Thread: Thought-Provoking Speech

I actually forgot about that, the US government if I remember right sought to secure deposits or something, essentially removing alot of the risk on the behalf of the lenders. I feel it was still dumb to lend them money in the first place but the government has to take its share of the blame also, it created the conditions for this to happen.

Still don't have time to watch the other 2 videos. As for adverts, I think you may misunderstand me; adverts like Lynx clearly are not meant to be taken literally, I am talking about adverts that seek to mislead on purpose, making claims (in a literal context) which are not true. Sure, people would find out eventually, but they shouldn't need to.

I got some other stuff to say but don't have the time.

Didn't mean to take this long to respond, but better late than never (I hope).

Originally Posted by MrTroy

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).

I am very possibly wrong in my interpretation, but you seem to be saying that somehow the information will not get out that a company is using unsafe ingredients in their food, or less than wholesome ingredients at least. I don't understand how no one in the market wouldn't offer higher quality. Organic foods are offered for people who want higher quality, but it's not like the food HAS to be organic. And really organic foods aren't healthier or safer, but that's not for this argument.

I don't see how it's possible that places won't be offering higher quality foods as there will always be demand for foods that are a decent level of health for people. The groundwork is also already set for the level of quality of foods we have now, and if someone undercuts them, then questions will be asked and the facts will be known. When people find out the truth they can make the decisions for themselves.

Since I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd object to this, perhaps I'm not addressing your concern. Perhaps you're saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to falsely claim what's actually in their food. Though if they are actually lying about what it contains then they'll quickly go out of business, as nobody is going to want to trust their food in the hands of a business they can't trust.

I understand the whole doomsday scenario where one can imagine that all businesses collaborate and try to get the most profit possible by using the least wholesome foods, and that's the exact same mentality people who want regulations have about almost all aspects of the market. The truth is that the unintended consequences of passing regulations almost always end up being worse than the good caused by passing those regulation.

Originally Posted by gismo

Still don't have time to watch the other 2 videos. As for adverts, I think you may misunderstand me; adverts like Lynx clearly are not meant to be taken literally, I am talking about adverts that seek to mislead on purpose, making claims (in a literal context) which are not true. Sure, people would find out eventually, but they shouldn't need to.

I understand what you're saying and I agree that people shouldn't need to. Most people feel this way that they don't want to be bothered with doing heavy research in order to find out the validity of the claims of a certain company on an advertisement and/or their product labels. What I find fascinating, and at first counter-intuitive but now self-evident, is that regulation isn't the best way for this to happen. Competition does a ridiculously phenomenal job at this.

A company that wants to thrive isn't going to be putting out literal claims that aren't true. The ones that do will quickly be run out of business from the immediate lack of trust from people and plummeting of their shares after such information gets out. They will be the exception, not the rule. I understand that it's very easy to imagine a company will always do whatever it can to make profits and that involves doing dirty things, but the reality is that a company makes the most profit by giving consumers what they want. Only those who are good at giving their customers what they want will stay in business for very long. As long as there is competition, there will be a constant drive to be better and give the customers a reason to choose them over their competitors.

I hope that makes sense the way I'm explaining it. The hardest part about explaining these types of things is the lack of understanding for what it's like to not fully grasp everything involved. It is harder for me to teach math to people now then it was when I was taking the class since I'm unable to remember what it was like before I learned, and what got me to learn and make the connections in the first place. If this doesn't connect then someone else may be able to do a better job.