3 ms·

This article seems quite specific at first – but when you dig down, it is actually rather vague. For example, the author complains that his mother needs a lice

This article seems quite specific at first – but when you dig down, it is actually rather vague. For example, the author complains that his mother needs a license to bake food. What kind of license? What state? Maybe a food handlers license? These are incredibly common, and very easy to obtain. Maybe a business license? Again – most states are falling over themselves to make it easy to give you a business license. It's hard to tell exactly what is being argued against. Food safety is incredibly important – and food handler's licenses are easy to obtain. States need to collect taxes, that's the basic reason a business needs to get a license. Neither of these things are controversial. That's why I'm guessing the author of this article didn't go into specifics.

zanny 10y ago
> Neither of these things are controversial. I'll give plenty of controversy, because your point is fundamental to the runaway problem of licensing and certification in the US and elsewhere. You think it is just one (well, you list two) licenses, but then you find out you also need commercial permits for the building, you need permits for the imports of most of the ingredients, you need certification to serve certain kinds of foods (especially in many states alcohol), and by the end you do not have just two licenses you need to get, you can have dozens of them. And there is no established canonical way to find out which you need, because they vary not only by state but by municipality. And even if you somehow "ask" your regional better business bureau for all the licenses and certifications you need, if they get them wrong, you are still liable and at fault for not knowing. Food safety is incredibly important. If every distributor of food needs a license, the barrier to entry by its nature either must be insanely low or a huge amount of potential productivity lost to the licensing process. If the barrier to entry is low, violating such a license is painless and easy. It is a meme now that restaurants will only clean up the cockroaches the week of food and safety inspections in New York, and that applies everywhere. In the end, the only safeguard against unethical business behavior is an informed consumer. And those do not come from annual state inspections where the inspector is often bought off in the first place. They come from consumers having communication channels to better inform themselves and others about what is or is not trustworthy. We would have significantly higher standards of food safety if instead of state agencies doing it restaurants sought certification from highly respected private firms that do such inspections, because then the reputation of both inspector and restaurant on the line, and consumers can dynamically create or trust any number of inspectors to meet demand. Compare that to how well trusted the state is for just about anything by anyone, and consider which would be better, aside from the lovely side effect of there being no outdated over-saturated government bureaucracy around food inspections.
- gamblor956 10y ago
  In the end, the only safeguard against unethical business behavior is an informed consumer. The point of food safety regulations is so that the consumer doesn't have to do a boatload of research every time they eat out to protect their health. This reduces friction and expands the market for food products and services. We would have significantly higher standards of food safety if instead of state agencies doing it restaurants sought certification from highly respected private firms that do such inspections, because then the reputation of both inspector and restaurant on the line, and consumers can dynamically create or trust any number of inspectors to meet demand. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A government agency can force a restaurant or food distributor/etc to shut down if it falls below standards, meaning lost dollars, meaning a very strong incentive to maintain standards. They can also require the restaurant to post the results of the inspection on premises, which is a strong, immediate, and visible blow to the restaurant/food distributor's reputation. Meanwhile, a private inspection agency can...say bad things about a restaurant? And this will magically cause customers to avoid the restaurant? Assuming that said customers somehow are informed of the private inspection agency's report? We already have something like this, and it's corrupt as all hell: the Better Business Bureau, and Yelp, both of which are known to remove negative reviews in exchange for money.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  " highly respected private firms " If the financial crisis has taught us anything it's that those highly respected firms tend to get corrupted easily. See rating agencies. Who verifies that the private firm is clean?
  - zanny 10y ago
    Consumer confidence. The problem with financial institutions is a systemic and intentional policy of using law to prevent competition. You need the, again, certification nightmare to be legally allowed to even make a loan, let alone a home mortgage. If those barriers to entry did not exist (and again, it is death by a thousand cuts - only Wall Street institutions have the army of lawyers to stay compliant) we might have a hundred major banks again like we did fifty years ago than the five we do now.
Nav_Panel 10y ago
I think you meant to comment here instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11714340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11714340

zanny 10y ago

> Neither of these things are controversial. I'll give plenty of controversy, because your point is fundamental to the runaway problem of licensing and certification in the US and elsewhere. You think it is just one (well, you list two) licenses, but then you find out you also need commercial permits for the building, you need permits for the imports of most of the ingredients, you need certification to serve certain kinds of foods (especially in many states alcohol), and by the end you do not have just two licenses you need to get, you can have dozens of them. And there is no established canonical way to find out which you need, because they vary not only by state but by municipality. And even if you somehow "ask" your regional better business bureau for all the licenses and certifications you need, if they get them wrong, you are still liable and at fault for not knowing. Food safety is incredibly important. If every distributor of food needs a license, the barrier to entry by its nature either must be insanely low or a huge amount of potential productivity lost to the licensing process. If the barrier to entry is low, violating such a license is painless and easy. It is a meme now that restaurants will only clean up the cockroaches the week of food and safety inspections in New York, and that applies everywhere. In the end, the only safeguard against unethical business behavior is an informed consumer. And those do not come from annual state inspections where the inspector is often bought off in the first place. They come from consumers having communication channels to better inform themselves and others about what is or is not trustworthy. We would have significantly higher standards of food safety if instead of state agencies doing it restaurants sought certification from highly respected private firms that do such inspections, because then the reputation of both inspector and restaurant on the line, and consumers can dynamically create or trust any number of inspectors to meet demand. Compare that to how well trusted the state is for just about anything by anyone, and consider which would be better, aside from the lovely side effect of there being no outdated over-saturated government bureaucracy around food inspections.

gamblor956 10y ago
In the end, the only safeguard against unethical business behavior is an informed consumer. The point of food safety regulations is so that the consumer doesn't have to do a boatload of research every time they eat out to protect their health. This reduces friction and expands the market for food products and services. We would have significantly higher standards of food safety if instead of state agencies doing it restaurants sought certification from highly respected private firms that do such inspections, because then the reputation of both inspector and restaurant on the line, and consumers can dynamically create or trust any number of inspectors to meet demand. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A government agency can force a restaurant or food distributor/etc to shut down if it falls below standards, meaning lost dollars, meaning a very strong incentive to maintain standards. They can also require the restaurant to post the results of the inspection on premises, which is a strong, immediate, and visible blow to the restaurant/food distributor's reputation. Meanwhile, a private inspection agency can...say bad things about a restaurant? And this will magically cause customers to avoid the restaurant? Assuming that said customers somehow are informed of the private inspection agency's report? We already have something like this, and it's corrupt as all hell: the Better Business Bureau, and Yelp, both of which are known to remove negative reviews in exchange for money.
maxxxxx 10y ago
" highly respected private firms " If the financial crisis has taught us anything it's that those highly respected firms tend to get corrupted easily. See rating agencies. Who verifies that the private firm is clean?
- zanny 10y ago
  Consumer confidence. The problem with financial institutions is a systemic and intentional policy of using law to prevent competition. You need the, again, certification nightmare to be legally allowed to even make a loan, let alone a home mortgage. If those barriers to entry did not exist (and again, it is death by a thousand cuts - only Wall Street institutions have the army of lawyers to stay compliant) we might have a hundred major banks again like we did fifty years ago than the five we do now.

Nav_Panel 10y ago

I think you meant to comment here instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11714340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11714340