AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

View Poll Results: Who runs industry and services better?
Government in almost all cases. 2 4.88%
Government generally runs things better, but private has many merits as well. 8 19.51%
Private runs things better, but government has many merits as well. 23 56.10%
Private in almost all cases. 8 19.51%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-22, 20:00   Link #41
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
uhm.... not really. For a pure command economy to succeed, the prerequisite is enormous while it's "almost" minimal for a pure a market one. BUT the former, in its "imperfect" existance, did meet one trademark requirement: total governmental control. (the former USSR). Of course, those supporters of a pure command economy would then require a "perfect government" and "perfect people" to run it, which is absurd.
The USSR never aimed for total control of all market activities nor did they succed everywhere where they tried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
A pure market economy ,on the other hand, requires "nothing." Ironically, "nothing" is even harder to achieve than "everything" (aka, total control).
So we agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
However, they refuse to see
So they are too imperfect for the perfect system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
To do absolutely nothing is probably the hardest thing a government could possibly achieve.
When the government stops doing anything it ceases to exist. But human beings are social creatures. When you take away the state they will reinvent it, poorly. At worst, the people with more guns will simply take what they want from the people with less guns. A kind of feudal system is more likely. Existing companies can easily grow into the role of new princedoms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
You know what. Things on a marcro level could be extremely simple while on the micro counterpart, it was ultra complicated.
See above. I can also try to formulate it differently: The human society is a system with many strong feedback loops. Such systems won't stay in a structureless state. Take away the hierarchies and they will re-emerge.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-22, 20:40   Link #42
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
How does a "pure free market" deal with false advertising? For, say, deadly diseases medicines? Whether it's snake oil or a miracle cure, the seller will say it's the latter and its competitors will say it's the former. You'll be swamped by countless "witnesses" saying whatever the hell they're paid to say. And as long as it's at least marginally better than rat poison, it ought to sell.
False advertising? A pure market economy does not promote fraud. No one wants fraud, those who commit it would be out of business, and people will learn. They'd better learn. However, a government can punish those activities. A pure market economy does not object that.

Deadly diseases medicines? I think you watch too much movies... Do you really think that human could extinct if the FDA is gone? Now, that's how we get here in the first place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of life
So they are too imperfect for the perfect system?
Perfect? What's perfect? In a pure market economy, you'll see fraud, unethnical business activities, huge gap between the upper and lower class ect.... What are arguable here is its effects on the society, the "real" effects not those claimed by the hypocrites.

Quote:
See above. I can also try to formulate it differently: The human society is a system with many strong feedback loops. Such systems won't stay in a structureless state. Take away the hierarchies and they will re-emerge.
Yes. But so?

"Supply + demand" alone is a more elegant system than you can imagine. While people do not fully understand it, they think it way too simple, thus adding more rules to the game.

Take chess for example. You know what could be the worst for that game? They're noobs like me who think the game is so simple (6 pieces, fixed movement <yawn>) and add more pieces into the board, give those pieces more moves or enlarge the 8x8 board. Now do you honestly think any of the above could improve chess?
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-22, 20:55   Link #43
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
False advertising? A pure market economy does not promote fraud. No one wants fraud, those who commit it would be out of business, and people will learn. They'd better learn. However, a government can punish those activities. A pure market economy does not object that.

Deadly diseases medicines? I think you watch too much movies... Do you really think that human could extinct if the FDA is gone? Now, that's how we get here in the first place.
People can barely be arsed to read the labels. You think every individual is going to conduct his own scientific study? And if he must rely on the study of a for-profit organisation... Well, that begs the question of who paid for it.

The medicine thing is just an example. It's simple and shocking. (I added "deadly" because it has the advantage that if somebody dies, well, it's just that the cure isn't perfect. Nothing is.)

While the FDA isn't indispensable to the survival of humanity (for starters, humanity isn't contained in the States...), we do need some kind of control organism. In fact, we need lots of them, for lots of things. Or we'll just get lots of shoddy products and a flood of marketing.

And if the government gets involved, take steps to make sure there has, indeed, been a fraud, and before that defines what a fraud is, and so on... It's not pure any more, is it?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-22, 21:33   Link #44
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
People can barely be arsed to read the labels. You think every individual is going to conduct his own scientific study? And if he must rely on the study of a for-profit organisation... Well, that begs the question of who paid for it.
And that idiot needs to learn, at least basic stuffs or go asks his doctor. No hard feeling. Look, why are there so many duffs who do not even read what they're gonna use? Because they TRUST the government to do the job for them. However government is far from perfect. What makes you think the GOV's standard is always right? And why do you think those at the FDA earnestly work their arses out for us comsumers? From the goddness of their hearts? Lulz
Quote:
The medicine thing is just an example. It's simple and shocking. (I added "deadly" because it has the advantage that if somebody dies, well, it's just that the cure isn't perfect. Nothing is.)
The same goes for everything else. Why do you think those at the FDA earnestly work their arses out for us comsumers? From the goddness of their hearts? Inspection itself is a goods, a marketable goods. Government is a big monopoly.

Quote:
While the FDA isn't indispensable to the survival of humanity (for starters, humanity isn't contained in the States...), we do need some kind of control organism.
This doesn't make sense. "Isn't indispensable" and "do need" in a same sentence?
Quote:
And if the government gets involved, take steps to make sure there has, indeed, been a fraud, and before that defines what a fraud is, and so on... It's not pure any more, is it?
Again, what a government should do is to punish those commiting fraud. By no means is it equivalent to giving the government leeway to define what fraud is. The government responds to the market not the other way around. But a "fraud" is pretty static. What those thieves try to achieve is a new way to steal money from us not finding new uses for stuffs who would not give a rat about. Thus there is no need for redefining. And if they really find uses for those stuffs before we do, we deserve it. And honestly, such thing had never happened.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-22, 23:16   Link #45
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Because they TRUST the government to do the job for them.
Also because modern technology, devices, and equipment require breadth of knowledge far beyond the education provided for, oh, 90% of the population.

You're spouting idealistic theory which over and over again has proven to fail because it ignores the thievery, cons, and scams that happen in the private sector and pretends only government is inefficient or worse. Corporations are able to dilute accountability for their actions at least as effectively as "government" can. We've got examples all over the market right now.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 00:05   Link #46
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
False advertising? A pure market economy does not promote fraud. No one wants fraud, those who commit it would be out of business, and people will learn. They'd better learn. However, a government can punish those activities. A pure market economy does not object that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Again, what a government should do is to punish those commiting fraud. By no means is it equivalent to giving the government leeway to define what fraud is. The government responds to the market not the other way around. But a "fraud" is pretty static. What those thieves try to achieve is a new way to steal money from us not finding new uses for stuffs who would not give a rat about..
Ah, now you want to let the government interfere with the market in some way! Unfortunately, what fraud is is not so "static" and easy to define. There is a reason why we have judges to judge and not robots. And who pays the taxes for that government by the way? The rich, the poor? Of course, you will tell us that what fair taxation is is also pretty obvious to see, if only for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Perfect? What's perfect? In a pure market economy, you'll see fraud, unethnical business activities, huge gap between the upper and lower class ect....
So? Then why introduce your system in the first pace then? Because it's more elegant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
What are arguable here is its effects on the society, the "real" effects not those claimed by the hypocrites.
Who exactly are the hypocrites? The 99 percent of humanity who disagree with you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
"Supply + demand" alone is a more elegant system than you can imagine. While people do not fully understand it, they think it way too simple, thus adding more rules to the game.
The point is, when you have an organized society you have market distortions. Just totally out of control instead based on common sense or democratic decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Take chess for example. You know what could be the worst for that game? They're noobs like me who think the game is so simple (6 pieces, fixed movement <yawn>) and add more pieces into the board, give those pieces more moves or enlarge the 8x8 board. Now do you honestly think any of the above could improve chess?
The beauty (or uglyness) of chess lies in the eye of the beholder. And you want to play with the fate of human beings, not wooden pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Deadly diseases medicines? I think you watch too much movies...
It's not that it didn't happen before. Especially in regions were the state is weak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
And that idiot needs to learn, at least basic stuffs or go asks his doctor.
The doctor knows about new drugs not any more than what the producer told him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
What makes you think the GOV's standard is always right? And why do you think those at the FDA earnestly work their arses out for us comsumers? From the goddness of their hearts? Lulz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
The same goes for everything else. Why do you think those at the FDA earnestly work their arses out for us comsumers? From the goddness of their hearts?
Guess what, there are people who indeed do stuff from the goodness of their hearts. Or take responsibility for their fellow humans if that sounds less cheesy to you. We all do that constantly. Your parents did, when they raised you. If your only response is "lulz" to the idea that people might care if thousands live or die even if it has no influence on their paycheck then you completely lack the understanding of the human nature, intellectual understanding and emotional understanding. Which troubled phase are you in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Do you really think that human could extinct if the FDA is gone? Now, that's how we get here in the first place.
So as long as an idea doesn't result in the extinction of humanity all is fine? All the above sounds as if you're only a centimeter away form letting thousands or millions "idiots" die without regret for the establishment of your idée fixe. Or maybe you crossed that line already. In any case, you can't blame Stalin for more than that either.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 00:17   Link #47
Demongod86
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
The best system is the free market, in which people are free to live as they can and die if they can't. Anytime government tampers with said system, you get this kind of insanity. Artificially low interest rates=kablooey.

Let the free market determine everything, and we're fine.
Demongod86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 00:21   Link #48
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Let the free market determine everything, and we're fine.
1929 called, says it wants to show you how free market determining everything actually turned out.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 00:25   Link #49
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
and the 1890s... and the feudal system, warlords, etc...
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 00:44   Link #50
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
1929 called, says it wants to show you how free market determining everything actually turned out.
1991 says look at the USSR and see what happens if the direction of the economy is "entrusted" to a planning commitee.

...at the same time, compare it's GDP with Japan's.

...or India before the 90's.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 01:56   Link #51
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
The *point* is that extreme ends of the theoretical models of economy are doomed to fail... left OR right. Pragmatic models incorporate aspects of both and stave off the entropy that corrodes any "pure" model that doesn't incorporate all variables.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 02:02   Link #52
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
Ah, now you want to let the government interfere with the market in some way! Unfortunately, what fraud is is not so "static" and easy to define. There is a reason why we have judges to judge and not robots. And who pays the taxes for that government by the way? The rich, the poor? Of course, you will tell us that what fair taxation is is also pretty obvious to see, if only for you.
Well, if you call that an "intervention," fine. I said "should" not "must." But yes, I'm still skeptical because such thing as a pure market economy has never existed. There are things that government does arguably better such as national defense, security and transportation infrastructure. But still, I'm raised to believe that government is better in those areas. However, I do believe those services are also marketable goods and governments appear to be the only good suppliers, thus we pay for the services.

A pure market economy does not restrict government from participating, but the government must not have the ability to set the rules for other participants. Such practice from the perspective of those within the market is ludicrous.

Fraud is a tough one to tackle because it is , as you suggested, is not "static." But why is it so? It's human's nature that creates fraud in the first place. Thus as long as there are humans, there are frauds. The question is what kind of fraud?
+++ Here is my crackpot theory:

Since frauds MUST exist, they must find a way to survive those anti-fraud measures imposed by us. Naturally, as technology involves, many other kind of marketable goods take shape. And those new commodities becomes targets of frauds. This is inevitable. Thus everytime this happens, we must redifine fraud. This process is natural. If things go like that, the market is in balance.

With the government's interventions, however, things would be supposedly tougher for dishonest people. But since the statement "frauds must exist" is true, the survived ones must be the elites among frauds. Then the government must create even more laws to adjust which leads to even better frauds. The numbers may be lower. However, if this keeps going like that, at some point, the government would fed up with it. What would it do then? Most of the case, it blames the market and changes the rules so that it can have a better time. This only naturally leads to "legal frauds" since it is absurd to believe that any government is capable of creating a perfect system of laws. Imagine your PC security provider ,instead of working for better virus prevention, bans you from doing certain activities. It's not fun right? Because if everyone stops doing some activities on the net, those hackers just simply focus on other places to attack. In the end, there are still viruses but now you cannot do something. For me, it totally sux.

In the end, whatever we do, there are still frauds. However, in case 1, those frauds are at a managable level for commoners. In the latter case, it takes Joe the plumber 100 years or so to realize that he's been tricked but he has the government to help him, so it may take less granted that the government officials work with the goodness of their hearts. Which is better is up to you.

BTW, taxation itself, for most governments, is a fraud, therefore there is no such thing as "fair tax." We all pay too high the price for crappy services.
Quote:
So? Then why introduce your system in the first pace then? Because it's more elegant?
That is not my system. The law of supply and demand is the basic law of this universe. If it were my system, I would be only less known than God.
Quote:
Who exactly are the hypocrites? The 99 percent of humanity who disagree with you?
Because something is on the newspaper, 99% of humanity must agree with it, or because 1000 carebears protest in D.C and some newstation broadcasts it, all Americans must also agree
Quote:
The point is, when you have an organized society you have market distortions. Just totally out of control instead based on common sense or democratic decisions.
Why? See above.

Quote:
The beauty (or uglyness) of chess lies in the eye of the beholder. And you want to play with the fate of human beings, not wooden pieces.
It's just a metaphor. The point is nothing goods for chess can come out of the mind of those who "think" they master it in the first place.

Quote:
It's not that it didn't happen before. Especially in regions were the state is weak.
Where? When?

Quote:
The doctor knows about new drugs not any more than what the producer told him.
Get another doctor.
Quote:
Guess what, there are people who indeed do stuff from the goodness of their hearts. Or take responsibility for their fellow humans if that sounds less cheesy to you. We all do that constantly. Your parents did, when they raised you. If your only response is "lulz" to the idea that people might care if thousands live or die even if it has no influence on their paycheck then you completely lack the understanding of the human nature, intellectual understanding and emotional understanding. Which troubled phase are you in?
There are, and I wish them the best. However, building a system around those particular people is ridiculous. If everyone were Mother Teresa, communism would dominate the world now, not that it matters though. We would simply need no government or market whatsoever.
Quote:
So as long as an idea doesn't result in the extinction of humanity all is fine? All the above sounds as if you're only a centimeter away form letting thousands or millions "idiots" die without regret for the establishment of your idée fixe. Or maybe you crossed that line already. In any case, you can't blame Stalin for more than that either.
Oh lord, the world must be hell before they invent the FDA I don't question the motive, I question the efficiency. Everything has its price, if you push for perfection, then the cost will go to infinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx

You're spouting idealistic theory which over and over again has proven to fail because it ignores the thievery, cons, and scams that happen in the private sector and pretends only government is inefficient or worse.
No I account all of them. Only fools would think they can get rid of them completely and go for it. The government happens to be the case. How many times they claim things are good when they are not.

Quote:
The *point* is that extreme ends of the theoretical models of economy are doomed to fail... left OR right. Pragmatic models incorporate aspects of both and stave off the entropy that corrodes any "pure" model that doesn't incorporate all variables.
Status check:
Left - failed; Right - failed; Middle - failing now.

One of those must be false. I wonder which?
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 02:33   Link #53
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Where's this "middle" you seem to think exists? And how much business experience do you have? Or government experience? And at what level?
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 02:37   Link #54
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
The *point* is that extreme ends of the theoretical models of economy are doomed to fail... left OR right. Pragmatic models incorporate aspects of both and stave off the entropy that corrodes any "pure" model that doesn't incorporate all variables.
YEs. because it's human nature to "go too far" that sides must watch and check each other to prevent each other from doing it.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 02:51   Link #55
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Where's this "middle" you seem to think exists? And how much business experience do you have? Or government experience? And at what level?
Middle is .....middle, it's where we are now. Or where do you suggest? I don't really understand the question. Oh, and don't beat me... I'm weak
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 07:58   Link #56
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Well, if you call that an "intervention," fine. I said "should" not "must." But yes, I'm still skeptical because such thing as a pure market economy has never existed. There are things that government does arguably better such as national defense, security and transportation infrastructure. But still, I'm raised to believe that government is better in those areas. However, I do believe those services are also marketable goods and governments appear to be the only good suppliers, thus we pay for the services.

A pure market economy does not restrict government from participating, but the government must not have the ability to set the rules for other participants. Such practice from the perspective of those within the market is ludicrous.

Fraud is a tough one to tackle because it is , as you suggested, is not "static." But why is it so? It's human's nature that creates fraud in the first place. Thus as long as there are humans, there are frauds. The question is what kind of fraud?
+++ Here is my crackpot theory:

Since frauds MUST exist, they must find a way to survive those anti-fraud measures imposed by us. Naturally, as technology involves, many other kind of marketable goods take shape. And those new commodities becomes targets of frauds. This is inevitable. Thus everytime this happens, we must redifine fraud. This process is natural. If things go like that, the market is in balance.

With the government's interventions, however, things would be supposedly tougher for dishonest people. But since the statement "frauds must exist" is true, the survived ones must be the elites among frauds. Then the government must create even more laws to adjust which leads to even better frauds. The numbers may be lower. However, if this keeps going like that, at some point, the government would fed up with it. What would it do then? Most of the case, it blames the market and changes the rules so that it can have a better time. This only naturally leads to "legal frauds" since it is absurd to believe that any government is capable of creating a perfect system of laws. Imagine your PC security provider ,instead of working for better virus prevention, bans you from doing certain activities. It's not fun right? Because if everyone stops doing some activities on the net, those hackers just simply focus on other places to attack. In the end, there are still viruses but now you cannot do something. For me, it totally sux.

In the end, whatever we do, there are still frauds. However, in case 1, those frauds are at a managable level for commoners. In the latter case, it takes Joe the plumber 100 years or so to realize that he's been tricked but he has the government to help him, so it may take less granted that the government officials work with the goodness of their hearts. Which is better is up to you.
Yes, there is a balance to strike between government oversight (which, despite what you may think, reduces the amount of wrongdoing) and freedom. But having no oversight is a recipe for disaster if there ever was one, not something that'll result in "less fraud", unless by "fraud" you only mean illegal actions. No law, no crime. Want to rid the country of murder? Legalize killing. That's what you want?



Quote:
BTW, taxation itself, for most governments, is a fraud, therefore there is no such thing as "fair tax." We all pay too high the price for crappy services.
If you think you can do better, run for office.

Quote:
That is not my system. The law of supply and demand is the basic law of this universe. If it were my system, I would be only less known than God.
God's system is me hitting you on the head with a club so I can take your stuff.

Quote:
Get another doctor.
Tests for new medicines are extremely expensive and complicated, quite out of reach of any single doctor. Unless it's a fabulously wealthy doctor. So, again, how would the doctor know the truth? And how big would his incentive to tell it, compared to the money he could get from secretly endorsing certain pharmaceutical companies?

Quote:
There are, and I wish them the best. However, building a system around those particular people is ridiculous. If everyone were Mother Teresa, communism would dominate the world now, not that it matters though. We would simply need no government or market whatsoever.

Oh lord, the world must be hell before they invent the FDA I don't question the motive, I question the efficiency. Everything has its price, if you push for perfection, then the cost will go to infinity.
One point: THE WORLD ISN'T JUST THE USA. The FDA has no jurisdiction outside the latter.

And while the world isn't "hell" without a control organism, medical care is much inferior. Sick people spend their life's savings on sucrose and aqua.

Quote:
No I account all of them. Only fools would think they can get rid of them completely and go for it. The government happens to be the case. How many times they claim things are good when they are not.
You're equating "the government sometimes fail, because there are still thieves" with "the government fails all the time, because there'd be just as many thieves without it".

Quote:
Status check:
Left - failed; Right - failed; Middle - failing now.

One of those must be false. I wonder which?
None. Everything fails sometimes. And any policy you can sum up in a single word is doomed to fail before it gets out of the door. (Seriously. What left? What right? What middle?)
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 12:47   Link #57
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yes, there is a balance to strike between government oversight (which, despite what you may think, reduces the amount of wrongdoing) and freedom. But having no oversight is a recipe for disaster if there ever was one, not something that'll result in "less fraud", unless by "fraud" you only mean illegal actions. No law, no crime. Want to rid the country of murder? Legalize killing. That's what you want?
After rereading what I wrote, I still don't know where you got those ideas?
Quote:
If you think you can do better, run for office.
No. I'll be worse. I won't collect them or send the most incompetent people to collect them
Quote:
God's system is me hitting you on the head with a club so I can take your stuff.
If you want to do so, even God cannot stop you
Quote:
Tests for new medicines are extremely expensive and complicated, quite out of reach of any single doctor. Unless it's a fabulously wealthy doctor. So, again, how would the doctor know the truth? And how big would his incentive to tell it, compared to the money he could get from secretly endorsing certain pharmaceutical companies?
You come to a doctor and ask for his opinion not telling him to do an extensive research. Better yet, get his signature on the prescription and don't throw it away. Again, how would the government know the truth? From the lobbyists? How big would the government incentive to tell it, compared to the crappy salaries they get plus has zero restrainst on whether the result is valid?

All you get from this is to "feel" safer while the price goes skyrocket. It may be really safer but it doesn't matter as long as the cost is enormous, and honestly why do those at the FDA have an incentive to care about the cost? All they need to do is to fix the problem with the minimal of their effort since there is no competition there.
Quote:
One point: THE WORLD ISN'T JUST THE USA. The FDA has no jurisdiction outside the latter.
When I say "world," I don't really mean "world"
Quote:
And while the world isn't "hell" without a control organism, medical care is much inferior. Sick people spend their life's savings on sucrose and aqua.
Ever wonder why the cost is too high?

Quote:
You're equating "the government sometimes fail, because there are still thieves" with "the government fails all the time, because there'd be just as many thieves without it".
The government can do all the police they want but they should not have the legistrate stuffs they are inherently bad at. The market may have the machanism to counter them, not completely but enough to ensure things work. Only under the government's control can fraud be so devastating, which is kinda neutral. Why? The ones that survive are always to top and in most case, legal. The FED by definition, is a biggest fraud ever, yet what do our beloved government do about it?
Quote:
None. Everything fails sometimes. And any policy you can sum up in a single word is doomed to fail before it gets out of the door. (Seriously. What left? What right? What middle?)
You're left.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 13:11   Link #58
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
After rereading what I wrote, I still don't know where you got those ideas?
The general "There's going to be fraud anyway".

Quote:
You come to a doctor and ask for his opinion not telling him to do an extensive research.
To know whether a medicine is good or not, extensive research has to be conducted. By someone other than the guys selling it.

Quote:
Better yet, get his signature on the prescription and don't throw it away.
You're asking him to take responsibility for something he has little control over. Doctor or not, without the research, you might as well ask some guy at a pub. All it'd do is drive up the insurance premiums and therefore the price of a consultation, and you wouldn't be any safer.

Quote:
Again, how would the government know the truth? From the lobbyists?
They conduct their own research. Clinical and non-clinical trials. Unlike individual doctors, they do have the means to do that.

Quote:
How big would the government incentive to tell it, compared to the crappy salaries they get plus has zero restrainst on whether the result is valid?
Funny you should say that. Here, we did have a medical scandal two decades ago. Some procedure that turned out to be more dangerous than they thought. Slow reaction from the government. It went to court. The Prime Minister of the time had to sit there and explain himself to the judges. The Director of Health got a prison term. So, yeah. There is incentive for them to catch bad stuff before it's too late.

Also, the FDA, if it's done right, is not run for profit. They have nothing to gain by skimping on the tests, since they don't pocket the margin. They'd just get budget cuts. As for why people do their jobs instead of loafing around... Who knows? Maybe they don't want to get fired?

Quote:
All you get from this is to "feel" safer while the price goes skyrocket. It may be really safer but it doesn't matter as long as the cost is enormous, and honestly why do those at the FDA have an incentive to care about the cost? All they need to do is to fix the problem with the minimal of their effort since there is no competition there.
The FDA's job isn't to fix anything. It's to see to it you don't buy poison labeled as food or medicine. How would competition help that?

Quote:
The government can do all the police they want but they should not have the legistrate stuffs they are inherently bad at. The market may have the machanism to counter them, not completely but enough to ensure things work.
The market's vision is short term and not that rational. Those flaws are built-in. The market also has little incentive not to shaft the little guy, which is everyone from middle-class on down.

The government ought to do better, even if we don't always elect the right people.

Quote:
Only under the government's control can fraud be so devastating, which is kinda neutral. Why? The ones that survive are always to top and in most case, legal. The FED by definition, is a biggest fraud ever, yet what do our beloved government do about it?
Yeah. I think I'm going to have to ask what you think fraud is, and why you think the FED qualifies.

I'm also going to have to ask why you think governments worsen frauds.

Quote:
You're left.
Not in my country, I'm not!
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 13:50   Link #59
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
This may be one of those "doesn't realize how far right the conversation has moved in the US since the 1980s" situations???
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 15:47   Link #60
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
The general "There's going to be fraud anyway".
So what? There will be frauds. Live with it. Pure market economy is not eutopia.
Quote:
To know whether a medicine is good or not, extensive research has to be conducted. By someone other than the guys selling it.
There are many orgs out there that are willing to do it, privately funded, mostly by those consumers who don't trust the government. But that doesn't matter.

The bottom line is if you want better products you must:
a)pay more
b)wait until technology is advanced enough to meet your present standard.
c)buy from other companies who happen to have better products.

With the government's style of inspection, ALL of us have only option A. If you want to do A, why must I also do that? I'm happy with my cheap pills since that's all I can afford.
Quote:
You're asking him to take responsibility for something he has little control over. Doctor or not, without the research, you might as well ask some guy at a pub. All it'd do is drive up the insurance premiums and therefore the price of a consultation, and you wouldn't be any safer.

They conduct their own research. Clinical and non-clinical trials. Unlike individual doctors, they do have the means to do that.
By extensive research I mean setting a lab, hiring researchers ect.... They don't have the time to do that for a flu pill if there is no urgent need. Doctors have their network of peers; at such, they will consult many before giving you the advice. But that is not a 100% guarantee, neither do those claimed by the government. If you insist on a "perfect pill," PAY MORE. Besides, those with crappy products will be out of the competition anyway. The only cases where those bad businesses survive is by means of government's protection. Again, how can a government have the ability to do such thing?



Quote:
Funny you should say that. Here, we did have a medical scandal two decades ago. Some procedure that turned out to be more dangerous than they thought. Slow reaction from the government. It went to court. The Prime Minister of the time had to sit there and explain himself to the judges. The Director of Health got a prison term. So, yeah. There is incentive for them to catch bad stuff before it's too late.
That is not an good incentive. That is the incentive to make sure price skyrocket. Again, if you want to pay for overpriced stuffs, why must I follow? I don't object the government intention to make sure everything safe, but the way they do it is questionable since if they implement a simple laws, everyone must follow regardless of the specific situation. How can a law satisfy hundred of millions of people? Talk about impossibility.
Quote:
Also, the FDA, if it's done right, is not run for profit. They have nothing to gain by skimping on the tests, since they don't pocket the margin. They'd just get budget cuts. As for why people do their jobs instead of loafing around... Who knows? Maybe they don't want to get fired?
"If?" Well, there is also nothing to gain by performing those tests in an economical manner, let alone crafting a realistic solution. Budget cut? Don't make me laugh. All they need to do is to talk about how the world would end should they got fired.
Quote:
The FDA's job isn't to fix anything. It's to see to it you don't buy poison labeled as food or medicine. How would competition help that?
Yes. But why should anyone would want to sell poison? Too much movies? And if some maniac really wants to do that, he'll do that anyway. The damage will be done. Those in the pharmaceutical industry would also make sure those maniacs could not enter the competition.. It's not because they care for us; it's because it's profitable to maintain a good name.

Quote:
The market's vision is short term and not that rational. Those flaws are built-in. The market also has little incentive not to shaft the little guy, which is everyone from middle-class on down.
The market has no vision whatsoever. It reacts naturally to changes in the playground. The way it reacts always corresponds to the most baisc law of this universe, aka Supply and Demand. For example, any attempt to keep overpriced stuffs at a high price ought to fail eventually.
Quote:
The government ought to do better, even if we don't always elect the right people.
In other words, even if I elect a mule to office, everything would be fine? Yeah, as long as that mule doesn't tamper with anything.
Quote:
Yeah. I think I'm going to have to ask what you think fraud is, and why you think the FED qualifies.
My definition of fraud is pretty simple: stealing money by any means. Why does the FED qualify? It's kinda obvious. Because it can print money. Every dollar I work hard for can simply be created out of thin air by a PDF file. In other words, I work to a piece of paper that someday may worth more than the value printed on it. Everytime the FED prints money my buying power decreases. What matter in a currency is not its printed values, but it's its buying power.

For example: imagine this simple situation. You have 100$, and you are the only person who have $100 in a country. Now what would I do to steal that from you?
a) mug
b) scam
Nah, I'm not that low All I need to do is to print out another 1000000000000$ and distribute it to everyone. Now your initial 100$ worths next to nothing. Maybe you can sell the 100$ note for some food....

Inflation steals from us more than anything.
Quote:
I'm also going to have to ask why you think governments worsen frauds.
This is kinda awkward but...:
Quote:
+++ Here is my crackpot theory:

Since frauds MUST exist, they must find a way to survive those anti-fraud measures imposed by us. Naturally, as technology involves, many other kind of marketable goods take shape. And those new commodities becomes targets of frauds. This is inevitable. Thus everytime this happens, we must redifine fraud. This process is natural. If things go like that, the market is in balance.

With the government's interventions, however, things would be supposedly tougher for dishonest people. But since the statement "frauds must exist" is true, the survived ones must be the elites among frauds. Then the government must create even more laws to adjust which leads to even better frauds. The numbers may be lower. However, if this keeps going like that, at some point, the government would fed up with it. What would it do then? Most of the case, it blames the market and changes the rules so that it can have a better time. This only naturally leads to "legal frauds" since it is absurd to believe that any government is capable of creating a perfect system of laws. Imagine your PC security provider ,instead of working for better virus prevention, bans you from doing certain activities. It's not fun right? Because if everyone stops doing some activities on the net, those hackers just simply focus on other places to attack. In the end, there are still viruses but now you cannot do something. For me, it totally sux.

In the end, whatever we do, there are still frauds. However, in case 1, those frauds are at a managable level for commoners. In the latter case, it takes Joe the plumber 100 years or so to realize that he's been tricked but he has the government to help him, so it may take less granted that the government officials work with the goodness of their hearts. Which is better is up to you.
Quote:
Not in my country, I'm not!
It's obvious that you are......
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.