A while back I was having lunch with a left-wing economist who ominously informed me about a new GAO report showing that the FDA was barely inspecting overseas chemical supply plants. This sounds terrible.
"How many people have gotten sick as a result of this?" I asked.
Well, none, it turns out, at least as far as the GAO report is concerned. But they could, he pointed out. What was protecting consumers from unscrupulous businesses killing them?
Presumably the same pressures operate in the OTC market, I pointed out, and we are not much worried that Pepto Bismol will suddenly start slaughtering its customers.
I am not one of those libertarians who think that there is no place for regulation. But I think there are limits on the sorts of things that regulations make better, rather than worse. Regulations that provide transparency usually work very well; extremely complex regulations that attempt to produce certain outcomes usually work badly, if at all. OSHA is probably a lot less successful than, say, making companies insure their employees against on-the-job injuries.
But on the left there is often a presumption that the simple absence of regulation is itself dangerous--that cutting regulation, or diminishing the power of regulators, is de facto evidence that you are hurting the American public. So if something goes wrong, the fact that some sort of regulation was trimmed, or never enacted, is generally identified as the culprit, even when the connection is murky.
There's also a default assumption that what we need is more regulation, rather than, say, better regulation. Any existing regulation is given a safe harbor from examining whether it does a good job; it's mere existent constitutes a presumptive right to live.
Synchronicity--
Antifederalist No. 1
A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to the Aristocratick Combination
From The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. At length the luminary of intelligence begins to beam its effulgent rays upon this important production; the deceptive mists cast before the eyes of the people by the delusive machinations of its INTERESTED advocates begins to dissipate, as darkness flies before the burning taper; and I dare venture to predict, that in spite of those mercenary dectaimers, the plan will have a candid and complete examination. Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them. Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire. Let all act understandingly or not at all. If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free inquiry. The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most strenuous advocates. It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever. These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination. The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger. They will probably find it suited to THEIR HABITS, if not to the HABITS OF THE PEOPLE. There may be reasons for having but few of them in the State Convention, lest THEIR INTEREST should be too strongly considered. The time draws near for the choice of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.
A FEDERALIST
too few, 'hypereducated', or not, seem to remember the Anti-Federalists, maybe, now, might be a good time to join an acquaintance..
http://www.cptexas.org/anti-federalist/afp110.shtml#antifed1
One of the biggest and most powerful constituencies in favor of regulation is incumbent firms who would have a set of regulations that they, and no one else, can easily meet.
Keep the competition out, and they win.
Just ask AT&T about the good old days.
Did they also inform you that the USDA is a side of beef?
Writing coherently is for chumps.
Is every frickin' post a straw man argument?
The key sentence in the first paragraph doesn't make any sense, by the way. The one with "overseas" in it.
Are there states without required workman's comp insurance?
And do you not see that requiring insurance and not regulating the workspace creates a moral hazard problem?
D,
ask 'the Progresives' of TR's age...it's been a 'hundred year lie' for more Conceits than, just, the FDA..
You were having luch and the FDA did what oversees? Me no understand.
I'm also curious about the kind of libertarian who believes in forcing employers to provide certain kinds of benefits for employees. I mean, the central libertarian claim rests on an absence of coercion. While it's true that libertarians, like anybody else who believes in any kind of government, are collectivists, this seems to put you pretty far out to the left of the libertarians I've had discussions with.
(My two favorite libertarians are the pro-life guy I met once, and the guy who opposed pretty much all government regulation except handicapped access laws. It happened that both his parents were wheelchair bound.....)
I am not one of those libertarians...
No [kidding], Sherlock.
The contradiction, or perhaps more accurately, blind spot, I often find in those that lean libertarian, is the opposition to regulation combined with the desire to greatly reign in the use of torts. It's kinda' hard to have it both ways, if you want to protect people who have been legitimately, greatly, harmed by bad actions. Ya' either need to be able to sue the bad actor to within an inch of his life, or regulate, if such bad acts are going to be deterred. Of course, the opposite blind spot exists as well, the desire to tightly regulate paired with a desire for large and vigorous torts.
I should add, wrt straw man snipe that one of the most effective deregulators was Carter, both airlines and trucking. And the least effective, in creating corporate welfare and oligopolies has been the Bush administration.
The use of regulatory apparatus, such as not permitting dairies to label their product hormone free, and not allowing small cattle farmers to slaughter in open air abattoirs, to bolster existing corporate income levels is a hallmark of the right.
A while back I was having lunch with a left-wing economist who ominously informed me about a new GAO report showing that the FDA was overseas chemical supply plants.
I stopped reading here. Are you still sunstroked Megan?
jayackroyd, it is the regulatory capture issue which tends to make me generally favor large torts as a way to deter bad acts. Of course, the tort system carries with it a set of unintended negative effects as well, but they seem less noxious to me.
Jayackroyd, I hope I can be one of your favorite libertarians (small-l) as I am also pro-life. All libertarians I know believe the government _must_ protect the lives of citizens from harm. It's the central function of government.
Many libertarians disagree about when an entity (say, an unborn child) acquires a right to such protection. I think earlier is better than later.
Jayackroyd, I hope I can be one of your favorite libertarians (small-l) as I am also pro-life. All libertarians I know believe the government _must_ protect the lives of citizens from harm. It's the central function of government.
Many libertarians disagree about when an entity (say, an unborn child) acquires a right to such protection. I think earlier is better than later.
Regulations that provide transparency usually work very well; extremely complex regulations that attempt to produce certain outcomes usually work badly, if at all.
This is an assertion backed up by neither evidence nor logical argument. Megan, could you tell us why you think that statement is true?
[question for everyone about to tell me that assertions without evidence are typical on this blog: why do you keep coming back if you think that is true?]
You irrelevant views on abortion are so fascinating you had to post them twice?
What other "pro-life" positions do you hold? I assume you are opposed to war, to torture, to sanctions that create deadly humanitarian conditions, to capital punishment, etc etc? I assume you are for vast spending to combat AIDS in Africa?
Or am I taking "pro-life" too literally by extending it past masses of cells and onto functioning human beings?
And do you not see that requiring insurance and not regulating the workspace creates a moral hazard problem?
Only if the insurance rate does not depend on how much attention the employer pays to safety. If the insurance rates are set in a competitive private market, the insurance companies has an incentive to inspect the operation and set the rate accordingly, and may suggest safety improvements that are cost-effective in the insured shop even if they are not cost-effective in other shops.
-dk
Margalis, sorry for the double-post. It was accidental.
Since you asked, I am not opposed to war. Rescuing Europe from the Nazis was worth it. Freeing slaves was worth it. Defending Kuwait was worth it.
I am opposed to torture, though I accept a "ticking bomb" exception.
I favor capital punishment of those guilty of capital crimes.
I donate to charities that perform medical research.
I do, however, think government should protect innocent lives (citizens and non-citizens) from threats from others (but not from themselves).
The "mass of cells" argument really has been lost since folks starting hanging ultrasound pictures on their refrigerators.
(Is it too much to ask that folks be a _little bit_ civil in the comments section?)
Actually, people have died from tainted heparin manufactured in China. This really doesn't say anything about the philosophical basis fro regulation, but it does show there are real consequences.
You are obviously frustrated that others don't share your views about government policy and abortion, and think that if you just cry loud enough they'll see the light about Bushitler and Klinton. But sadly most people just don't agree with you. It happens.
Maybe you should start your own government if you think you can devise better policy. Consider it a business opportunity.
Oh I'm sorry, am I being "uncivil"? If so in my defense I've merely repeating your own talking points back at you. But it's so terribly uncivil when I say to you what you say to me, because you're you and I'm...not. Right?
When you gloat, distort and condescend you lose the right to moan about civility. Sorry, it's a two way street.
Margalis, I'm sorry if I appeared to be gloating, distorting, or condescending.
I fully understand that America is not yet ready to enact exactly my policy preferences into law (though there is rough consensus that the current abortion-on-demand regime would not survive an encounter with actual voters).
I'm disappointed, but not frustrated.
Re: civility, IMHO, many of the comments in these threads are a little too personal. I think that stems from frustration or (maybe?) excessive zeal. I think the chances of persuading others would increase if the comments were less strident.
Besides heparin, you may wish to consider diethylene glycol in toothpaste, which killed a bunch of people in Panama, and has been found in the US, as well as the well-known lead in paint issues.
I accept your apology.
No, you are frustrated. You don't get to define how you feel, that's up to me. Remember this?
You are frustrated, angry at Klinton and libruls, a nail-biter, an Aries and slightly shorter than average. You enjoy frequent sex with various members of the animal kingdom, most notably snakes and dolphins. It happens.
Turnabout is fair play no?
Margalis, forgive me if I've misunderstood, but this whole sequence of threads has been about the dissatisfaction of Mr. Greenwald and like-minded folks with the lack of coverage of the Yoo memo.
I'm sorry if calling it "frustration" was a mischaracterization. It was not intentional.
Regardless of how you characterize the reaction, I think you need to understand that other people see the situation differently. They are not (all) ignorant of the facts. A media more to your liking would not cause a sudden awakening. People just disagree with you about the urgency of the situation.
I suppose typing "Bushitler" was just a slip of the fingers?
You don't get to mock people then claim it was unintentional.
Get serious.
Margalis, if the "Bushitler" comment offended you, I'll apologize for that too. I'm afraid I really don't understand your views. In what ways would you differentiate your view of Mr. Bush from your view of Hitler?
On these threads, I've seen Mr. Bush's administration accused of wars of aggression against helpless nations, wholesale slaughter, torture, and expanding executive power to the point of a dictatorship.
You've done a masterful job of avoiding my point with your constant claims of offense. That point is that everyone does not share Mr. Greenwald's values. They are not outraged and will not be even if the New York Times and every Gannett paper runs front page stories every day for six months.
Hitler had a mustache and a cool uniform.
Got any more brilliant questions?
The logical response to eliminating regulation in favor of lawsuits would be to reorganize manufacturing towards small, nontransparent shell companies which could quickly be folded up and disappeared whenever a major accident occurred.
What Chinese company is responsible for putting industrial solvents in American toothpaste? No one knows. It's disappeared, the facilities bulldozed. Go try and find who was responsible.
But that could never happen in the US, of course. We make sure that companies can't escape their liabilities so easily by...drumroll please...regulating them!
The Chinese and Vietnamese peoples are begging -- begging -- for their own governments to adopt and enforce regulations on product and workplace safety like the US has. And you want to scrap ours now? Just think about it for a minute.
Colin
Jayackroyd, I hope I can be one of your favorite libertarians (small-l) as I am also pro-life. All libertarians I know believe the government _must_ protect the lives of citizens from harm.
So blasotcysts are citizens? Can citizens compel other citizens to engage in life threatening activity in the interest of the first set of citizens?
People like Boaz go on at great length about the primacy of property rights--that if I make a table from a piece of driftwood, well that is clearly mine, the result of my labor to dispose of as I wish.
How are children different? Are they not chattel? If they are citizens at the moment of conception, what makes them special citizens, able to demand, nay coerce via the force of the state, support from some other citizen?
hazard problem?
Only if the insurance rate does not depend on how much attention the employer pays to safety. If the insurance rates are set in a competitive private market, the insurance companies has an incentive to inspect the operation and set the rate accordingly, and may suggest safety improvements that are cost-effective in the insured shop even if they are not cost-effective in other shops.
Um, Dick, there are no other shops. Insurance is mandatory.
You can't wave the free market wand, and sprinkle the free market fairy dust if the government is forcing the firms to buy insurance.
The logical response to eliminating regulation in favor of lawsuits would be to reorganize manufacturing towards small, nontransparent shell companies which could quickly be folded up and disappeared whenever a major accident occurred.
Actually one libertarian who makes more sense than most that I know believes in a confiscatory estate tax. Concentration of wealth across generations is bad, in his view.
Might I suggest that US companies importing chemicals from less than strict nations like China take the effort to randomly inspect and test their bulk chemicals? Preferably in the USA where bribery of the testing people is more difficult?
p.s. doesn't need to be a law. maybe just send a memo to every company reminding them that this would be smart.
Also, as usual, after the scandal, the Chinese government has stepped up its own regulatory actions...
BTW, sending FDA agents all over the world to monitor the supply chain will be very, very expensive, and perhaps anger other countries. Since Chinese banks got burned by sup-prime, should their government send financial regulators over to US banks to review their lending practices?
Since Chinese banks got burned by sup-prime, should their government send financial regulators over to US banks to review their lending practices? - Aaron
Yes.
All employers are not required to pay into the workers compensation system. My client is self-insured, having demonstrated that their safety rules and performance exceed OSHA regulations. They are FANATICS about safety. As an aside, if you're traveling for them and rent a car, you don't buy the optional insurance, as they are self-insured there, too. Their reasoning is that they hire responsible people who are responsible drivers, and their records on rental cars prove it.
Well, I wander over here from Greenwald's blog, and I do in fact encounter the sort of nonsense that Greenwald has been addressing.
Perhaps by now McArdle has started to pick up on the fact that she's exposed herself to ridicule by choosing to defend the indefensible? Greenwald's latest diary where he reminds McArdle of her support in 2003 for illicit torture in the "dark rooms" swiftly deflates her swelling outrage.
In this particular diary I read that those dang "liberals" don't want better regulation, merely more of it. Sure, who could be for better regulation? Lots of my fellow liberals oppose better regulation.
We just wants lots of "more regulation", solely for the purpose of feeding ignorant diatribes by second-rate intellectuals.
Mission accomplished.
"... Regulations that provide transparency usually work very well..."
Like inspections?
Workers compensation insurance is mandatory, but companies with employees get their insurance from private companies. Don't believe me? Type "workers compensation insurance" into Yahoo Search and see yourself presented with eleven ads by private companies offering to sell you some.
You may be confusing workers compensation insurance with state disability insurance, which is state-provided and funded by a tax [although even there, in my state a company can self-insure if they meet certain requirements and many do, which will cause an adverse selection problem in the state program, but I digress].
-dk
I hope this isn't a duplicate. I got an "internal server error" the first timr I tried to post it.
Workers compensation insurance is mandatory, but companies with employees get their insurance from private companies. Don't believe me? Type "workers compensation insurance" into Yahoo Search and see yourself presented with eleven ads by private companies offering to sell you some.
You may be confusing workers compensation insurance with state disability insurance, which is state-provided and funded by a tax [although even there, in my state a company can self-insure if they meet certain requirements and many do, which will cause an adverse selection problem in the state program, but I digress].
-dk
Billmax, I assure you that you are mistaken. In every state Employers carry workers' compensation insurance. Now they may be self-insured, but they have a policy.
Periodically some crazy employer won't carry workers' compensation insurance. In nearly all states this is a violation of law, and those employers automatically lose the ability to contest the claim. There's literally no defense, other than to contest the reasonableness of the medical bills. But liability is a given.
There are exceptions here and there in some states, but it's quite small.
Fundamentally, an employer can not carry workers' compensation insurance, but if they encounter a claim, they have to pay, so basically they do anyway. And paying that way costs a lot more than carrying a policy premium, so the vast majority do that in order to fix their costs.
Gawd,
This is yet another point where lassiez faire ideology just completely falls apart, Megan.
And you are priceless. You are so comfortable in your ideology, so much so that you aren't even interested in the facts.
Here are some facts:
-WHO estimates 500,000 deaths yearly from counterfeit medicine. http://www.medindia.net/news/Bogus-Medicines-Responsible-for-Half-a-Million-Deaths-a-Year-35199-1.htm
-62 deaths in US and Germany (so far) from fake Heparin from China. http://www.medindia.net/news/Bogus-Medicines-Responsible-for-Half-a-Million-Deaths-a-Year-35199-1.htm
How about a single web search before you post? Or is ideology incompatible with facts?
This is the quality of thought that brought us Doug Feith's Capitalist Utopia of Irak.........
>making companies insure their employees
>against on-the-job injuries.
I don't understand. How does this promote "transparency"?