I'm of the belief, based on research and reading I've done, that the situation was fairly overblown.
I don't think we can go anywhere on this point without some serious citations. Just the evidence of Heinz becoming a near-monopoly means that nearly every other ketchup producer was using rotten tomatoes. That, to me, speaks volumes about the situation.
So, to be clear, you don't see the downside of less competition, of fewer options? Really? Keep in mind, it is not like every food producer was a problem.
I like competition. If lots of ketchup producers want to spring up and offer untainted food products, I'm all for it. The only competition that's stifled are the type that will market you an early grave, and no I don't have sympathy for that type of competition. If they're unable to create a food product that won't kill you, I do not welcome their competition.
You're right, not every food producer was a problem. However, the regulation just made it so their process resulted in untainted food. If this was enough to put them out of business, then the only thing holding them up in the market was their tainted goods, then I feel that they have no place in the marketplace.
The comparison is absolutely apt. The end result is the same thing - regulations, put in place in the name of "safety," existing only to minimize the competitive atmosphere.
This is not a contention of mine. It's true that regulations will drive business out of the market, but it's the kind of business that you or I would not be involved in. The system definitely has room for improvement, and I don't know about your example but if a company has gained enough credibility to not require testing for its toys, then it's a loosening of regulations because that company has acquired a sufficient amount of trust. Start-up toy companies, or smaller companies that don't have that level of trust yet, must show that their products are safe for the general public- especially children. If your solution is that they don't have to test their products, it's not a solution I endorse.
There's a difference between regulation that just enriches a certain entity, and regulation that insures safety. Competition being mitigated because businesses can't adapt is a side-effect of the regulation, not the purpose.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 04:09 (UTC)I don't think we can go anywhere on this point without some serious citations. Just the evidence of Heinz becoming a near-monopoly means that nearly every other ketchup producer was using rotten tomatoes. That, to me, speaks volumes about the situation.
So, to be clear, you don't see the downside of less competition, of fewer options? Really? Keep in mind, it is not like every food producer was a problem.
I like competition. If lots of ketchup producers want to spring up and offer untainted food products, I'm all for it. The only competition that's stifled are the type that will market you an early grave, and no I don't have sympathy for that type of competition. If they're unable to create a food product that won't kill you, I do not welcome their competition.
You're right, not every food producer was a problem. However, the regulation just made it so their process resulted in untainted food. If this was enough to put them out of business, then the only thing holding them up in the market was their tainted goods, then I feel that they have no place in the marketplace.
The comparison is absolutely apt. The end result is the same thing - regulations, put in place in the name of "safety," existing only to minimize the competitive atmosphere.
This is not a contention of mine. It's true that regulations will drive business out of the market, but it's the kind of business that you or I would not be involved in. The system definitely has room for improvement, and I don't know about your example but if a company has gained enough credibility to not require testing for its toys, then it's a loosening of regulations because that company has acquired a sufficient amount of trust. Start-up toy companies, or smaller companies that don't have that level of trust yet, must show that their products are safe for the general public- especially children. If your solution is that they don't have to test their products, it's not a solution I endorse.
There's a difference between regulation that just enriches a certain entity, and regulation that insures safety. Competition being mitigated because businesses can't adapt is a side-effect of the regulation, not the purpose.