Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Thought-Provoking Speech

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    219
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't have much time, I watched the first video and I will comment on that. The idea that the markets are the best regulators, for me has one flaw, that is the people who work in the markets, they always aren't reliable. So in some markets I do believe in regulation. As to how strict or intrusive government regulation should be, I feel that depends on the market.

    One I want to talk about is advertising in the UK. I feel censorship goes too far. I will give 1 classic example, a few years back the lager Carling had an advert where a woman comes home to find her man hasn't cleaned up. She accidently knocks over his Carling and he licks it up, so she gets an idea and starts pooring it over the floors etc, and he cleans up by licking it. She then undresses and goes to poor it over her, but there is none left. This was eventually banned on the grounds that it implied that this alcoholic product could result in sex.

    Lynx adverts have always said that using Lynx deoderant will have women flock to you. I've tried it - it doesn't work. Alcohol, like it or not, increases your chances of sex. This decision was so poor and out of touch with reality, it beggars belief.

    I do agree with advertising standards, the government making sure that ad makers don't false advertise. Sorry, I don't trust the market to regulate itself on this case, if left to their own devices there is a serious threat of fraud and there will be people who will seek to serously mislead people.

    The main issue with regulation is trust. The more trust there is, the less regulation is needed. Some may think I am blowing the advertising thing out of proportion, or scaremongering, or just being plain old cynical but I feel this is one industry that needs to be regulated to ensure they don't try to mislead and decieve.

    I also agree with regulation in the food and healthcare industries. In many other industries, if people conduct themselves inappropriatly, some people might lose a bit of money, in the food/healthcare industries people can die. Drug approval takes so long because you need to have a good idea of what side effects, if any the drug produces. You can't take chances with that kind of thing. With food, more often than not you cannot tell if the product is safe or not, you go for the most part purely on trust. It sure as hell puts my mind at ease to know regulation exists for food. However the EU went too far when they regulated the shape of food, that is way too far.

    Mr Troy, the example you gave, I have to ask, does that/would that actually happen? That kind of regulation is far too excessive. When it comes to electrical appliances, the only kind of regulation I approve of are eletrical safety tests to make sure it won't blow you up the first time you use it. Common sense would dictate such practices would exist in a self regulated market, again there is a question of trust, can they be trusted to do this themselves? I think that one is open for debate. I will say however that I do get piece of mind knowing that the manufacturers are required by law to do basic electrical safety tests.

    I may be mixing my terms, or confusing two different things, but across markets I do believe in regulation that protects people, or at least helps protect people from fraudsters and unsafe products. I think some industries may need it more than others. I feel that free market capitalism has 1 major flaw, one massive unreliable part, that is the people who work in the markets and if they aren't going to act in a responsible manner then I believe the government should force them.

    Look at the shit we are in now because of the housing markets. I mean giving mortgages to people who were never going to be able to repay is just dumb. This whole mess could have been avoided, but too many people got too greedy and they made some dumbass moves. I have seen some of the ad's from the US trying to sell mortages and to be honest, I am surprised nothing was done about them.
    Last edited by gismo; 12-18-2008 at 06:02 AM.

  2. #2
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTroy View Post
    "When he asks is it worth it?" on drug research and standards, he says no. I say YES. If all of the sudden Food and Drugs were no longer regulated, than some really shady stuff would go on. Obviously the point of a business is to make a profit. Now if you were a food company, say McDonald's, and you could get away with using below USDA Grade A beef, which, with no regulation, would not exist. So without the USDA we wouldn't even KNOW that they were using low quality beef. McDonalds buys low quality beef to save 25% on their bill for beef.

    Now this beef may carry more disease and other nice things associated with low quality crap, but doesn't really taste different. More people might get sick here and there, and who knows WHAT is in the beef. Same thing with drug ingredients, instead of testing a drug for 10 years, they see some good results after 1 year, and decide to push it to market. Who knows if the ingredients in the drug will cause cancer, to cause pregnant women to lose their baby, to have 10% of men have a drop in testosterone levels, to have 8% of people die of a heart attack from the drug.

    I just don't trust drug and food makers to do the HEALTHY thing when it comes to their product if there was no regulation. I would hate to see the factory conditions of some food factories if there was no government health standard.
    The cool thing is that you don't have to trust them. If they don't do the healthy thing and there's no regulation, then demand will spring up for someone who does, and whoever fills that demand will run the other out of business without them making some changes. Though I don't see food places being in the business of harming their customers when they can clearly make more money by giving them what they want. Though really just look at a place like White Castle, that's so god-awful and constantly dirty even with our current regulations that I don't see them doing a whole lot of good except in making it harder for the little guy to succeed.

    The flaw I see about the drug argument, is that if you want to be just as "safe" as you are now with the FDA in place, then just wait 12-15 years after a drug is released and see what other people have said about it before you start taking it. The only difference is that you aren't being forced to wait, you actually have a choice. I saw him give another speech in person where he talked mainly about healthcare. He has a thought-experiment where we still have the FDA use their approval processes, but have companies be allowed to market and sell their drugs before getting FDA approval. So those who want the FDA approved drugs can still wait to get them, but those who are dying and want to experiment can also do so with drugs that have yet to be approved.

    My father is actually the co-founder of a business that makes medical devices (one particular device, just a lot of them), and this was a huge problem. Over three years of tedious back-and-forth with the FDA, finally it was approved just a week ago and he's finally allowed to market it. He says "I'm never going to invent something new to help people in the U.S. again, the FDA is just too much of a pain in the ass." After seeing firsthand the hoops they had to jump through, I can't believe I ever thought it was a good idea, but intuitively it makes sense that we want to be protected. Luckily he was able to file it under a predicate device so it only took three years, and not five or however long it would have taken. This is just a topical device by the way, it never enters your body in any way in proper usage. I think it's my head that should be examined though, as I have no idea why I thought a government agency would actually do things in a way that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by gismo
    Stuff
    Some of these things are explained in the videos you missed. I just have to point out the internet. Information about the truth of what a company claims can easily be found online. If an advertisement is false, then word gets out. A business won't become nationally/internationally successful based on scamming us. There are plenty of commercials that show women being ridiculously attracted to someone wearing a certain fragrance, but so what? Who believes those? They are just amusing to watch. Who am I to say that they shouldn't be running those commercials? If they shouldn't be running them, then fewer people will buy their products and they will go out of business if they don't change. We naturally punish or reward these companies for what they sell and how they choose to sell it. If we aren't getting what we want, then they don't get what they want. Then again this is largely explained (in a much better way) in the 2nd two videos.
    Quote Originally Posted by gismo View Post
    Look at the shit we are in now because of the housing markets. I mean giving mortgages to people who were never going to be able to repay is just dumb. This whole mess could have been avoided, but too many people got too greedy and they made some dumbass moves. I have seen some of the ad's from the US trying to sell mortages and to be honest, I am surprised nothing was done about them.
    Yeah it certainly is dumb. The U.S. government subsidized lending to people who couldn't afford a home, and by thinking the government knows better than we do, they created an unsustainable situation that lead to the "crisis" we're in now. Though that's not the side you'll hear in most of the media. You'll hear that it was deregulation that caused the trouble, but do some real research to quickly debunk this myth.

  3. #3
    McTroy MrTroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    THE BEEF
    Posts
    3,006
    Credits
    1,415
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gismo View Post
    Mr Troy, the example you gave, I have to ask, does that/would that actually happen? That kind of regulation is far too excessive. When it comes to electrical appliances, the only kind of regulation I approve of are eletrical safety tests to make sure it won't blow you up the first time you use it. Common sense would dictate such practices would exist in a self regulated market, again there is a question of trust, can they be trusted to do this themselves? I think that one is open for debate. I will say however that I do get piece of mind knowing that the manufacturers are required by law to do basic electrical safety tests.
    I was using an unrealistic example to provide a clean slate on view. Often times if you use something that already is in play someone already has an opinion on it. Vacuum cleaner suction regulation does not exist, so I chose it so there would be no previous opinions on it.

    UnreasonablyReasonable, I can see what you are saying about health-care product, but my problem is the market. I don't think if drug companies had to make their products safe, than most would not bother. We could be doing insane amounts of damage to our body with untested drugs because the drug company assures us it is "safe". Well, sure they are going to say it's safe. A car company sure isn't going to advertise that their car is unsafe, even if it hasn't been tested. What if NO ONE in the market does higher quality out of sheer competitiveness? If you make hot-dogs, and your 3 major competitors are using "questionable" manufacturing product and technique (that the public is unaware of) and they can make a hot dog that is almost as good as yours for 50% less, and therefore sell it for less while getting a higher profit margin percentage, are YOU going to use the highest quality meats and facilities and charge twice as much for a pack of hot-dogs? Your sales probably won't be able to stand, so likely you would mimic the low quality practice to stay competitive. I just can't see food and drug being self-regulated. I can tell if the lamp I am buying is of low quality and can make my purchase decision accordingly, I can't tell what's IN my food (bercause without regulation, the Nutrition Facts and Ingredients label would not need to exist, or be truthful).
    Quote Originally Posted by DickStivers View Post
    I hope I haven't missed my chance to join MrTroy 4 Life
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I blame Obama. That nigger.
    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    when mrtroy makes a valid point about your posting, you should probably kill yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by djwolford View Post
    This site was always meant to end with a gay gangbang. It's destiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    I don't consider myself a racist, but I fucking hate niggers.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrTroy View Post
    Gwahir and I have this little ongoing tiff. He seems to have that with a number of people who think he is a pretentious faggot.
    Quote Originally Posted by hydro View Post
    I'd rather fuck a child

Similar Threads

  1. Freedom of Speech finally wins one
    By MrTroy in forum WTF News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 05:11 PM
  2. Humans 80,000 Years Older Than Previously Thought?
    By Killuminati in forum WTF News
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 04:19 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •