March 7, 2009
-
A Crazy Liberal Idea
I’ve been hearing and reading a lot of commentary quoting Ronald Reagan’s line, “Government can’t solve the problem, government IS the problem.”
And I’ve been thinking about that.
Hang in there because we have to go back to August 2007 for the beginning of this train of thought. Remember the “Salmonella in Spinach” scare? I remember it because my sister was one of the people who ate the tainted spinach and almost died of e coli poisoning.
Okay that’s the middle of the train. Here comes the engine:
Upton Sinclair. In 1906 Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle”. He intended the book to shock America with it’s graphic depiction of the struggles of poor working class people. Sinclair’s childhood was a constant juxtaposition of extremes. His alcholic father kept the family in constant povery, but he also had wealthy grandparents with whom he spent a great deal of time. There was no middle ground, it was either feast or famine.
He became convinced that unchecked Capitalism would invariably lead to inhumane working conditions for wage earners. His convictions and concerns brought him to write The Jungle in order to expose the middle classes to what their fellow human beings were experiencing just a street or two away. He wrote of life in poverty, job insecurity, unfair and low wages, and unsafe working conditions. But when America read the book, instead of finding compassion for the workers, the country found … rat sausage. If there’s ever been a moment of collective national nausea, 1906 was it. Sinclair said, “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”
We discovered that mouse droppings, chopped rat, body parts of the workers, and in at least one instance an entire human being unfortunate enough to fall into a rendering vat were ground up and packaged as food for human consumption. Within months of the book’s publication Theodore Roosevelt authorized the Food and Drug Administration to conduct regular inspections of food and drug production companies.
Big Business hated the FDA. They cried that the markets should be left alone because competition and the discernment of consumers would eventually regulate the businesses because of course no one would buy rat sausage if they knew that’s what it was. But here’s what made Roosevelt persevere in spite of the outcry, the average consumer couldn’t see, and didn’t know what was going into the products being sold, so the mechanism of the free market was not enough to protect the public interest. It was sound business for the meat packing companies to behave the way they did because they mazimized their profits which is the entire goal of business. That’s the private side. But on the other hand the public has a right to the information it needs to make good decisions about the products being sold in our markets.
Today some of the ”talk” I hear on the airwaves and in the office is an oft repeated line that Government should stay out of business lest it mess things up when it tries to become involved. One of the mantras I hear is that things become more expensive, less efficient as a result of Government involvement. On the other hand there is the question of whether I want to be sold rat sausage. I rely upon government inspectors to make sure that the food I’m buying is safe. I rely upon banking regulators to make sure that the financial products offered don’t have hidden poison designed to leech money from my pocket in excess of what I knowingly agree to pay. I rely upon an entire infrastruction of inspection and regulation that I believe will protect me from such nasty surprises.
But from the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and coming forward, the number of people hired for inspection and regulation has been slashed dramatically. Since 1972 the number of FDA inspections has fallen by 80%. The number of inspectors employeed by the FDA has been cut 12 in the past 5 years. With inadequate government resources to inspect the food, industries have hired private firms to fill in the gap. And how’s that working for you?
June 07 e coli in beef
August 07 e coli in spinach
Sept 07 e coli in ground beef
Oct 07 salmonella in chicken and turkey pot pies
Dec 07 listeria bacteria in milk products
April 08 salmonella in jalapenos
(and lets not forget the “stay away from the tomatoes, oh, just kidding it wasn’t the tomatoes after all” decision that led to tons of tomatoes being left to rot in the fields)
Most recently in the headlines salmonella in peanuts shipped by the Peanut Corp of America.The workers in the Peanut Corp of America plant have testified that they regularly saw mice, rats, roaches, and mold. But just months before the outbreak which has killed 9 people and sickened about 20,000 others, that plant was judged to have a Superior Level of Food Safety.
Judged by the FDA? Nope. Judged by a private for profit firm hired by the industry. Does that seem like a good idea to you? Anyone? Wanna bet that the days of rat sausage are behind us?
The next time someone at the watercooler lets off a little steam about the evils of government regulation, you might want to point out that the lack of regulation is what leads to companies selling us products that make us sick, kill us, or cause us to lose our homes. I know it’s just a crazy whacko tree-hugging Liberal thing to say, but I’m in favor of a little more regulation, thanks.
Comments (183)
great thoughts!!!
I favor an eclectic government, regulations when we need it whether the food industry, banking or whatever. Even today I am sure that “we” have enough to eliminate poverty if we would commit to do it.
@Ikwa - thank you for your recommendation!
Fantastic, and fantastically written, as usual.
Without someone to look out for everyone, the greed mongers would do us all harm and get away with it…which they just did in eight years of rampant lets take the money and run. Only I hope wherever they go it catches up to them in shark feasting karma
The trick is to know when we need more government regulation, and when we need less. It’s all about balance, ain’t so?
Here from GReggo’s rec and I will rec too. This is exactly the idea I’ve been trying to put together in my own head, but you’ve done it so well here. When I managed a restaurant, if I thought the district manager was due for a visit I might run around with a broom etc. a little more than I would normally, but I never, never let the food get below (or above) it’s safe temperature. I did that for altruistic reasons too but mostly because that health inspector would surprise us several times a year and the last thing I wanted was a poor score (which we had to post in the restaurant). I was much more afraid of that $30K a year health inspector than I was of the $100K DM! I could schmooze my way out of almost any problem with a customer, but I couldn’t fool the health inspector. She was the one that kept my restaurant honest.
I was a good, honest, kind-hearted, conscientious guy, but we all needed that threat of health inspection to stay sharp. There’s a balance needed, sure, but let’s err on the side of too safe, imho.
Great entry!
THIS whole mess we’re in is a direct result of Reaganomics
i’m pretty much writing a thesis on what i call Adam Smith theology over here: http://standupwithpetedominick.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359 and the thing wrong with capitalism today is the unadulterated greed promoted by Reaganism
If you remember when George the First was campaigning against George the First, Pappa Bush rightfully called Reagan’s policies voodoo economics—and now we’re all seeing that the wizard of Oz is a fraud
Wow, I didn’t know about all the cuts in FDA inspectors. Great post, and very informative.
I completely agree with you in theory. However, government officials can be just as corrupt and unaccountable as for-profit regulators.
Definitely has given me something to think about. Thanks for the great post.
great post. If you go through and replace the words “rat sausage” in that paragraph with “shitty loans” you’ve got the cause of the banking crisis in there too.
I’m glad I’m not alone in seeing this
Very good points. I agree that government regulation is necessary for big business. It’s been stated so often that their only responsibility is to deliver a profit to their shareholders. With that mentality, how can we trust them to regulate themselves?
Haha, interesting post.
very, very true. basic regulation is key to a safe society. i understand that real problems do emerge when governments try to meddle with economics, but sometimes it really can’t be helped. Business is ultimately about increasing profit and little else, and if unregulated this tends to involve a lot of destruction to our land, air, water, food, homes, etcetera.
Don’t forget about pet food! One of my cats died because someone at the factory was intentionally poisoning the food.
Very informational post – thank you for shedding a little more light on this problem.
A very liberal idea in the first place. Good post!
Regulation as it pertains to food safety is all well and good – but how far do we allow ourselves to be regulated?
In our schools? In our homes?
In our minds?
There’s a breaking point and we’re just hurtling towards it without any reservation.
And no one seems to care.
great post! hey, my friend Ikwa was first! yay… and you look like you could/should be a friend of mine.
Is it another crazy liberal idea to leave parts of a quote off, of is that just something every one does? “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
You are completely right, though I must argue that this is not really such a huge liberal idea. First we have to admit that liberal and conservatives in the Government are not black and white. One of Reagan few mistakes was the one you’ve mentioned here. Also, you may have thought Bush was conservative but in fact he was one of the most liberal presidents when it comes to spending. But in general, liberals call for more government (i.e. the government must control your life & build up the economy, somehow), and conservatives call for less government (i.e. you control your life and the private sector builds the economy up). This idea that the government regulates stuff like food safety is actually more conservative. If it was liberal then the government would be regulating, plus telling you who to hire, how to spend your money, and then taking half of it from you.
I actually agree, but it’s not an entirely liberal idea. That’s just common sense, and is why we need government instead of being an anarchy. And I’m very anti-big government. It’s just that when government becomes TOO big that it’s a problem, and lately it’s been big in places it shouldn’t, and not big enough in places it should.
That’s the problem here.
I never give out Mini’s because I’m stingy with my credits but this deserves one!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this. Government deregulation was out of control these past 8 years, and I sure hope it goes back to normal. I’m afraid to eat anything anymore.
I’ve learned a lot from your post, especially about the FDA inspectors, and you also reminded me that I want to read The Jungle. Been meaning to for a number of years.
Thanks! And Rec’d, for good reason!
Great post! This is very informative and very well-written. We do need some more regulation to keep people safe. It’s just scary how many instances of contamination there were in just a year and these businesses knew about it.
Oh yeah. If you’re looking for a more modern example of corporations valuing their profit over their employees, look into the vinyl chloride conspiracy that went on from the 1950′s to the 1980′s. It was used to make various kinds of plastic. All the companies involved knew that it was deadly carcinogen and most of their workers wound up dead from different cancers – but they made a secrecy pact prohibiting any of them from revealing the information to the government. Instead, they involved some researchers into said secrecy pact, told them what kind of outcome they wanted from a study – namely, that it was harmless – and had researchers essentially draw up a sham study to conclude for decades that this was a completely safe chemical.
It’s utterly despicable because they knew, right from the beginning, that it was highly toxic, and yet exposed employees to it regardless – for decades!
-David
Well written – I appreciate someone articulating what I have been trying to mull.
I think one of the biggest problems with the United States is that we are too concerned about whether or not an idea is Liberal or Conservative instead of doing what is in the best interest for America. I’m all for health inspections and safe working conditions, but we also have to keep in mind that a lot of these outbreaks originated outside the United States and were out of our control. It’s nearly impossible to check every container of food that enters our borders. To do so would force our food supply to a crawl and prices would skyrocket. I think the United States has a responsibility to lead the way among the rest of the world in this aspect. While Adam Smith’s theory of absolute advantage and “invisible hand” theorem are sound economic starting points, they are over 200 years old and of touch with some of today’s issues like environmental awareness and social corporate responsibility. Business has changed since then and we are no longer clustered in our own corners of the world, but instead are becoming one giant global village. Not to mention the goal of a company is to increase shareholder value, not just bottom line profits. A botched environmental cover up or unsafe working conditions can be the worst kind of PR for a company these days. The U.S. needs to work with other world forums and countries to address the problem at the starting point by establishing enforceable laws and regulations that ensure a consistent, safe product and safe working conditions for EVERY worker involved in the process. Trade is so cyclical and far-reaching that world cooperation is needed in order for us to get anywhere on this issue.
I think government regulation in areas such as food is appropriate, and not an example of overregulation.
However, when regulation starts to become unconstitutional and threaten our personal liberties in a way that does not simply keep us safe from rat sausage, that becomes the problem.
Thank you! I love a well-conceived, liberal jab.
Mmm. Soylent green snausage. (I am reconsidering a meatless dinner.)
Just dropping to say hello. It’s funny how conservatives love to take that quote from Reagan but they seem to forget that Reagan expanded government with a large increase in military spending. Republican and Democrats spend just about the same amount of money to expand government, just in different sectors. Republicans usually expand government in security and Democrats in social programs.
If only Americans were thinking this way 8 years ago.
THIS IS THE MOST EVIL FEATURED ENTRY ON THE FEATURED LIST. CONGRATULATIONS.
All we need is one more fucking Upton Sinclair (who was a third rate hack–making you a fourth rate hack) talking about goddamn meat products and the necessity of government regulation.
Did you here about the executions in China of those responsible for the contaminated baby milk products?
oops, I meant “hear” not “here” … I’m up too late
Bravo! For all the complaining the corporations did about what regulation would do to them, they are worse off now than they were before. Unchecked capitalism thinks in the short term, and that’s not good for any of us.
wanting more regulations isn’t liberal. I don’t know what to think because I’m 21, but I seem like a conservative as well. It seems that things fall into the wrong hands otherwise.
In California and I am sure in a lot other states, the chain reaction was such that little markets, mom and pop places, farms owned by families, and of course the health of a lot of people were all put in the eye of the storm.
i favor kings and magistrates. thier ego shouldnt let peanuts be tainted, lest someone lost there head.
*high five* preach it, sister. =D Sometimes you have to be a tree-hugger. I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I have to admit this, though, I can’t stand the word liberal due to the fact that some people (not you…lol) throw it around in every other sentence like it’s a bad thing. I applaud your entry, however. Well done.
Congrats on your front page listing!!!
Hello,
How is everything with you,My name is madam avelin regato I
picked interest on you after going through your short profile and deemed it
necessary to write you immediately. I have something very vital to disclose to
you,Could you please get back to me on(avelin1905@hotmail.fr) for the full details.
Yours
Madam Avelin
Email : avelin1905@hotmail.fr
Mmm, rats. They add a nice spice to food.
Just kidding!
Nice post!
I’m one for less government, BUT…I want less government in private matters. I do want my government to protect me from people like those in your article. I am all for the government organizations that protect us from those that would harm us. However, I am against government that promotes a sense of entitlement.
I’m sorry, but there is a fundamental problem I have with all this. Who is to say the government is going to be any more responsive and less corrupt? How many politicians have we heard of embezzling money, ignoring facts, or conspiring to gain power?
As for the FDA…
1978: Botulism in beans and potatos
1977: Botulism in peppers
1974: Salmonella in apple cider
1971: Botulism in Vichyssoise
…
…
and these are only the big ones.
All these before the “dramatic” cuts in government involvement. Failures occur all the time, but at least with business, if I don’t like it, I can shop elsewhere.
This post is full of fail.
I always love how people assume that government always has the best of motives during these sorts of discussions. Business=evil, government=good. Farewell to the American Dream.
Great post. You make some very good points.
Wow… Eww…
Yeah, let’s allow the government to control everything. Look at how well the government has managed the following shining examples of productivity and achievement:
- Education
- Construction of infrastructure.
- The Post Office
- The War
- Regulating a monetary system with no real worth
- Keeping our food “safe”
Yeah, sometimes the government hands off some of this oversight to “private” companies. But at that point, these private companies stop really becoming private, because there’s always a reason a “private” company gets the job. (Hint: lots of money is passed under the table.)
Regardless, look at the “my pyramid” project. It’s a giant flop that just caters to the food lobbies, and yet it was EXCLUSIVELY set up by the government. Yeah, getting more of that government oversight that tells me to buy Kellogg’s products is a great idea.
now i’m going to read ”The Jungle”. thanks for bringing it to my attention. great post.
Regulation of the actual consumer products is something hardly any modern citizen complains about. It is more an argument about the government check of a company’s potential growth. How much wealth they can acquire, and how great the business can become. I don’t think your argument is particularly relevant because they are completely different subjects.
@EminemsRevenge - You’re wrong.
“…, or cause us to lose our homes”
– There are many factors for the mortage crisis. Could more regulation have prevented this? Yes. But guess what? Many of the factors that have to be regulated for were created by the government. The Federal Reserve system artificially jerks around interest rates in its attempts to control the economy, rather than just doing their job of controlling the money supply. Artificially low interest rates (e.g. below natural market-level rates) caused mal-investment and over-investment into the housing sector, thus contributing to the bubble. These roots factors, which are MORE FUNDAMENTAL than mere regulation, are the result of government intervention into our economy. Also, the low interest rates caused investors to flee from traditional higher yielding bonds and treasury securities and into the housing sector, contributing even more to the unsustainable bubble.
Then, there’s also the distortions created by Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac and the fact that our corporate tax code is one of the most expensive in the world (second only to Japan) but has loopholes that make debt-finaced investment some of the cheapest. That on top of massive government debt over the past several decades and a totally fiat currency that we’ve had since 1971, and it seems like we’ve been asking for trouble. The regulations that were needed were needed to correct for the market distortions being created by the government and government created entities. If we went back to policies of a truly free market and sound money, then we wouldn’t have this mess.
However, most free-market thinkers would differ on exactly what roles government should act it. Many may want a liberalization of much of the economy, but be fine with more government intervention in other areas. Some may see the government’s role as to protect the basic right of the people, and by doing this to make sure people can’t kill one other. In such a case as this, there may very well be a valid case for the FDA alongside other basic laws from the government (e.g don’t murder, rape, steal, etc.).
Also, regarding the arguments of private firms taking over in the past few years, merely listing a handful of contamination problems in the past two years probably doesn’t cut it. I’m sure we’ve had contamination problems for the past century. Have the nubmers gone up or down over those years. Is there a correlation with the number of inspectors with the number of problems? And if there is a correlation, does that imply causation? Were problems in the past caught and reported as easily as they are today? Or perhaps Americans have grown reliant and dependent upon government to protect them from everything, that they won’t bother to look into things for themselves anytime soon. Of course the free market won’t fix the contamination problems if the FDA has been in control of it for the past several decades. Maybe you’re completely correct here. I’m just saying your data isn’t fully conclusive.
@AirForceVirgin -
I’m sure there have been de-regulations over the past 8 years, but do you mind informing me of a few in particular? Specifically, ones that are linked to the current financial crisis? And why limit these de-regulations to the past 8 years, since they’ve been going on much longer. Reason magazine had a nice write-up on this a little while back: Obama’s Clinton Problem
You are not addressing the real issue. Instead, you are using scare tactics in an attempt to discredit ideas that have nothing to do with the examples you give.
I am a firm believer that the government really, truly is the big problem. This does not mean I want less regulation of what I eat. Quite the contrary. What I believe, and what Ronald Reagan seemed to believe, too, is that the government should be a smaller, more efficient organization. What makes your blog so misleading is that regulation is the one thing most everyone agrees the government ought to be doing. Libertarians, conservatives, and liberals all seem to agree on that point. Where the libertarians and conservatives differ from liberals is on issues like public education, socialized healthcare, welfare checks, taxes, and so forth.
When I argue, at a water cooler or wherever, that the government is big and bloated, I don’t want them to stop regulating anyone. Ideally, the government would do three things: regulate businesses, enforce the laws, and run the military. Everything else would be handled by the private sector– regulated by the government, but not run by the government. That seems the ideal system– one in which we reap the benefits of free market capitalism, but with the government preventing the abuses that would no doubt happen without regulation.
Simple solution: live on your own land, and grow your own food.
Trade what you craft well, with what your neighbors craft well.
Simple solution, simple lifestyle. No rat sausages.
@thechris38 - Yep, I do mind informing you, because I did not write that comment that was specific to the FDA cutting back jobs and sending their investigators less frequently to warehouses, placking plants, and meat processors to engage in a debate about the financial crisis in our country with someone who did not write this post.
Sorry. I frequently write about politics on my site, so feel free to head over there, find one, and comment then. But I will not get into it here.
GREAT POST! Exactly what I’ve been thinking for say, the last 8 years. It also reminds me of all the environmental policies that expired such as the clean air and water acts.
I agree.
I love this post.
What irritates me about people who quote conservative rhetoric is that they equate government control or involvement in things with impending totalitarianism. I have this argument with my gf, who is a.. indoctrinated republican, and it just doesn’t make much sense to me how people equate government regulation with a step toward communism.. when we have all just sat here and seen what happens when you let corporations and such .. go without some regulation. They.. cut corners on product. Corners on their worker provisions and they write their own salaries, left unchecked.
The author your quoted was exactly right to say that unchecked capitalism will lead to corporate slavery, because that’s exactly what it’s designed to do: Put the majority of resources in the lands of the few. We’ve been a capitalist society at the core.. and the reason it’s worked as long as it has is that.. one: We never actually had to pay a price of penance for slavery, which.. even if you take the color out of it, was 500+ years of free labor. Slavery got the industries of this country pumping, which later funded the technical revolution, so that we could become slave independent.
Essentially, it gave a head start that this country kept running with for much longer than anywhere in Europe
. Two: Up to now, resources have been plenty and things have worked and ebbed in cycles of recession and regrouping.. because there’s still been plenty more resources. Until now, we’ve not been able to see the extremes that laissez-faire capitalism were designed to produce.
But, you and I are living in a time where we’re going to see, in our lifetime, what Sinclair warned us would happen, and I don’t understand how even now .. people can be so violenty opposed to changing the way we do things if it might save this nation from collapse.. when we’re experiencing all around us that this completely capitalist way isn’t working. It’s always been, by design, in direct conflict with the “American Dream” that we’re obsessed with, and it’s technically a threat to the survival of most people. Moreso than socialism ever will be, in the west.
How? Well, eventually, the top 10 players will have the chips. Then what happens? Credit lending begins. Then credit crisis, since people are earning less and less money… then (indentured) slavery resurfaces as a means of resolving the intentionally accumulated debt. And that’s the civil scenario to things.
If this country’s history is any indication, that would lead to violent revolt, because I don’t know a modern man of any color who’s threshold of tolerence for being situationally entrapped is high enough to allow that to happen.
I would rather change and take a new direction, even one that’s got some socialist principals and face whatever new ways of life come, than face that in the future.
Amen to that.
Believing that a lack of governmental-regulation is equal to a better quality of living is, IN MOST CASES, neglecting to consider all the safety precaustions and everyday conveniences we have today…which is basically taking those privileges for granted.
Good post.
LOVE THIS!!!
THANKS!!
the quote was “government is not the solution, government is the problem.”i agree with you for most part. there should and must be regulations to ensure the public safety. but when government dictates how we should live our lives then government must be slashed.
Americans like to bash Chinese products and label them as “unsafe” and so they advocate American goods because they are sooooo much safer. Good thing we didn’t elect McCain, otherwise, American goods and Chinese goods won’t be different at all, except “made in America” would be more expensive.
I agree. I am rec’ing this because some who take this whole get the gov’t out thing way too far, to the point where it no longer makes sense, could use a different perspective.
I shall give you a Mini, this post was so good!
FDA sucks. They won’t let gays donate blood.
Amen. I’m tired of politicians who say government is broken and doesn’t work. If they really believe that then why in God’s green creation are they in the government? As P.J. O’Rourke said once that Democrats promised everything whereas Republicans promised failure, got elected, and then proved themselves right.
I do believe that there is a big difference between health standards and the government giving billions in subsidies to companies and bailing out failing businesses.
If only food companies had more integrity and the government didn’t have to use our tax dollars to keep rats out of food . . .
Hey, that was Kieth Olbermann’s special commment on Friday.
Rec’d! This is so true! I’m sick of hearing people whine about government intervention making things more expensive, less effecting, or more troublesome. It’s just ignorant conservative scare tactics.
i’ve listened to, and participated in, a great many conservative conversations. i don’t believe that i’ve ever heard anyone call for the end of the FDA. i (a conservative) believe that government should have a very limited role in governing, but no conservative argues that government should have no role. there is a need for regulation in the food industry, but it needs to be implimented in a non-invasive way.
yes!!
its because of the lack of bank regulating that we’re in this shit economic recession! republicans never learn
one question: who’s regulating the regulators? i think what you’re aiming against is the extreme unchecked version of capitalism. capitalism in itself is the lifeblood of a free nation. too much regulation and you get France. no thanks. a book you might consider reading: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism.”
@zombiism -
Actually, I do believe Milton Friedman argued for the abolition of the FDA back in the 70′s or 80′s (or probably before). But I do agree that it’s a very rare occurrence that conservatives or most libertarians argue for the total abolition of the FDA. Granted, his biggest complaint (or at least the one I heard the most about) was regarding the FDA being slow to allow certain drugs to be sold in our country (ones that you could easily find in Canada, for example).
He made the point that you can err on two sides, and neither is the “side of caution”. If you make things too lax, then you’ll eventually have a legal drug pop up that kills somebody. On the other hand, the restrictions can be so tight that people are not able to get drugs that may save their lives. Either way, people will probably die. In the case of the former, it’s all over the news and there is massive outrage. In the case of the latter, nobody cares b/c “people die all the time and there was nothing that could be done”. (*edit*– In a way, I suppose you could say it’s the same for food– if there’s an e-coli outbreak that makes people sick or kills them, it’s all over the news. If a family can’t afford food or healthcare b/c our government is jacking up the price of everything to “protect us”, then we’ll never hear about it).
Granted, one doesn’t have to argue for the abolition of the FDA just to have all drugs legalized. It seems that there could be a nice compromise point where the drugs are legalized, but the FDA still evaluates them and puts out their judgment. Then, it’s up to the doctors and patients whether they want to try a drug that either hasn’t been approved yet, or was rejected. Because for some people, if you only have months to live otherwise, taking a gamble with a drug may actually be in their best interest (and waiting for FDA approval isn’t feasible). At least the option is there, when it wasn’t before.
This is probably the most intelligent explanation of the liberal side that I’ve heard. I do agree to much of it; I believe that there should absolutely be regulation in food products and banking institutions to protect people from being misled by false advertising or flat out lies of business. Businesses can be corrupt, as can government and many many people, and that is something that people should be protected from.
The only place in which I disagree is that there isn’t enough regulation in the banking process. Banks all offer several loans; all of which can be thoroughly researched using a variety of resources. Bank loans are contracts, which are painstakingly gone through at closing by a title company. The Truth In Lending Act requires banks to tell their customers the parameters of the loan. My point being this: the people who feel like they are victims of predatory lenders are really just people who didn’t do their homework, and who didn’t protect themselves by becoming informed. The words “Balloon payment” should put them off just as much as “rat meat” should put you off sausage. Banks are regulated, they are required to tell us what we’re getting. That’s there. Just like ketchup is required to add the words 13% other in their ingredients (which several sources will tell you often means “bugs”), you have a list of the loan “ingredients” in your contract. If you don’t read the contents, you end up eating rat meat, and it’s your own fault. And don’t tell me that people who took ARM loans somehow didn’t know that their rates would adjust, that people paying interest-only loans had no idea they were paying no principle. They knew. So if you eat rat flesh, knowing there’s rat flesh in there, who do you turn to to blame when you get sick? The government did it’s job; you just didn’t do yours. The government isn’t sufficient as our only line of protection; if we commit suicide it isn’t because the government didn’t make suicide illegal. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to other Americans to educate and protect ourselves instead of blindly trusting that anything anyone will sell you is safe.
And might I just point out, Theodore Roosevelt? Conservative. Republican. You have to choose your battles, you have to decide what’s important to regulate and what’s important to allow the market to decide. Capitalism is a great system, but not perfect. No system is perfect. Socialism leads to bread lines, capitalism leads to people regretting what they’ve bought. Monarchymatriarchy leads to beheadings and burnings, communism led to gas chambers. We’re still honing the system, and all I can say is, that’s what I consider progressive. Nothing will ever be perfect, so let’s see what works best. And my money is on a mostly capitalist system, considering the leaps that America has made in the last 200 years.
Well done. It’s only a matter of time before mad cow disease starts killing people here, due to inadequate regulation of the beef industry. Actually, due to the very nature of the beef industry, but the lack of oversight makes it that much more fraught with peril.
yeah you sound like a wacko liberal tree hugger.
if you’re scared of what peoah you sound like a wacko liberal tree hugger.if you’re scared of what people are selling you…grow your own food! im sick of everyone bitching and whining and being so scared and dependent on the damn government. cut the F**KING cord and eat your own tomatoes. nobodys putting a gun to your head to make you eat in restaurants.
Just because you have more regulation doesn’t mean you’re going to be able to stop companies from buying food with harmful substances in it.
Not to mention that government regulation, if you let it go without limit, will get way out of hand. Sure, they may help in preventing rat droppings get packed into food, but next they may decide to ban cookies because of the increased level of diabeties, or ban red meat because of the increased level of heart attack. In fact, they’ve already started doing this by requiring companies not to serve food with transfatty acids in them. Not to mention the government’s all out assult on the tobacco companies.
Let people punish private companies by boycotting their products.
Thanks for sharing your point! I totally agree!
@QtheMusic - how did a lack of regulation in the banking industry singularly cause the recession?
@thechris38 - thanks for the correction. i agree that this should be seen more as an issue of scale, and not all or nothing.
I like how you said the government is good and then gave examples as to how the government is bad with all the tomatoe scares. The FDA led that scare. It almost bankrupted Taco Bell and most vegetarian places struggled.
The fact is that for everything the government does good, it does lots more terrible. For example, the american people pay gas taxes and car taxes and extra taxes on tires and car oil, supposedly all these taxes are to provide better roads. Didn’t Mr Obama just include a sizable chunk of money in the stimulus package for roads? What? Why? Oh yeah, it’s because none of the taxes actually went to roads. Sadly enough, most of those politicians were reelected this past November.
The government can’t help but take good stuff and screw it up. We all know the “click it or ticket” seatbelt law that is nationwide. Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? People should wear their seat belts, its a safety issue. Shame none of the money is accounted for in any budgets. That money the ticket brings in goes to wherever your state wants it to go AND the government controls the cost of the ticket. In Washington State, the no seatbelt ticket used to cost 35 dollars and now its 125. Let’s raise it to 6,000,000 so that when you forget your seat belt you really are screwed.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Awesome.
Ah yes, glorious niavety. There are five major things you overlook in this post. 1) FDA inspections have dropped by 80%; this would indicate the the government agency is extremely inept at its duty. Slow, inefficient, and poorly performing. 2) Factories don’t get inspected daily. Microbes grow quickly, and these plants package 10s of thousands of units in a day. That’s an extremely quick proliferation of contaminated goods. The fact that cases are isolated and damaged controlled so quickly considering their scope is rather impecible. 3) Private inspection agencies fail, they go bankrupt and are replaced by better performers. FDA fails, FDA grows. 4) Methods of detection and prevention have become INCREDIBLY more advanced in the last 30 years. People are also much more inclined to visit the hopsital for any given illness. It’s less likely that contamination has increased. In all reality, contamination has greatly decreased, but reported more greatly when an incident does occur. 5) There is a massive difference between Health Inspections and Contract Law/Taxation/Production Regulation/etc.
Two words: Lead Content.
Kudos…but I would say, a LOT more regulations!
@MacaveliMC - your statement makes no sense. you just took our current situation (FDA regulates food), called it conservative, then posited a completely ridiculous hypothesis (gvt then regulates who you hire, how much you pay etc) and called that liberal. in reality that situation you described would be considered uber-liberal. so you took a neutral situation as an example of conservatism, than a ridiculous situation as liberalism. fallacious.
on a more general note: i’m reading constitutional law case studies now and there was a time when they argued that the ‘liberty’ spoken of in the constitution included ‘freedom of contract’, which meant all labor laws and minimum wage laws were unconstitutional. lol wtf.
but the transparency/reliability of government issue… THATS the real worry. i’m all for gvt checking my food, but who checks to make sure the gvt is honest?? (to echo watchmen’s slogan).
EXCELLENT post!
Read my blog:
http://www.xanga.com/choyshinglin/665815416/capitalism-is-useful-just-as-a-horse-is-usefulbut/
THIS GUY http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/08/2009-03-08_obamas_search_for_an_enemy_the_president.html was FOR Obama before he was AGAINST him, and he’s so-called “liberal” media. We’re now confronted with a problem bigger than 911 and klansmen from both sides of the aisle are doing their damndest to subvert the recovery
Great entry! I try to explain to people that having worked a good portion of my life for the government, I can tell you truly that the government is NEVER proactive. It’s always reactive, which means that everywhere you find a government regulation, it’s because at one time or another there was a fox in the henhouse. And every time I see someone saying we need to drop the burdensome regulations from some industry I can point to that person and say that this person was hired by foxes to get into your henhouse, or they are foxes themselves, but if you buy their argument, there’s gonna be fur and feathers by morning.
In 1982 Ronald Reagan signed a bill to relieve “those poor, overburdened Savings and Loans.” Six years later government was still bailing out the S&L’s to the turn of over $300 Billion dollars in 1988 rates.
And people keep lining up to listen to the Republican nonsense.
that is corect i agree with your man
Interesting post. Here’s a few flaws I noticed, regulations in the banking industry under bush’s final term saw increases in regulations. He didn’t know how to veto any bills. Govt. regulations over businesses limit competition and eventually cut the number of businesses in a particular market. Cutting the smaller businesses makes larger empires. Larger companies typically have more power and can keep new competition. Look at Microsoft; How does a company compete against that? They have to target businesses, or make a completely free product supported by people who despise everything that Microsoft is(read: Linux).
Oh and yes, sometimes companies make mistakes. A vat was improperly cleaned out, a table not cleaned properly. If you don’t believe mistakes happen, look at the number of recalls that are put out. Most companies know it’s not worth it to allow something like this to happen. Between the bad press, the scrutiny they will be faced with, and of course the threat of losing their jobs and going to jail, most companies take the extra precautions to prevent these things from happening. I’m not saying there weren’t problems such as you described. I’m not saying that it wasn’t a pigsty. I am however saying that if there was less government interference, there would be more competition, and the weaker wouldn’t survive. Again, back to the motor companies, Ford and GM are given many, many Billions to keep a float, while the other car manufactures are told to figure things out for themselves.
Hear, hear!
Heres another crazy idea: Wash your produce before you eat it, and cook your meat until it is at least medium well done. Both actions when done correctly will kill the majority of bacteria including e-coli and salmanella.
Here’s the problem: “Regulation” as defined by the House Banking and Finance Committee and it’s Chair (Barney Frank) meant requiring banks to loan money to individuals who weren’t capable of paying on those loans.
Your example of the FDA is not an invalid point, but I would suggest that during and prior to the time of TR there was less competition in private industry. Much of the abuse during the time could have been eliminated by the diversity of Free Market principles. The focus on excellence that naturally arrises when companies compete for cash generally eliminates the need for imposed, outside (Federal) regulation.My husband works in the private sector as an ER physician. He also owns a company that contracts exclusively for the Federal Gov’t.Trust me people, Federal Government is not the solution to our problems. Reagan was awesome!
Enlightened I am…informative you are…Thanks so much!
Seriously, good idea. I love Peanut Butter, I don’t want to be afraid of it.
Coming at this from a locavore perspective, I think part of the problem is also the centrilization of everything. When farmer A had to prove that farm A’s tomatoes were a better tomato, so people would go to farm A for tomatoes, you could be sure those tomatoes would not have…well… poop on them. But since all farmers are becoming nameless entities and almost have of all food grown is corn to be modified and fed to us later in some unrecognizable forms… well… poop is suddenly not so big a deal. Personal concern on both ends of the spectrum is removed by the faceless corporation and the branding that causes trust of said corporation. “Of course Foxy’s spinach is safe! I always eat it…”
A centralized check system is very important in a system which removes people from their food seven times over. However, a local food shed creates a secure local economy, gives back the right for consumer discretion, and removes a government who can’t be trusted. We think we are safe eating something because the FDA is on our side, but it really is an elusive sense of security. The unchecked market has done more than sold us rat sausage- it has created a system which removes the power from us and places it in the hands of corporations, which needs to be battled by an equally big (hopefully more powerful) thing like the federal government. But to me, that just seems like those ridiculous power ranger episodes when the evil and good guys grow to skyscraper height mid-battle for no real reason. Why can’t we insist on local, insist on having knowledge, insist on being safe?
This post is misleading and fails to address any of the points that people are referring to when they use that quote. I don’t know of many people who believe that we should eliminate the FDA. What people are referring to in this “government is the problem” quote is that a bloated government will be unable to save us from this country by taking it upon itself to allocate and redistribute resources by saying, ”This industry deserves X amount of dollars and this industry deserves Y”. Fiscal conservatives believe that cutting taxes will stimulate investment and allow the private sector to heal itself without huge government spending. I don’t believe that many conservatives belief that we should cut down on the FDA (although they could probably use some reform (different story). We never said that government should have NO involvement in big business, we just believe that it should be kept to a minimum.
Whether or not you agree with these conservative principles is a mute point. However, if you’re going to write a post in opposition you should at least make a valid point that actually addresses the real issues at hand, rather than writing some off the wall post about how conservatives want to minimize the government by getting rid of the FDA. It’s just not true.
I haven’t read all the comments, but this was a good essay. I favor a “little” government regulation, and I believe former President Reagan would agree to that. What I believe the spirit of his message was is that we do not want government to begin controlling our lives, making assumptions and decisions that will affect us adversely.
Sure, someone needs to watch those capitalists, but it has been the government, Democrats and Republicans alike, who have allowed their lobbyists and money to sway them and allow these problems to keep cropping up. The answer is not to have the government come in wholesale and take over. You are much more qualified to talk on this subject than I am, but I did want to point out the obvious.
Now we have President Obama reversing former President Bush’s policy on stem-cell research. However admirable that seems, there was a reason for the policy: unfettered access to aborted babies’ stem cells, which to the Christian, is an horrible act. This is a fact, and undeniable. Partial-birth abortions were becoming more and more prevalent to harvest these stem cells.
So government is definitely not the answer to all our ills. The majority of our citizens are conservative still, despite what the media reports, and despite the recent election returns. We definitely need to return to our conservative roots. Big Government is not a part of that.
Even though I tend to support more gov’t regulation, I’ve never considered it much from the approach of food regulation. All very excellent points, I just wish I hadn’t read this right after I’d eaten breakfast. (Which consisted of sausages.) …Haha.
you’re completely right; govt oversight/regulation could be costly, but competition doesn’t necessarily make private services the safest.
I like the government regulation. I’m with you for wanting even more. I’m advocate of universal health care. When things are left in the hands of those that only pursue profits things become corrupt, and the average person gets the dirty end of the stick.
Interesting. For the most part, I am against lots of government regulations. But I definitely approve of the FDA. Some people do have the time to research everything they are consuming, so it’s good to have someone inspecting and putting regulations on these things. Can you imagine if there was no standard for baby formula? Or if medicines didn’t have to be properly tested?
I don’t think anyone, even the hardest conservative wants to go to a world pre-regulations.
But we have too many regulations in today’s world. Think about the white line on a bus. Someone was paid a lot of money to run many tests. Where should the white line on the bus be? What will the penalties be for standing in front of it? And what would our world be without this white line? A highway full of eyeballs and guts?
Airbag warnings in your car. Cool, it’s nice to read the informing warning once or twice. There is doubtless important information. But you used to be able to rip them off after reading it. You can’t today, they made them permanent.
I don’t mind some regulation in my life, esspecially regulations that say “don’t put rats in the food.” But there is no where to go now without the government. Not even the bedroom, with giant warning stickers on the mattress.
I think you’re a little confused about Reaganomics. Reaganomics doesn’t say that we shouldn’t have any government, it’s just a political philosophy that says in general the best government is a small government. Obviously we need a government to do things such as build roads and inspect food, but in general government programs are highly inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money.
Do you know how budgets are generally determined for government programs? They determine the budget for the next fiscal year by looking at how much money the program spent in the previous year! So if a government program has only spent 70% of its budget with 2 weeks to go in the fiscal year, then there is great incentive to spend 30% of their budget in the next 2 weeks, so that they can get the same amount next year. Government programs don’t have any incentive to be efficient or to even solve the problem, because if they’re efficient they’ll get less money and if they solve the problem they’ll be out of a job. When private organizations such as churches try to solve a problem like poverty, they have to be efficient because they rely on donations.
Expected government intervention is the whole reason the financial system is failing right now. The reason why the housing lenders gave outrageous loans to people who they knew might default on them was because they EXPECTED the government to bail them out if their lending institution went under. And look what’s happening?!?! There wasn’t enough INCENTIVE for housing lenders give out loans judiciously, because they knew that government would just bail them out.
People like to complain about tax cuts for the rich, but when Reagan cut taxes for the rich in the 80s, business boomed because the rich businesses were able to invest in their businesses and create jobs, rather than giving all of their profit away to inefficient government programs. And when they created jobs this helped the poorer people to be better off as well because instead of relying of the govenment, they were able to provide for themselves by working the jobs that were created when the rich were able to invest in their business.
I attended a very economically conservative college for undergraduate and the professors in the history, economics, and poly sci departments absolutely tore a new one for all liberals with their historical examples of how small government works and big government doesn’t. Of course the average person doesn’t know history and believes everything they hear on TV, so when it comes to politics they have no idea what they’re talking about and will vote for anybody says the words “hope” and “change”. The media is so nice to that guy. Obama actually said there are 57 states (search Obama 57 states on youtube) and the media didn’t even mention it. If Bush had said something like that I gaurantee the liberal media would have been all over it.
I don’t agree with everything in the conservative political philosophy and I don’t even describe myself as a conservative, but when it comes to economics, for the most part, they know what’s going on and the liberals are clueless.
my mom alwayz sed if you wanna kill wermin cootiez in yer fud you just gotta cookit tillit burnz & ya kno she wuz ryte
we never got sik on home cookid mealz hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I always took the meaning of the goverment is not the soultion to the problem it is the problem as something different. I full heartly agree that we need goverment regualtion in many areas for the publics best interest. But, people do bring many problems down upon themselves and goverment meddling wont fix and many times makes it worse. For instance, poor planning and reasearch by buyers of homes they could not afford. Blame pedatory lending practices all you want but in the end it is the buyer that signs the dotted line. Now goverment is bailing out the banks? Its people losing there homes not the banks going under that the real issue. It will be a great waste of goverment capital that could be used somewhere else. Wellfare is another goverment botch up. I am not against helping people but we all know it is a proven fact that welfare creates an additute of intitlement that once started is verry difficult to discontinue. I am sure if given some time we can all think of things where goverment makes matters worse and not better. But I want to be clear that I will always defend my country and goverment and I have. It is not the written policys and laws of the goverment that I have a huge problem with but the people that carry out thoses policy in the way they interpet them.
No small-government advocate is suggesting lawlessness. Almost everyone acknowledges that there are positive aspects of government, most of which have to do with the things people can’t do themselves, i.e. have an unbiased entity judge the food quality of private industries.
The problem we have with big government is that it strives to treat the symptoms of an unbalanced system, rather than the cause.
When you think of a Fiscal Conservative, you probably think of someone who wants to take money from schools and reduce Welfare. This is wrongly interpreted as a greedy attempt to lower our own taxes. The true motive is to make these institutions more efficient. The reason we’re often hesitant to dump more money into school system is because the system is flawed. Could higher teacher wages in the current flawed system attract better teachers? Most certainly. That wouldn’t make it any less of a waste of money though. Thanks to the Teacher’s Unions, ineffective teachers get the same rewards as effective teachers. Meanwhile, the good teachers don’t get the pay they deserve. The point of the educational system is to teach children, right? Teacher’s Unions have no interest in the success of the kids, only increasing teacher’s pay. This results in a net loss for the quality of education the children receive plus it’s a larger-than-nescesary drag on the taxpayers …all for a little bit of job security for teachers? The price is too high.
The same goes for Welfare. Fiscal Conservatives want to get people OFF welfare so they can become self-sufficient and not have to rely on some other entity like government. Sure, not everyone on the program abuses it like “Octo-mom” has, but the abuse certainly exists. We want to get those who are capable of taking care of themselves to do so! We want to rehabilitate those who aren’t able to take care of themselves so that they, too, can live on their own means.
As for workplace conditions, I honestly do not know a single conservative who wants to deregulate safety protocols. Even if it was a legitimate argument, the Conservative would argue that it is the individual’s responsibility to find a job with sufficiently tolerable conditions, or demand a higher wage for going without. If a business can’t fill a position because the conditions are too poor or the pay is too low, they must take corrective action.
If every individual possessed the integrity to defend their safety/pay needs, there would be no need for regulations, as the job market would morph to meet the needs of the worker pool. Sure it’s a bit of wishful thinking, but it’s the direction fiscal Conservatives are trying to move.
So the big question is whether or not it’s government’s duty to try to right every little wrong in the world.
Is it the government’s job to “save” inefficient companies from failure just for the sake of a few thousand jobs? Should we bail out a company so that they can continue to manufacture products that consumers find little or no value in? Or should we stop the government-funded consumer exploitation and allow them to reorganize under the (more than fair) bankruptcy laws we already have in place?
Which option treats the symptoms and which one treats the cause? Which is the better long-term solution?
That is the goal of Fiscal Conservatives.
(By the way, Fiscal Conservatism does not imply Republicanism, as is commonly thought. Republicans are Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives. There is such a thing as Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism, called Libertarianism. Libertarians don’t have a well-heard public voice because they’ve been squashed out by D & R who want to maintain their own power in Washington. I’m positive that 90% of moderates are, in actuality, Libertarian, and just don’t know it. Check out http://www.lp.org. You might actually like what you read, especially if you’re sick of “politics as usual.”)
Wow, thank you for posting this!! I’ve not read “The Jungle” but we talked a little bit about it in one of my history classes in high school. When the teacher hit on the bit about rat sausage, I’m pretty sure the whole class gagged!
My dad always used to tell me the story about how my uncle got rich running a medical supply company that manufactured products for use in hospitals. The real genius wasn’t the products. It was influencing the regulators and bureaucrats who pushed the rules and regulations outlining the specs for the products the hospitals HAD to use, so that my uncle’s products were the only ones permitted. As far as my own experience, I spent a year working for an environmental company that handled “deep-well disposal” of waste products for factories and big corporations. It was a highly regulated industry. One of the PhDs who worked at the company spent all her time lobbying legislators and telling them how best to regulate deep-well disposal. Because who knows better how it should be done than a PhD who works in the industry?? The very things that made her an expert also made her biased. She would push regulation requiring corporations to dispose of their waste using the exact methods and system we specialized in selling. All companies in regulated industries do this. It makes you wonder if regulation doesn’t involve a lot of tails wagging the dogs. Actually, it doesn’t make you wonder. You get to see the tails wagging the dog for yourself.
“In this present crisis…”
You.
Fail.
GTFO.
I agreed with what you were saying until you slipped “cause us to lose our homes” in the list at the end. I don’t really agree with that. Mostly because people should learn on their own what they can or cannot afford. They should know that people are out to make a profit. And they shouldn’t give in to this idea that you aren’t really much of a person until you own your own house. It’s ok to rent and apt or a house.
amen.
My gov’t teacher is in love with Reagan, then again he said Ayn Rand “changed his life”
I don’t mind being called names associated with being liberal I think the gov’t needs to take care of these things, you put it in words perfectly.
Just last night my husband was telling me not to buy spinach at all until he gives me the okay. The reason? His restaurant has a bag of spinach taped to the wall of the freezer awaiting pick up by inspectors because his cook found a RAT tail in the bag. Yep. A rat tail.
I shudder to think about it.
I really enjoyed this post! It made me think outside of my own ideas, and that is sometimes hard to do!
I have to say that I definitely do not mind the FDA regulating foods on a business level or having more people to inspect the food that we eat… but I don’t appreciate them intervening in my life on a personal level. If I wish to take the chance of bacteria and drink raw milk, I wish to be able to do so. 
Also, there are plenty of instances of the FDA being bought out. Stevia was declared an unsafe food product until Coca Cola wanted to use it as a calorie free sweetener – now anyone can buy “Truvia” and the FDA has approved it. 
Funny, funny.
Watching out for things that will make you ill in foods that are being sold in the stores is all fine and good – but I’m not sure that I trust the company that says aspartame and splenda are good for you, and allow processed foods on the shelves every day, you know?
Thanks for the great post!
@ordinarybutloud - great point.
very interesting post, I enjoyed it.
Why do people waste time labelling ideas liberal or conservative so that they “know” what to support, when it is moderate, sensible ideas that end up possessing the most common sense and concrete results?
@jsw663 - Because in our flawed political system, whichever party can adopt the most popular positions and call them their own win the elections and, subsequently, maintain their power. Unfortunately, it’s all about power.
@CliveatFive - ah, the little-known fiscal conservatives, who are social liberals! I get very sick of being called a Republican merely because I’m a fiscal conservative. I’m also sick of having to choose between D&R for my own interests. If I want to be a justice court judge in these parts, I have to pick a party and “get involved.” So I either have to hold my nose about the social conservatism with the Rs, or join the Ds and suck it up on entitlement programs. Frustrating.
EXCELLENT post.
The funny thing about Government deregulation is that it was, as you so eloquently point out, missing in the food safety and banking industries. And what a disaster that has been!
And yet Government regulation has been intrusive and Big-Brotherish in our personal lives, with the Government spying on Americans with no warrants and such rubbish.
One solution might be, rather than increasing Government regulation, simply shifting it back to where it always should have been. Maybe they should stop reading our e-mails and start looking at the nasty things happening in food plants, and happening in the financial industry. Clearly, we face bigger risks there than from anything they could be seeking to find by listening to my phone call with my Aunt Hazel.
Great post, I’m recommending it too. It’s the first of yours I’ve read, and I’ll definitely be back!
@Krissy_Cole - Oh ick, this made me almost pass out.
It wasn’t until I read The Jungle for myself that I realized that the book wasn’t meant to be about the meat industry (which is all I had heard about the book) but about poverty. Wonderful post.
i’m with ya! the last thing i need is to have to worry about my peanut butter! i’m a vegetarian, so the various meat scares didn’t phase me, but when even my beloved legumes aren’t safe! well! great thoughts.
@ordinarybutloud - Hey! Suddenly the number of people I know who think like me has doubled!
Always nice to run into another F-C-S-L… or anyone who has the capability to see that the political spectrum runs in more than one dimension, for that matter.
great post
very informative!!!
i enjoyed it every much
rec’d
The most annoying thing about the de-regulators is that they use the same logic as anarchists but they don’t have the consistency to support anarchy.
If deregulation is so great why don’t we eliminate the biggest socialist institution in our country and deregulate the military?
Why not let the market decide what government the military supports?
It’s anarchist optimism used as an excuse for people who think they wont have to pay as much taxes.
It the same nonsense as the trickle down theory, not so much a theory as an excuse.
Thank you for this post you have restored some of my hope for xanga really.
*nodding in agreement*
informative + entertaining = thank you!
@moechataneko - you are right, but I am not a politician and I don’t strive to be politically “correct”. I truly believe that conservative policies are how this country should be run and liberal policies are ridiculous. I’m calling it how I see it. If that situation is really uber-liberal, then this country is moving toward becoming uber-liberal. Agree or disagree, that’s how I feel, and I believe my proof will be the next couple years.
I am pretty sure most comments regarding regulation have to deal with taxes and subsidies, because with the government causing any of these, it causes the markets to not be efficient and losses occur. A free market is essentially where there is no government restrictions such as taxes, subsides eternalities. The FDA and others have somewhat to do with these issues, because government spending comes from taxpayer money to deal with these issues, but what I think is that the FDA and food eating is very small in regards to the way bigger picture with the government and how it is destorying the economies… The goverment involvement has become TOO large and since it’s hand is in EVERYTHING there is no such thing as a US free market any more and this is not good either because the government involvement causes everything to GO UP. So just some things to think about.
uh- huh.
@zombiism - of course banking wasn’t the only reason, but that’s where it started. read this:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/how-bank-regulation-helped-destroy-aig
Regulation is fine and dandy, but sometimes the government does take business too far. Look at New York. In order to prevent these sorts of occurances from happening, they ran up huge business taxes which they said were to regulate businesses, protect the people, and help NYS over all. Except that when all the businesses left for states with lower taxes, NYS fell into a slump. Right now we see similar things happening as we outsource our businesses to foreign markets to have our goods produced. If we are going to regulate businesses on our sides, why not regulate them on the other sides too? If we are going to buy from them, they need to own up to our standards, without us scaring them away. Some regulation is good, but too much is wrong and extremely risky.
@QtheMusic - ”In fact, in many ways the last round of regulatory reform helped cause the disaster in AIG. How could AIG’s destruction have been caused by banking regulation? Most people wil probably be surprised by the very idea. After all, they’ve been told that what really happened to AIG involved unregulated credit default swaps, insurance contracts on bonds that AIG sold across the world. They suspect AIG might have been caused by too little regulation.”
While I tend to believe less government is better I also want to know I am protected from people that chose to cut corners….greed is the issue..plain and simple…my grandfather was an ethical business man…he paid a fair wage…and in the days when worker’s comp did not exist he believed that his injured workers were his responsibility and he took care of them…..those days I am afraid are long gone….I good example is when you listen to the gossip shows and the gifts they give of i-pods and electronics to people that have enough money to pay for those things if they really wanted them…they could instead donate money to a charity…like the food shelf in the person’s honor and help others. I firmly believe you do not need 15 cars in an air conditioned storage garage that could house a family of 15 quite comfortably.
@zombiism - oops i think i sent you the wrong link
@QtheMusic - it seemed fairly reasonable to me. the notion that more regulation would have stopped this crisis is silly to me. we already had regulations, we just didn’t have smart modern regulations. if anything, our sagging bureaucracy should be blamed for not keeping up with the markets. instead it’s those greedy queer-bashing republicans trying to make everyone homeless.
@zombiism - the way i see it, there should have been more involvement with the government in stopping banks who gave out loans to people who couldn’t pay them back. instead, the banks just lent and lent and lent without anyone checking on it (which actually some did, but the law kept them from doing anything about it). and eventually the big kahoonas saw that there was money to be made in it and THEY got involved so they could fatten their pockets even more. and then the market crashed.
there are many culprits to the current situation, but in the middle of it all is alan greenspan. unregulated markets is also thought to be the cause of the first great depression.
Congress is in charge of funding. If the FDA has had to cut their number of inspections and inspectors (presumably from lack of funding), then why is Congress (i.e. our government) not providing more funds to such an important organization? Instead, the “popular” Democratic administrations re-route government funding to bailouts for corrupt businesses and easy handouts for people who don’t need them.
Furthermore, the increase in diseased and unhealthy food products is in direct correlation with the shift away from using our own food and the rise in the majority of food coming from other countries, many of which do not have the same high standards we set for our own food.
@QtheMusic - you should be aware that the government itself, by backing fannie and freddie, set the market precident for allowing banks to give out those ridiculous loans. it was the left that supported this type of practice. it was horrible for the banking industry, but if banks wanted to compete they had to make the loans that fannie and freddie were making. all because of government interference, or “regulation”.
it’s not so much the government in my opinion as it is the whole capitalist society we live in.
@AuCinema - I appreciate your perspective, but I looked up the numbers. Before you argue that conservatives aren’t against the FDA, you should be prepared to explain away the fact that the FDA’s budget has been cut so drastically by conservative administrations.
I realize that if I have to explain and clarify my essay that it must not have been well-written to begin with, but I feel I must explain. I don’t think we have to have “all or nothing”. It doesn’t have to be the wild wild west with gunslinging capitalists or a complete government take-over. Surely we are adult enough to find a middle ground that creates an atmosphere for business growth while still providing consumer protections?
There is a legitimate public interest served when the public has access to information on which to base decisions. Since the individuals who make up the public can’t each and every one of us march through the many processing plants that produce our food, we need a reliable agency to monitor that food production for us.
It pains me that this point has been lost on so many, but the FDA was not a “whacko liberal idea” – that was me being ironic, it arose and was enacted by a conservative Republican president.
@MacaveliMC - yeah, but i’m not upset that you are calling liberal policies ridiculous. i just wanted you to be semantically correct; using the right terms for the situations described. as long as we all admit this is an uber-liberal idea its dandy :]
as for whether we’re moving in that direction… i really don’t know. readin cases throughout history show that the government is slowly becoming bigger and bigger, regardless of whether by democrat or republican policies. i’m starting to think that our current parties have very little resemblance to the original ideas of ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’.
personally i’m starting to think that uber-conservatism, is the only non-hypocritical conservative viewpoint. the government just doesn’t get involved with anything other than security and i suppose enforcing contracts (so the econ doesn’t fall apart) and people finally reclaim the right to ‘be left alone’. our current republican party is in such disarray, between their use of fearmongering and pandering to the religious right that i can’t even call them conservative anymore.
the other non-hypocritical prospect is unbridled liberalism where the gov takes care of all of us cause we’re too stupid to take care of ourselves. this model starts to appeal to me more and more as i get older and meet more people… sigh.
@zombiism - You should be aware that neither Freddie nor Fannie ever made a single loan. They purchased loans made to borrowers who conformed to FHA regulations. Those regulations strictly enforced have been a lifeline to many Americans seeking home ownership and the program works.
The foreclosure rate on loans owned by Fannie Mae is about 1.72 percent. By contrast, the foreclosure rate on adjustable-rate subprime loans is nearly 20 percent, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. (report dated Nov 11, 2008)
It wasn’t “the left” that came up with the “creative” financial products that have led to so many people losing their homes and it wasn’t government. It was the lending officers of businesses like Countrywide and Citibank – hardly bastions of treehuggers.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn’t pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. (Oct 12, 2008)
A little regulation is good, but most of it should be left to the people.
@Smichy420 - thanks for the rec
@Sirius_Fan_Girl - I agree, if I were proposing regulation, and no one has asked my opinion, but if I were proposing it, I’d suggest that businesses should be required to disclose all the pertinent details to their customers. If I have access to the information, I can make my own decisions.
@quiltnmomi - Yes, there were budget cuts to the FDA during Republican administrations – however if you do complete research you will see that Clinton also proposed an 8% budget cut for the FDA during his administration. Cutting the FDA budget has crossed party lines and is not just some kind of Republican agenda. Also, Bush’s budget proposal in 2008 cut Medicaid and Medicare spending but actually increased the FDA budget by almost 6%. Granted, many said this wasn’t enough to keep up with demand but it was still an increase rather than decrease…
And like I said in my previous comment, the main flaw in your argument is that you completely fail to realize the intention of the phrase “Government is not the answer is not the problem”. When people are use that phrase they are not generally not suggesting that we should eliminate government institutions like the FDA. Rather, they are suggesting that the government should not be attempting to solve our economic woes by subsidizing mortgages, buying shares of banks and bailing out automakers. This is VERY different than suggesting we should eliminate the FDA or the military or any other necessary government institution.
I agree 100%. The Repuke party is always side by side with corporations in exchange for money and cutting the government duty of caring for it’s people. This is many of their consequences of slashing budgets on necessary programs and offices and giving it away to the damn Iraq war, plus a lot of unnecessary splurging. Now we have to pray first before eating our foods more than ever…
I believe that most of the “talk” today that you’re hearing is most likely about all of the bailouts though. This is about the government taking over businesses and controlling how they operate. The government is interfering in the free markets; which is a huge problem. No one is talking about getting rid of the FDA. (And, the FDA also regulates the medical device industry, by the way) Yet, President Obama wants to expand the government’s power as much as possible. He wants to be in control of capping salaries and is already beginning to tell companies what they have to manufacture (i.e. gas efficient cars). The government does not need to be involved to “save” these businesses–sometimes businesses don’t last. And, unfortunately, we may experience a slight downturn in the economy. Yet, with the way the government is taking us, the economy will only get worse.
I’d rather risk the e-coli, salmanella, etc. And I’ve already eaten rat, so…
I want to flesh this out some more but it was the private industries that have stepped up in the latest peanut recall. for example, once there were rumblings about a peanut recall, COSTCO pulled all the peanut products in question, a full day before the peanut plant would be shut down by the FDA that had to jump through a few hoops. more regulation may lead to longer delays in swifter action to inform the public.
obviously in the case of the peanut plant, it was preventable because of the factory conditions. but not all e coli/ salmonella outbreaks are preventable.
I remember the e coli in spinach. my favorite soup and salad restaurant buffet had to pull all its spinach products for a time. they never were able to discover where the source of e coli was from. currently, eating at that restaurant costs less than $8 dollars for an all-you-can-eat lunch. e coli and salmonella cannot always be prevented. i think industries are doing what they can but in order to take the risk from 99.2% effective to 99.9% effective, is it worth it to the cost of the consumer to pay double or triple to eat at a restaurant?
also, just because it might be a good idea to regulate FOOD SAFETY doesn’t mean that should apply in every arena.
@ordinarybutloud - that almost reminds me of what happened with “environmental regulations” concocted by the bigger players in the oil refining industry in california. basically the big refineries pushed for more regulation for clean standards, standards which only they could meet, in an effort to force the shut down the smaller, independent refineries, thus elminating competiton. it’s a great PR move because the companies can claim they are “going green” and put out nice glossy brochures explaining their commitment to the public all the while taking in a nice profit with increased demand but less production.
@quiltnmomi - if the program worked, then they wouldn’t need to be bailed out by the government.
you make some excellent points.
How do they know there’s no salmonella in the food, do they have microscopic vision
@AuCinema - the main flaw with your criticism is that you have attempted to broaden my blog which used the example of the FDA to argue the point that SOME regulation is good to suggest that I was arguing that ALL government action is good. My blog did not address subsidies, bailouts, or nationalization.
I’m not sure where you got your information about President Clinton’s budget proposals. I googled FDA Budget (for the years from 1990 to 2000) and what I learned was that under President Clinton the FDA’s budget grew from $685M (FY 1991) to $1,391M (FY 2001). I didn’t find any year in which President Clinton proposed to Congress that the FDA budget be reduced. I’d be interested to see your source for that data.
@zombiism - o_0 They weren’t bailed out. They were Nationalized and they continue to operate today free from the threat that a “run” on their stock will take them down.
I liked this post. As a political canvasser for a nonprofit working on utility issues, I get a lot of this parroted “regulation = evil” rhetoric, even though those folks can’t much argue with the logic of keeping a monopoly regulated. It quickly gets obvious when they’ve not thought it through (most times).
(I could also rant about how they also tout their allegiance to the ”free” market, which is so much more a catch phrase more than a reality in energy; considering the way the subsidies fall, the market’s not determining anything in energy that wasn’t already determined for it…. In both cases, regulations are there; the question is, who are they working for? And, are we seeing them?)
@quiltnmomi - ”I agree, if I were proposing regulation, and no one has asked my opinion, but if I were proposing it, I’d suggest that businesses should be required to disclose all the pertinent details to their customers. If I have access to the information, I can make my own decisions.”
Yes.
i can tell you that the number of recall notices that i got through our church food pantry from the local food bank increased dramatically over the last 8 years while all of the “teeth” were being extracted from our consumer protection laws. it also appears to me that food producers do not have any moral obligations regarding the possible reduction of actual nutrients in our food for the sake of ease of processing, longer shelf life and/or greater “transportability,” so let the buyer beware…
oversight of food safety is much different than regulations and decisions about your health care and mine (and our kids) on a government level. The spinach with e-coli bacteria came from Mexico where there is no oversight..tomatoes too. A little known truth that is reported, but it check it out. the FDA as of last year set up an office with one man, yes –one man to oversee our fish products coming from China. I’m all for regulatory food practices…but the gov owning our banks? No. Making desions about my health care? No. The gov having more input and say so into the public schools? No. The governemt of the USA is becoming increasingly bigger, and the control they wish to exert over the states in general, and therfore the lives of the average citizen is unacceptable. Overall, an excellent point you make though, and extremely well written.
A very well-written, thought provoking piece– you should send this to a newspaper. There really isn’t any perfect form of government so long as there are human beings around to exploit it to the extreme– and they always do.
I used to work with a guy who found a dead rodent in a bag of potato chips. Without consumer protection laws he would have had no recourse whatsoever… The company in question settled with him quietly.
Good post. I agree – some regulation is absolutely necessary especially when considering that we’re all human, and human nature will lead to mistakes. Which has me thinking about the questions – What are a person’s core, fundamental beliefs and how do those beliefs motivate people to lean to the conservative or liberal or middle ground? What does it mean to be a conservative or liberal? How does that tie into the core beliefs of a Republican or Democrat or Independent. Is it possible to be a conservative Democrat? or a liberal Republican? Are all Democrats pro-spend and all Republicans pro-tax cut? Are people so caught up in the need to be right that they can’t listen to another opinion?
I feel a blog coming on…..
I couldn’t agree more!
What an awesome post, pretty lady! I haven’t read Upton Sinclair yet, but I’ve been enjoying Tom Friedman and, lately, Barbara Kingsolver, who’s explicating her own year of eating as locally as possible. Sure, she moved from waterless Tuscon back to Appalchia, where it’s easier for her to have a garden and grow chickens and visit farmers’ markets. She stresses, without being preachy, that such health is sustainable and not just for the rich. She acknowledges her luck at living in abundance. Between her and the sheer joy of gardening and the disgusting deregulation of the “food” we put into our bodies every day, I’m hoping to see more of a revolution in the coming weeks and years. And I hope to be part of it.
@quiltnmomi - ”the main flaw with your criticism is that you have attempted to broaden my blog which used the example of the FDA to argue the point that SOME regulation is good to suggest that I was arguing that ALL government action is good.”
It’s funny, though, that you are using an agreed-upon form of regulation to suggest that deregulation of other unrelated institutions would be as hazardous as deregulating the FDA, or at least, that is what is implied. That is known in the philosophy biz as faulty logic.
If you want to justify liberal ideals, why not defend Obama’s Bush-like spending? It was terrible for the past eight years, but now it’s okay…?
I still don’t want the government running my life, taking MY money, to feed lazy people. Sorry. Wait, no I’m not sorry. I don’t want the government interfering with my life. Government is not the ultimate answer for everything. We do need some regulatory agencies, but I disagree with them taking my money to just dole out to lazy people. Oh, and I can grow and wash my own spinach.
The guillotine is a marvellous incentive to do what’s right.
@slamjoe - It is exactly the same thing. The company I worked for was an environmental engineering company. It was a small company, but back when they began their deep-well disposal operation the big chemical plants didn’t have the expertise or equipment to do the disposal themselves. Same idea, though. EPA regs. formulated specifically to require big companies like Monsanto or Schlumberger to dispose of their waste in a particular manner that only we (and other small lobbying companies) could provide. And I wouldn’t even say the company was dishonest in its objectives…the deep wells *did* dispose of waste in a reasonably safe manner, I suppose, depending on what you mean by “safe” and what you mean by “disposed.” The point is that people think regulators sit in a room and decide what’s best for the world and then force companies to toe the line. In actuality, regulators ask “experts,” aka employees in the field, what’s best for the world, and the employees manipulate regs for their own profit. Most regulators are people who used to work in the field. Who else would you want, other than someone who has experience, right? Imagine how regulators are treated when they visit a plant or a site! Not poorly, I can tell you that. Not like objective third parties. Of course they don’t take actual bribes, usually, but the whole process of regulation is full of tails wagging dogs.
This is a Great Blog and says a lot….and in an ideal world this would be a good thing. But when you add in the factors of corruption and greed; no matter how many inspectors you add you cannot guarantee any better results. You also have to take into consideration that even if you had 25,000 FDA inspectors and they were all 100% honest…they cannot be in all places at all times, and even if the company wants to comply with regulations…they cannot watch every worker all day…it only takes on mental case to start an outbreak. There should be more local inspections (State and City level) with some Federal inspectors seeing that THEY are doing their job….if they are not, not only the company in violation, but the inspectors responsible for non-reporting should be prosecuted to the max. This saves you money on the Federal level while putting inspectors that are already employed in State and local levels to do the work they are hired to do…instead of hanging around offices!
@quiltnmomi - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0527106320080909
@zombiism - Wow – as a banker I have to say that the reporter who wrote that article and the people he quoted were completely disingenuous about the situation. The problem hasn’t ever been the loans that Freddie and Fannie backed and sold, as I believe I mentioned earlier they have a default rate that’s below 2%. When everything started coming down, and with politicians talking smack about Freddie and Fannie, stockholders began to panic and drove down the price of their stock, but they two entities were never under-Captialized.
On the other hand, I think it was an excellent move for the govt to nationalize them (as opposed to the “bailouts” where large sums of cash have been poured into firms like Citibank). Since everything about the financial system broke last year, Freddie and Fannie are about the only game in town for mortgage lending. If you want to buy a house today, you have to go through them. Had the govt not stepped in and taken them, there would be no lending going on.
I think that the talk about them, scapegoating them, made it politically possible to nationalize them at a time when that was the only hope of saving any portion of the market. No bank makes mortgages anymore planning to hold those notes for 30 years. Most of the notes are sold so the banks will have money on hand to fund the next loan.
But all the investment firms who used to buy mortgages are gone. There is no more Bear Sterns, there is no more Lehman Brothers, there is no one at Morgan Stanley buying mortgage backed securities. If the govt hadn’t stepped in and made sure that Fannie and Freddie weren’t driven out or worse, taken over by some foreign entity snapping up that 70 cent stock, we’d have a dustbowl scenario now as far as the financial markets of this nation are concerned.
@youaintjam - it’s just because they’re taking precautions. they won’t even let people who lived in germany for certain years give blood. it’s nothing personal.
@Peppamyntz - Personal or not, it’s stupid. Blood donations don’t work with the honors system. They need to rely on blood tests instead of these ridiculous surveys. Not to mention it’s an unwarranted bias. But really, a gay man CAN give blood, all he needs to do is lie.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090314/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_food_safety
YAY!
@Bela_crazy_horse - I saw that!!!!! I wonder if he read my blog …
@quiltnmomi - honestly it’s the best news ever!