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.
I'll see if I have any of my books unpacked about this, then.
You're right, not every food producer was a problem. However, the regulation just made it so their process resulted in untainted food.
No, in this case, the regulation made it so the process resulted in no 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.
You're still assuming everyone was offering tainted goods. You understand the issue here, right?
To go back to the toy analogy, the CPSIA was put in place because a small number of toys from China were using lead ingredients. Not all toys contained lead.
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.
So you're fine with perfectly responsible businesses being forced out of the market by bigger guys because other smaller companies are being irresponsible?
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.
So, in other words, treat them as guilty until proven innocent. That's great.
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.
And I wholly disagree. Wrapping up uncompetitive regulation with the veneer of safety is mere dishonesty. This isn't about safety.
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 11:39 (UTC)I'll see if I have any of my books unpacked about this, then.
You're right, not every food producer was a problem. However, the regulation just made it so their process resulted in untainted food.
No, in this case, the regulation made it so the process resulted in no 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.
You're still assuming everyone was offering tainted goods. You understand the issue here, right?
To go back to the toy analogy, the CPSIA was put in place because a small number of toys from China were using lead ingredients. Not all toys contained lead.
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.
So you're fine with perfectly responsible businesses being forced out of the market by bigger guys because other smaller companies are being irresponsible?
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.
So, in other words, treat them as guilty until proven innocent. That's great.
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.
And I wholly disagree. Wrapping up uncompetitive regulation with the veneer of safety is mere dishonesty. This isn't about safety.