Thread: When life gives you lemons, better get a permit

Originally Posted by MindGames

How can a company maximize revenue in the free market other than by providing a superior product or service? I'd hardly say that getting sued over providing customers with unsafe food is a successful business model. If consumers want a low quality product, (aka "Taco Bell") then why shouldn't they be able to get it? It's their money, right?

How do IKEA or chinese toy manufacturers outperform small businesses that usually show superior craftsmanship? Price point, marketing... Businesses have every right to put out a cheaper product until the point of where it compromises public safety or confidence.

In the end, whatever the consumers demand, in a pure free market, they will get it, since corporations can only maximize revenue by satisfying their customers. If the customers demand to know what's in their food, or if they demand certain health and quality standards be put in place, corporations will have to meet those demands or else lose their business to the competition that does satisfy these demands.

How do you know that the plane you're flying on has been maintained properly? The airline could be slacking off on safety and you'd never know about it. How do you know if your food's been prepared in sanitary conditions... until you get sick? Businesses can cut corners and operate in a risky manner (and save money) and no one would suspect a thing until their luck runs out. Regulators would shut these places down before anybody is harmed.

Government regulations only discourage people from starting up their own businesses, thus providing less competition for consumers to choose from, and therefore lower quality products and services. Not to mention the fact that they take money from everyone whether they like it or not.

A proper regulatory body discourages unsafe or dishonest business practises. Is more competition in the interest of public safety if there's no overseer? Maybe some regulators have become bloated and inefficient, but that's a call to reengineer them, not abandon them.

Also, calling a system "stupid" is hardly a valid argument.

It is if you explain why.

Ah okay, so the FDA is a superior organization for this reason.

I don't know what your hard-on with the FDA is but technology and business practises in every industry whether it be food, transportation, engineering or what have you, are constantly evolving. If issues with these new methods are only discovered after an incident has occurred, then at least regulators are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do you think they found these regulations in a glass bottle that washed ashore?

Wait wut?

*Plane crashes* "I won't fly with that airline"
*Tainted meat goes out and kills a dozen people* "I won't buy from that company"
*Investment firm defrauds thousands* "I won't invest with them"

People are harmed before any corrective action is taken, that's a reactionary system. The whole point of regulations is to prevent harm in the first place, doesn't that sound more appealing?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

How do IKEA or chinese toy manufacturers outperform small businesses that usually show superior craftsmanship? Price point, marketing... Businesses have every right to put out a cheaper product until the point of where it compromises public safety or confidence.

And this creates a superior product for the price it's sold at. Otherwise, consumers wouldn't buy it. Right? There's nothing wrong with this. If consumers want a lower quality product for a cheaper price, then by all means, let them. I have no problem with McDonalds, Walmart, or any other company that uses this approach. Companies still have to compete with others to provide the highest quality products possible. Who's to say another IKEA won't come along and offer toys at the same price point?

How do you know that the plane you're flying on has been maintained properly? The airline could be slacking off on safety and you'd never know about it. How do you know if your food's been prepared in sanitary conditions... until you get sick? Businesses can cut corners and operate in a risky manner (and save money) and no one would suspect a thing until their luck runs out. Regulators would shut these places down before anybody is harmed.

How do you currently know you're flying on a safe plane? Because regulations are put in place, correct? Haven't I already stated multiple times that the free market is capable of putting these regulations into place? Sure, companies don't have to follow these regulations, but if consumers see that an airline doesn't abide by safety regulations, then they should be able to choose an alternate airline that does.

A proper regulatory body discourages unsafe or dishonest business practises. Is more competition in the interest of public safety if there's no overseer? Maybe some regulators have become bloated and inefficient, but that's a call to reengineer them, not abandon them.

And what a better way to re-engineer these regulators than having them work directly for the free market? Let the free market decide what regulations it wants put into place.

I don't know what your hard-on with the FDA is but technology and business practises in every industry whether it be food, transportation, engineering or what have you, are constantly evolving. If issues with these new methods are only discovered after an incident has occurred, then at least regulators are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do you think they found these regulations in a glass bottle that washed ashore?

I was mainly referring to the FDA because they're the main organization that relates to the topic. Although I'd have to say that I'm not the one with a hard on for federal regulations here.

I mainly pointed this out to show that you yourself stated that the free market updates its regulations exactly the same way that government-mandated regulations are put into place. I wasn't asserting that regulations are updated through some other means.

*Plane crashes* "I won't fly with that airline"
*Tainted meat goes out and kills a dozen people* "I won't buy from that company"
*Investment firm defrauds thousands* "I won't invest with them"

People are harmed before any corrective action is taken, that's a reactionary system. The whole point of regulations is to prevent harm in the first place, doesn't that sound more appealing?

You seem completely oblivious to the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out that the free market is capable of regulating itself. All that needs to happen is for someone to capitalize on an organization that enforces regulations for the members of its organization. If the free market decides it wants these regulations, these organizations would have to compete just like any other company would have to compete. We would eventually end up with a much safer system with better regulations that doesn't have to leech off the tax dollars of the public.


Also, I hate having to respond to posts piece by piece. Screw you.