Thought-Provoking Speech

I'm curious to know what people will think of this speech given by John Stossel in Illinois. In total the speech is around 25 minutes long, and is political. If you can take off your political blinders and be open-minded about what he says, then we can get a good discussion going without it devolving into the same muck these debates usually get to. On the same token, please don't comment unless you watch all of the videos.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTaTqhO4Qlg"]John Stossel - American's for Prosperity 1 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz26Asi0AU8"]John Stossel - American's for Prosperity 2 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXMyPT_47Mc"]John Stossel - American's for Prosperity 3 - YouTube[/ame]

I didn't watch any of the videos. The guy needs to shave off that gay stash.

I'm not a big fan of red undershirts. Didn't watch.

That makes two reasons for AI, this post itself makes 3. At least as a subforum so it does not take away from the post/thread count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

That makes two reasons for AI, this post itself makes 3. At least as a subforum so it does not take away from the post/thread count.

---

Or you can ignore posts that don't contribute and pave the way by adding your own thoughts. ;)

(By the way, I intend to watch these videos when I have some time.)

I am watching these now... also in before Atmosfear (this video is right up his alley)

regardless, mods should delete such posts

the point about the market sorting itself out is relevant to atmosfear's comments about advertising

Interesting stuff. I agree with his points mostly, but disagree on a few of the health issues. Firstly I am generally a conservative when it comes to finance and business and a liberal on social issues. I agree with him on our legal system and the way our lawsuits go. I would MUCH prefer a "loser pays" system like most every other developed country has. In America, if I had the funds to file all the lawsuits and hire the lawyers, I could bury someone in useless lawsuits and bankrupt them. It is abusrd that you can sue someone, and when you lose, just walk away with no consequence. It would greatly reduce lawsuits in this country, and more importantly, it would nearly kill frivolous lawsuits. People wouldn't sue so much trying to get rich for nothing if they thought there was a decent chance they would be the one paying if they lost. Of course, REAL legitimate issues would still go to court as needed.

Now, when it comes to regular business (not health care), I completely agree with lowered government regulation and more free market. I will use Atmosfears example of a vacuum cleaner company. If the government were to regulate that a vacuum must have a certain suction power, it would be rather cumbersome on the market. If someone bought a shitty vacuum that did not meet the suction requirement, or at least one they thought did not, that person could sue the vacuum maker for selling a product that is said to meet government standards but does not. Now this might keep a company in check to make sure they produce a certain level of product, but it is unnecessary. If I buy a vacuum cleaner that sucks (or doesn't suck more accurately), than I will most definetly not be purchasing product from that company in the future, and probably getting my money back if I can.

If another company produces a good vacuum at a reasonable price, than the company should have no problem selling it's product. Now the shitty vacuum company will either have to revise it's product, and make a vacuum that is more in line with consumers needs, or it will fail and they will go away.

This can be applied to anything, windows, software, furniture etc. If a product does not satisfy consumers, it will go away. Now where I disagree is when it comes to drugs and medical devices.

"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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

"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

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.

Will read later, must drink beer now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mach 5

Will watch videos later, must pass out now.

---

Fixed.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.