Originally posted by finnegan
Bizarre interpretation. If people can choose to consume drugs ruled unsafe it follows that the producers can persist in selling drugs that have been ruled unsafe. So how will that work? They could just as well remove all regulation in which case, as we know from the track record, the drug companies will cheerfully push poisons and call them health foods. Th ...[text shortened]... armed. They already do.

Just try switching on your head some time. It might surprise us all.

When you said 'independent' I thought you meant independent.

How would it work? Companies could choose to have their product certified and pay for that to happen. People could then choose to purchase certified products and as part of the price pay for the certification. It's called User Pays, I know this is going to be mind blowing for you but this is when you use something and you pay for it, and when you don't use something you don't pay for it, radical I know. It's probably pretty much diametrically opposite to what you prefer i.e. don't use it but forced to pay for it, or use it but force someone else to pay.

Of course both certified and uncertified companies cannot make false claims about their products that's a type of fraud. Calling something a health food could be a bit grey, the term is open to interpretation, but call it, for example, health food certified by The Heart Foundation, ok, that has got to achieve a standard and the term would be protected by copyright or trademark.

Originally posted by Wajoma
When you said 'independent' I thought you meant independent.

How would it work? Companies could choose to have their product certified and pay for that to happen. People could then choose to purchase certified products and as part of the price pay for the certification. It's called User Pays, I know this is going to be mind blowing for you but this is ...[text shortened]... k, that has got to achieve a standard and the term would be protected by copyright or trademark.

Companies could choose to have their product certified and pay for that to happen.

And they wouldn't, or if they did it would just be a marketing ploy (examples already exist currently). In real-world examples where such private certifications schemes are effective to some degree, the certification organisation is always an NGO and never a private company, which would have a strong incentive to easily give away certifications.

Of course both certified and uncertified companies cannot make false claims about their products that's a type of fraud.

They can and do. Do you propose much stricter regulations in this respect?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b] Companies could choose to have their product certified and pay for that to happen.

And they wouldn't, or if they did it would just be a marketing ploy (examples already exist currently). In real-world examples where such private certifications schemes are effective to some degree, the certification organisation is always an NGO and never a pr ...[text shortened]... type of fraud.[/b]

They can and do. Do you propose much stricter regulations in this respect?[/b]

Whoah there, now just hold on a second, you could be on to something, jeeezus, this is, oh man, stunned, absolutely stunned, blinded by the light of your insight. A company might go to the trouble and expence of getting voluntary certification and then use that certification to market their product. This is going to take some time to digest, does anyone else know about this? Holy sheeiiiiiiiiitttttt.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Whoah there, now just hold on a second, you could be on to something, jeeezus, this is, oh man, stunned, absolutely stunned, blinded by the light of your insight. A company might go to the trouble and expence of getting voluntary certification and then use that certification to market their product. This is going to take some time to digest, does anyone else know about this? Holy sheeiiiiiiiiitttttt.

I guess you buy everything that's "new and improved." Or could it be that not all things companies say about their products are meaningfully related to their quality?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's a pity it didn't encourage you to think about the concept of liberty.

On the contrary. Reading John Stuart Mill did not mean I swallowed every concept written by him on his pages. I thought about and digested, sometimes agreeing, and other times not. My Kindle copy is heavily highlighted and annotated.

Originally posted by finnegan
There is very poor quality of regulation in the case of drugs, of food and of banking. In each case, the defect lies in bending over backwards to facilitate the interests of the corporations / banks at the expense of the public interest. Opposition to effective regulation comes from those seeking to protect corporate interests and they use your type of free ...[text shortened]... more and better and more independent regulation and we need protection from corporate interests.

What a laugh. Drugs, food and banking are under regulated? Only thing regulated more is nuclear energy. In many cases the regulations are the problem, as in the case of the CRA of the '60s, leading directly to the real estate bubble of 2008.

Saying there was massive deregulation doesn't make it so. The Frank-Dodd banking regulation is absolutely massive, and unreadable. The only thing it improves is the job security of lawyers and lobbyists.

Originally posted by normbenign
What a laugh. Drugs, food and banking are under regulated? Only thing regulated more is nuclear energy. In many cases the regulations are the problem, as in the case of the CRA of the '60s, leading directly to the real estate bubble of 2008.

Saying there was massive deregulation doesn't make it so. The Frank-Dodd banking regulation is absolutely massive, and unreadable. The only thing it improves is the job security of lawyers and lobbyists.

I did not say "under regulated." I am aware there are lots of regulations. I said

There is very poor quality of regulation

. The whole point is to be ineffectual and futile in order to protect business interests at the expense of the public.

Originally posted by finnegan
I did not say "under regulated." I am aware there are lots of regulations. I said

There is very poor quality of regulation

. The whole point is to be ineffectual and futile in order to protect business interests at the expense of the public.

Ok, but recent efforts like Dodd/Frank are making a bad situation worse. Bad regulation is usually worse than none. The CRA created an atmosphere where banks were forbidden to use sound judgement in making loan decisions. That is bad regulation.

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, but recent efforts like Dodd/Frank are making a bad situation worse. Bad regulation is usually worse than none. The CRA created an atmosphere where banks were forbidden to use sound judgement in making loan decisions. That is bad regulation.

Regulation of banks is just so dire it beggars description. The notion of a bank exercising "sound judgement" is a terribly hypothetical one, not much evidenced in reality. The banking system has collapsed and one day some grown up in government will be stuck with the job of dealing with that reality. I have zero confidence in the UK or the US solutions being correct. Further chaos will come.

Originally posted by finnegan
Regulation of banks is just so dire it beggars description. The notion of a bank exercising "sound judgement" is a terribly hypothetical one, not much evidenced in reality. The banking system has collapsed and one day some grown up in government will be stuck with the job of dealing with that reality. I have zero confidence in the UK or the US solutions being correct. Further chaos will come.

You are probably right about the condition of the banks with government interference.

Before the CRA, banks would require a down payment of 20% on a home, and a legitimate valuation. The borrower had to demonstrate a record of credit, payments of loans or bills on a regular basis. Steady work on a regular job was required. And the payment maximum was usually about 30% of the prospect's income.

All those common sense rules went down the drain before the religion of equal opportunity to home ownership. The CRA gave extortionists like ACORN the tool they needed to bedevil bankers into ignoring common sense rules that served the business well for centuries.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I guess you buy everything that's "new and improved." Or could it be that not all things companies say about their products are meaningfully related to their quality?

On another thread someone asked you if you ever listened to yourself, I urge you to do so now.

It is none of your business what I buy and why. Is it some kind of chemical imbalance that afflicts busybodies and control freaks?

It is none of your business who I give aid to, how much and why.

It is none of your business how I choose to care for my own health.

Get over yourself and leave other people to lead their own lives.

" In real-world examples where such private certifications schemes are effective to some degree, the certification organisation is always an NGO and never a private company, which would have a strong incentive to easily give away certifications."

If you can take your mind off what I'm buying and why I'm buying it for a moment perhaps you'd like to give us your interpretation on what an NGO is and why an NGO is not private, we don't want to get into an "increase mobility by decreasing mobility" type discussion again. I can think of consumer organisations who do not give away recommendations 'easily'. There is a 'strong incentive' to be impartial because their integrity, brand and existence depend upon it.