regulated.
I think the main difference is that when you buy crap software, you don't die as a result. We've seen what it was like before the FDA. You can actually go look at the history of patent medicines. We also know that lots of people are susceptible to woo. We would be inundated with all kinds of "miracle cures" for cancer and everything else, and while us skeptics might be able to defend ourselves, lots of regular people would fall prey, as they did in the past to traveling medicine shows and such.
And suing them might prove not to work so well. They might not have enough money to make all the people whole who were injured. In the case of companies, executives may not care if the company gets sued into bankruptcy as long as they get paid big bonuses before the ship goes down.
because that is their job and if they suck at it they lose it.
the companies job is to make profit. when they suck at protecting life but still make profit, all is fine.
While I do agree with an institution like the FDA should exists, so that I don't have to worry about everything that I buy at the supermarket.
I don't agree with something like the FCC, but they are really doing the same thing, namely regulating what is acceptable to be released to the public.
Milton Friedman making his famous arguments against FDA and regulations in general.
But i disagree, i think we need regulations, i am happy we have institutions that do test things, for example electrical components must meet certain standards for it to be allowed to be sold.
What do you think? could we do without regulations?
C'mon - you know the drill. Show some evidence of comparable systems with and without regulation. What we would really want to see is a cost analysis of a schema with and without central regulation. Including the hidden costs.
Perhaps b/c name-calling and equating libertarianism with anarchy is already baked into this thread. Some people are so threatened by Libertarian thought that they shift into mindless namecalling and gross mischaracterizations. Then we have the erroneous thought, already discussed elsewhere, that banking deregulation was the direct cause housing bubble & burst (ergo all regulation is wonderful and cost-free).
It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with the closed-minded.
It's not possible to have a thoughtful discussion with those unwilling to question the positions they hold.
It's not possible to have a balanced evaluation without considering the costs of regulatory burden including stagnation of innovation.
I think we should regulate the currency (in ways that Bernanke seems to defy).
I think we should regulate our armies. and police and TSA and fire departments.
When it comes to food and drugs I am not immune to the argument the after-the-fact lawsuits cannot be adequate reparation for a loss of life or health, and prevention is highly preferrable. OTOH we should consider if FULL transparency is not sufficient.
REgulators didn't prevent lead paint in children's toys ? They certainly allowed melamine contaminated chinese fish sales to continue after the problem was known, perhaps due to political pressure. There is no point-of-origin labelling on fresh fish so there is insufficient disclosure.
There are paranoiac crack-pot hyper-regulators like David Kessler who think that putting sugar, salt and fat into recipes (just like my G-G-Gramma did) is some subversive mind-control plot by chain restaurants and must be stopped. If he wants to label/disclose restaurant items - I'm on board. If he wants to regulate I have a lot of problems with that.
There is a growing, but not conclusive body of evidence that fructose (as HFCS or sucrose) is a direct cause or metabolic syndrome, and that the O-6:0-3 fats ratio shift in foods in recent decades is a cause of certain types of metabolic disregulation. There are fine papers on the NIH website about these issues. There is no regulation, and it is probably too early to regulate these. OTOH full disclosure would allow people to make choices based on such possibilities.
Then consider trans-fats where the case against is clear and still laws only require disclosure on packaged foods - there is no regulation.
There are still scads of poorly labelled homeopathic remedies on shelves and in advertisements. Where are the regulators either banning or else disclosure requiring a bright red bozo stamp on the front ?
It appear to me that regulation isn't working very well, and also we don't have sufficient information disclosure to allow market forces to work.
I'd prefer disclosure and personal choice to regulation. Still if people want a government agency to pass rules so an item can carry a "meets government standards" label - that's fine, but it should not be a requirement for sale. If someone wants to knowingly buy raw milk or unpasteurized cider, or substandard pasta - that's their decision.
C'mon - you know the drill. Show some evidence of comparable systems with and without regulation. What we would really want to see is a cost analysis of a schema with and without central regulation. Including the hidden costs.
Perhaps b/c name-calling and equating libertarianism with anarchy is already baked into this thread. Some people are so threatened by Libertarian thought that they shift into mindless namecalling and gross mischaracterizations. Then we have the erroneous thought, already discussed elsewhere, that banking deregulation was the direct cause housing bubble & burst (ergo all regulation is wonderful and cost-free).
It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with the closed-minded.
It's not possible to have a thoughtful discussion with those unwilling to question the positions they hold.
It's not possible to have a balanced evaluation without considering the costs of regulatory burden including stagnation of innovation.
I think we should regulate the currency (in ways that Bernanke seems to defy).
I think we should regulate our armies. and police and TSA and fire departments.
When it comes to food and drugs I am not immune to the argument the after-the-fact lawsuits cannot be adequate reparation for a loss of life or health, and prevention is highly preferrable. OTOH we should consider if FULL transparency is not sufficient.
REgulators didn't prevent lead paint in children's toys ? They certainly allowed melamine contaminated chinese fish sales to continue after the problem was known, perhaps due to political pressure. There is no point-of-origin labelling on fresh fish so there is insufficient disclosure.
There are paranoiac crack-pot hyper-regulators like David Kessler who think that putting sugar, salt and fat into recipes (just like my G-G-Gramma did) is some subversive mind-control plot by chain restaurants and must be stopped. If he wants to label/disclose restaurant items - I'm on board. If he wants to regulate I have a lot of problems with that.
There is a growing, but not conclusive body of evidence that fructose (as HFCS or sucrose) is a direct cause or metabolic syndrome, and that the O-6:0-3 fats ratio shift in foods in recent decades is a cause of certain types of metabolic disregulation. There are fine papers on the NIH website about these issues. There is no regulation, and it is probably too early to regulate these. OTOH full disclosure would allow people to make choices based on such possibilities.
Then consider trans-fats where the case against is clear and still laws only require disclosure on packaged foods - there is no regulation.
There are still scads of poorly labelled homeopathic remedies on shelves and in advertisements. Where are the regulators either banning or else disclosure requiring a bright red bozo stamp on the front ?
It appear to me that regulation isn't working very well, and also we don't have sufficient information disclosure to allow market forces to work.
I'd prefer disclosure and personal choice to regulation. Still if people want a government agency to pass rules so an item can carry a "meets government standards" label - that's fine, but it should not be a requirement for sale. If someone wants to knowingly buy raw milk or unpasteurized cider, or substandard pasta - that's their decision.
Everyone in this thread so far agreed that Regulation for regulation's sake is nonsense.
it is Friedman that wanted to make the case of no government regulations.
Also it is clear, that just because it is the government, or just because it is the market doing the regulations is not a guarantee for its success or failure.
The regulators have to be transparent, watched and accountable for their decisions.
And i think there is the point where i think such regulations are best done by a Government.
Also important here would be the accountability of the government in general.
While i am no fan of centralization, regulations should be regulated central (National) as far it makes sense, to reduce cost.
And also bad examples of cases where governmental regulation failed doesn't really make the case for no gov regulations. There are just as many if not more examples of failed market regulations or no regulations at all.
i also try to be open minded.
I that want to go further than Social Democracy have watched every episode of his, Power to choose and other video debates and lectures of him.
He makes excellent points sometimes, even when i mostly do not agree with him.
and just because you opponents don't get convinced by your ideas and arguments, doesn't mean they are close-minded.
And Libertarian thought are not feared because it such a good and powerful idea, but rather because many people see a lot of danger in it.
I'd prefer disclosure and personal choice to regulation. Still if people want a government agency to pass rules so an item can carry a "meets government standards" label - that's fine, but it should not be a requirement for sale. If someone wants to knowingly buy raw milk or unpasteurized cider, or substandard pasta - that's their decision.
it depends on the product. when the use of the product only poses a danger to you, then i am fine with a non labeled item. But when you use something that would also pose a danger to me, i want it to be regulated. Here is your freedom overlaping my freedom.
When you want to use an electrical shaver that was not tested on its savety, well fine for me.
But when your car does not meet certain standards, then your car poses a danger to me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
