:D
Printable View
:D
You guys claim that you're not being short sighted. And I understand your argument, however, there is a trade off in life between what societal structure you want. I think if you take some economics courses you will see how helpful free trade is in bettering EVERYONE's life. And how it reaches an epitome of efficiency. While there are short comings, no one can do what free trade does better. When you set up a strucutre based upon what people value, then that creates competition in striving to get it. This breeds ingenuity, improvements in both pay and efficiency, and all regards even overall happiness for workers, so you can attract the best workers. The sytem is designed to get the MOST bang for the buck. It's designed to help people the most. That's why the world has boomed under it. Survival rates have gone up, health has gone up etc.... When you do the ohter systems you do some good in some areas but at a inefficient cost to others. Your right in that it doesn't solve all problems, and hence why we have a hybrid system with government playing a role.Quote:
I love mcdonald's, I just don't think cheaper bigmacs are worth dead grandmothers.
:confused: Did somebody discuss free trade?
Hi,
just because free trade is awesome (it isn't always for everything) it doesn't follow that freer trade is necessarily more awesome, in a world full of constraints such as sick grandmas.
In the context of this discussion I have nfi idea how you imagine the death of grandmas (due to the reckless use of antibiotics in the big-mac making industry) is a testament to the awesomeness of free trade. I think you are out bicycling, as we say in Sweden :down:
Glad to see I wasn't the only one who wonder where the hell that came from. Maybe he posted in the wrong thread?
I was just reading a few posts, and came across that line "I love mcdonald's, I just don't think cheaper bigmacs are worth dead grandmothers."
I misread the context. I was thinking he was saying if we didn't go so much for efficiency we could be more socialistic and save more people from dying. Because it is true that free market is dog eat dog. The weak die, the strong live. Granted there are low profile jobs that you have to be pretty weak before you're weeded out of the system. It's very evolutionary in nature, no sympathy in it.
You were wrong. We were talking about meat and antibiotic resistance.
lol Sweden, ok this answers everything about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So where is everyone else from? Gotta be another welfare state.
Someone please post that article comparing Sweden and Finland and Australia
Specifically the part about the citizens' understanding of antibiotic resistance
^^Let me guess..Australians had less of an understanding about antibiotic resistance? Doesn't surprise me if that was the case.
Exactly. And that sort of dangerous ignorance is only celebrated by those too short-sighted to invest in people and their future
Oh, that's just to bad then. I blame the education system here though. It's downright sh!t, at least in my state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well, that certainly answers some of the questions I had about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Ooh, you're so funny :D teehee :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
:rolleyes:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...n-the-farm.ars
Quote:
today, a coalition of nonprofit groups attempted to get the issue jump-started: They sued.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Citizen filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York, against the FDA; its Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, and its director for the Center of Veterinary Medicine, Bernadette Dunham; the Department of Health and Human Services, FDA’s parent agency; and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius.
The suit alleges that the FDA has acted unlawfully, ignoring its own statutory authority, by failing to curb growth-promoting antibiotic dosing despite decades of evidence that it stimulates the emergence of antibiotic resistance, undermining medical treatment and harming human health. It makes these specific claims:
The FDA is empowered by the Food and Drug Act to withdraw its final approval for any drug, even after the drug is approved and marketed, if the drug can be shown to be not-safe in the uses for which it was approved. The suit alleges the FDA concluded in 1977 that subtherapeutic use of both penicillin (approved in 1951) and tetracyclines (approved in 1954) was unsafe, but has never acted.
The FDA is required by its own implementing regulations to respond to citizen petitions that responsibly allege harm from unsafe drugs. The suit alleges that the FDA failed to respond to two citizen petitions that were filed in 1999 and 2005 by members of CSPI, FACT, UCS and Public Citizen. Both petitions asked the agency to lift its approval for growth-promoting use of seven classes of antibiotics that are critical in human medicine, on the grounds that farm micro-doses stimulate the development of antibiotic resistance that then makes the drugs useless in treating human infections.
The suit asks that the FDA respond to the petitions, examine the farm use of those antibiotics, and specifically revoke its approval for growth-promoting use of penicillins and tetracyclines, the issue that it has been not-responding to for 34 years.
Voluntary regulation does not work.
But regulation is against the invisible, infallible hand of the Market. Therefore regulating is bad.
And who needs regulation, anyway? If you're dumb enough to choose to eat inferior meat, or bought bad medicine, then you're getting the punishment for your bad choice. The ideal solution is to have private investigation firms, from whom you may purchase estimates on the quality of different brands of health care, meat, fruit, milk, cars and everything else under the Sun and stars. Because they are private firms in constant competition, they will produce superior information about the goods and services being produced, compared to inefficient, bloated government bureaucracies filled with incompetent poops who couldn't hack it in the Real World of the Market.
And if you cannot afford these services along with insurance fees, fees for private security firms and private security contractors, the for-profit fire houses and the for-profit private elementary schools for your children, then you have made dumb choices in life and deserve your lot.
But perhaps it is even more insidious than sheer bureaucratic incompetence. Did you know, were you aware, that in the Soviet Union, their scientists reckoned thusly: Soviet socialism was clearly the best way of life, the government said it and it must be true. So why would someone want to live under any other system? Why should anyone protest perfection?
They must be mentally ill!
Through this stroke of brilliance, these people were given treatment according to the finest Soviet science, to cure them of this madness.
Now, let us reckon our situation through the eye of the the retrospective (I need not tell you the placement of this eye!). We know that the Market won the Soviets. Thereby the best system is not the Soviet one, but the Market one. So why are all these "environmentologists" and "medical professionals" issuing statements against the infallibility, the perfection of the Market? Could it be, could it possibly be that we can correct the errors of the Soviets this day, in our age? The ones to be rectified and cured were not the ones who protested Soviet socialism, but the ones protesting the Market!
But now the Market must be allowed the chance to rectify this error. We need to end useless and frivolous government regulation of involuntary commission into psychiatric care, and government regulation and funding of science. Only the infallible Market can produce the right science, devoid of error, sloth and false paradigms. The holders of High Capital would seek, out of all the private firms that shall replace the police and justice system, the very best ones, the most efficient and righteous of guardians of Market society, and send them to in turn to seek all these mentally deranged so-called 'scientists', and have them placed in the finest, the most ethical and most efficient psychiatric care. Not for the benefit of the scientists, of course, they are dumb and deserve their fate, but for the sake of the Marketplace of Ideas, which must from time to time be purified with the blood of blind, false believers.
Apparently government regulation doesn't work either. So we can't turn to private action, we can't turn to public action. . . what do you propose Minx, alien intervention?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You have to admit, that'd be pretty cool
We can choose the form of regulation that works best in this arena :o one extreme but perhaps effective solution would be to ban this sort of antibiotic use ON PAIN OF GOVERNMENT-INDUCED DEATH.
My remark about voluntary self-regulation was inspired by the success of that approach on Wall Street :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
What'd those scarecrows ever do to you? :(
I can't access Conservapedia from my filthy country, but I'm fairly confident there's Marketeers out there who'd sign that unironically. If my persistent left-wing ranting and raving is disruptive, good :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I saw the strangest item today in a pharmacy. A desktop staple gun that had a large corner banner graphic on the packaging: ANTIMICROBIAL. :bulb:
They had impregnated the plastic part you touch when stapling.....with an antimicrobial substance. Like the type found in synthetic kitchen countertops or cutting boards. After that, I started noticing all the products with ANTIMICROBIALS built-in. Bar soaps, body washes, hand sanitizers, facial washes, pimple products, deodorants/anti-perspirants, toothpastes, mouth washes, foot powders, body powders, band-aids....even odor-eating socks, shoe inserts, and jock straps! :eek:
While it seems funny to have a judge make a scientific judgement and I'm generally not comfortable with that, it would be interesting if this case was won.
Tangent Alert! If you're not comfortable with judges (experts in law but not science) making scientific judgements, how could you be "comfortable" with judges making medical/scientific decisions regarding abortion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Who said I'm comfortable with them making those decisions?
You. When you agreed that politicians could make the same medical decisions for women, using funding as proxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:rolleyes: Besides the fact that many judges aren't politicians (except maybe at the local level), my point has been that removing funding doesn't constitute making decisions on behalf of people.
More germaine to the topic, politicians removing funding for moral/financial/political reasons isn't the same as a judge looking at a very deeply scientific case and rendering what amounts to a major second-guessing of how a federal regulator handled a scientific/public health issue for decades.