Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business - Page 4

Imran Siddiqui · November 20, 2003, 19:12

Actually che, they'd probably be against it. They'd rather have their own gauges and part sizes so their competitors couldn't sell to those companies. It was Congress that decided on a standard gauge to prevent company rail lines that didn't match.

chequita guevara · November 20, 2003, 19:13

I dunno. A lot of those regs loked like maintenence and upkeep, so that stuff has to be replaced more frequently.

Imran Siddiqui · November 20, 2003, 19:18

The few upkeep stuff may be the best regulations there, to prevent broken parts to be used until the trains come off the tracks. I doubt they were pushed by the companies. Most likely after an accident or two, public outcry did it.

Adam Smith · November 20, 2003, 19:48

The regs were originally voluntary guidelines needed for the interchange of equipment among private firms. The government expanded them, made them mandatory, and can and will bust you for violations. OSHA regs are similarly detailed, and have similarly little effect.

One side effect is that regs like this freeze technology. For example, US railroad signal boxes use vacuum tubes adn relays, because it would literally take an Act of Congress to allow the use of integrated circuits.

And yes, Che, its because I respect you.

Kuciwalker · November 20, 2003, 20:00

The whole thing about voting for a Democrat or Republican because otherwise your vote is "wasted" reminds me of a Hitchhiker's quote:

Quote:

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

TCO · November 20, 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Alrighty then -- no more of that again.

But it was just ***-for-tat, you have to admit.

Wimp. Of course my ass is Ming's...

TCO · November 20, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith
IIRC the relevant provision was a Pennsylvania state law which prohibited mining within 300 feet of an existing mine. The company thought it was in compliance. The problem was that the maps were bad.

Don't be mixing in facts like that. Che likes to live in fantasy land. I mean we are talking about a person who still idolizes communism...

TCO · November 20, 2003, 21:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Other reasons for a libertarian to support Dean:
-His campaign is actually democratic! It's a grass-roots campaign, not run by a bunch of corporations and other entrenched interests that the Republicans and Democrats stand for. Voting for Dean in 2004 means revolutionizing politics - and the possibily to vote for Browne, etc., down the line. This is probably the biggest reason I'm supporting him. I don't like quoting politicians, but as Dean said, I want my country back!

-He's a step forward on ending the war on drugs. Not a huge step, and he's been doing some considerable waffling on this issue, but he seems to want to somewhat scale back prison time for using drugs. For instance, he's said he'd support a moratorium on medical marijuana raids.
-As I just wrote, he's said he'd scale back agrisubsidies to only family-farms.
-He's argued for a less extremist position on a wide variety of foreign policy issues from Colombia to Israel.
-He's argued for far less corporate welfare in general.

He is still getting lots of union and fatcat and trial lawyer dollars. They have set up soft money fronts to spend the stuff. Soros gave 10 million.

TCO · November 20, 2003, 21:23

I'm caught up now...

MrFun · November 20, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The hard way is my specialty. You're lucky I let you learn the easy way this time.

DanS · November 21, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

And I can tell you, from having actually done the analysis, that there is zero, zip, nada, not any correlation between increased enforcement of these regulations and improved railroad safety.

That is really surprising to me. I always assumed that at least some regulation in most industries was good. Maybe I ought to rethink my assumptions.

Ned · November 21, 2003, 00:14

It looks like Che has found a Democrat he likes.

Che, you made a good point about the shrimp and about the slave labor. Obviously, we need to impose restrictions on shrimp fishing as a part of global treaties with international enforcement. It makes no sense to impose restrictions only on US shrimpers.

Ditto, "slave" labor. However, IIRC, Bush made a very strong statement concerning slavery in his speech to the UN. Did they do anything about it? Has Dean even mentioned the problem?

Ned · November 21, 2003, 00:16

Also, Clinton is the free trader in America. Bush has been very protectionist. Were a Democrat from the Clinton wing running, I would consider supporting him or her. But alas, all the Dems seem to have gone seriously left, with Dean constantly moving even farther left to provide separation.

TCO · November 21, 2003, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS

That is really surprising to me. I always assumed that at least some regulation in most industries was good. Maybe I ought to rethink my assumptions.

I've seen lots of times where increased stringency of a safety standard does not convert into more safety. there are lots of regulations with poor cost/benefit. Not all. But many.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Nor does regulation kill. In fact, it does the opposite. It saves lives.

Tell that to the millions killed by the DEA and FDA.

TCO · November 21, 2003, 01:00

doper

Ned · November 21, 2003, 01:05

I really do not believe that the regulation that Dean is talking about are safety regulations. He is talking about economic regulations: restrictions on ownership, prices, etc. The safety regulations take care of themselves by the robust tort law system in the US. A worker gets hurt. If the company was wilfully negligent, they get punitive damages in addition to compensatory. This alone is enough to keep everyone safe.

Che's example feces on the meat and mice in the sandwiches are so overblown as to be ludicrous. If anything of the sort ever did happen, the company responsible would soon be put out of business because no one would deal with them anymore.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 03:23

boozer

Az · November 21, 2003, 03:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

Tell that to the millions killed by the DEA and FDA.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 04:05

Azazel, ever hear an FDA spokesman hold a press conference to announce how 50,000 people will not die next year because the FDA has just approved a new drug? I have... so don't laugh...because that means ~50,000 died last year, and ~50,000 the year before...and so on...because they were waiting for the FDA to give them permission to use a drug that would have saved their lives...

Real funny, huh...

DinoDoc · November 21, 2003, 04:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Tell that to the millions killed by the ... FDA.

Yeah, I'm so pissed that we missed all the fun with thalidomide and the like. Damn government for trying to make sure drugs meet certain safety standards.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 04:33

Dino, whether or not the FDA saves lives is irrelevant to whether or not the FDA kills people. You want the FDA to make drugs "safe"? Then don't deny that the FDA kills people too, you just prefer a deal with the devil to kill some people to save others. So maybe you can be a little pissed about all the people who've died because of the FDA... They deserve better than laughter or sarcasm...

NeOmega · November 21, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO

He is still getting lots of union and fatcat and trial lawyer dollars. They have set up soft money fronts to spend the stuff. Soros gave 10 million.

Even better, since I think George Soros is a great man, one of the world's greatest!

chequita guevara · November 21, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

Tell that to the millions killed by the DEA and FDA.

Okay, ya got me.

chequita guevara · November 21, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by NeOmega
Even better, since I think George Soros is a great man, one of the world's greatest!

Are you sure you aren't a leftie?

Ramo · November 21, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Ditto, "slave" labor. However, IIRC, Bush made a very strong statement concerning slavery in his speech to the UN. Did they do anything about it? Has Dean even mentioned the problem?

Ooooh, Shrub made a speech!

That certainly is extremely substantial, and negates for instance when he helps to legitimize the Musharraf regime that treats poor farmers as slaves.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Okay, ya got me.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 17:14

Azazel and Dino, I apologise. I know you guys weren't making light of the people who've died waiting for permission from the FDA to use drugs that would have saved their lives.

Az · November 21, 2003, 17:47

thanks.

I was simply shocked by that statement. While you maybe literally right, in a way, that doesn't mean that the FDA is a bad thing.

Japher · November 21, 2003, 17:55

Ppl have died because of a drug as well as the lack of a drug.

The FDA is there to make sure that when I person takes a medicine they don't end up dying as a result of it. I mean, they took the drug to get better, not to die.

The last company I worked for always had protests out front by people who wanted to get in on clinical trials for certain drugs.