9 ms·

So as it turns out regulation is good for us, and free market forces don't solve all problems.

by yarper 10y ago

magila 10y ago
I don't think you'll find too many people who oppose investigating and prosecuting fraudulent product labeling. This is not the sort of thing that's usually being debated when one talks about the cost/benefit of regulations.
- justin66 10y ago
  In plenty of cases "they" don't need to debate or oppose anything, they just need to oppose any new funding of the agencies that would look into the fraud in question. Go look up the counterfeit olive oil articles from several years back and consider that things haven't improved at all on that front.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  > This is not the sort of thing that's usually being debated when one talks about the cost/benefit of regulations. Yes it is, at least when Conservative party leaders talk about it. You might have a different definition but it isn't the one that will be enacted in reality. For that matter how do you suppose product labeling regulations could be enforced? It would require tests and objective standards. And what happens with an entirely new substance that doesn't have a known safety profile or valid test criteria? tl;dr: Everyone likes regulations when they're buying safe and accurately labeled products. Everyone hates regulations when they're asked to prove their own claims. The circle cannot be squared.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > I don't think you'll find too many people who oppose investigating and prosecuting fraudulent product labeling. The large number of ethusiasts for "tort reform" suggest that the idea of making companies immune to the consequence of malfeasance would suggest otherwise.
  - nickik 10y ago
    Maybe true, but not libertarians.
nostromo 10y ago
Regulation is one way to try and solve this problem, but the courts are another. As mentioned in the article, the retailers of this product are already being sued based on the findings.
- british_india 10y ago
  The average consumer does not have money for attorneys: hence, the need for government regulation. That's why all of us pay taxes.
  - rconti 10y ago
    Or class-action lawsuits.
  - pfranz 10y ago
    It's also that the fraud is incredibly diluted. Is the solution a class-action lawsuit? If so, is it even worth it to me to fill out the postcard for a tube of bogus aloe I bought 2 years ago? Let's say someone actually told me it was fake. Was it the "Wal-Mart Premium Aloe" or the "Wal-Mart Organic Aloe"? I would happily pay $0.20 more for real aloe over fake, but I'm not going to spend 20min on my phone then pay $0.20 more for each item I put in my cart. Which brand of olive oil isn't the fake one, again?
    - nickik 10y ago
      Legal scholars have actually found many elegant solutions to this sort of stuff. The simplest one is that if you find out that you were the victim of small scale fraud. You should be able to sell your claim to a third person. This third person can then gather many small claim and do the lawsuit for profit. Your claim might only be worth 10$ in this case (since this is just wrong labeling and not anything worse) but its still free money. This system would also give consumer groups for example a better financial situation. Currently, fines usually go to the government if some group detects that some law was abused. In the system im talking about a consumer group could ask for the data of all the people, should the find something they inform everybody of this and ask them to sell their claims. Then they sue the producer and make a profit. Such system could essentially be automated. Selling a claim should not be harder then making online bank payments (in Switzerland we have E-Bills, pops up, 1-click, done). If you trust the consumer group you could just automate it completely (in Switzerland you can actually give access to your bank accounts companies you trust). This is also not some new idea, there are historical systems that worked exactly like this. Those system were found to perform quite well.
SixSigma 10y ago
You mean by the way it is Bloomberg who did the investigation ?
nickik 10y ago
So it turns out, people love to make overly simplistic arguments don't actually win any debates

So as it turns out regulation is good for us, and free market forces don't solve all problems.

by yarper 10y ago

So as it turns out regulation is good for us, and free market forces don't solve all problems.

I don't think you'll find too many people who oppose investigating and prosecuting fraudulent product labeling. This is not the sort of thing that's usually being debated when one talks about the cost/benefit of regulations.

justin66 10y ago
In plenty of cases "they" don't need to debate or oppose anything, they just need to oppose any new funding of the agencies that would look into the fraud in question. Go look up the counterfeit olive oil articles from several years back and consider that things haven't improved at all on that front.
xenadu02 10y ago
> This is not the sort of thing that's usually being debated when one talks about the cost/benefit of regulations. Yes it is, at least when Conservative party leaders talk about it. You might have a different definition but it isn't the one that will be enacted in reality. For that matter how do you suppose product labeling regulations could be enforced? It would require tests and objective standards. And what happens with an entirely new substance that doesn't have a known safety profile or valid test criteria? tl;dr: Everyone likes regulations when they're buying safe and accurately labeled products. Everyone hates regulations when they're asked to prove their own claims. The circle cannot be squared.
rodgerd 10y ago
> I don't think you'll find too many people who oppose investigating and prosecuting fraudulent product labeling. The large number of ethusiasts for "tort reform" suggest that the idea of making companies immune to the consequence of malfeasance would suggest otherwise.
- nickik 10y ago
  Maybe true, but not libertarians.

nostromo 10y ago

Regulation is one way to try and solve this problem, but the courts are another. As mentioned in the article, the retailers of this product are already being sued based on the findings.

british_india 10y ago
The average consumer does not have money for attorneys: hence, the need for government regulation. That's why all of us pay taxes.
- rconti 10y ago
  Or class-action lawsuits.
- pfranz 10y ago
  It's also that the fraud is incredibly diluted. Is the solution a class-action lawsuit? If so, is it even worth it to me to fill out the postcard for a tube of bogus aloe I bought 2 years ago? Let's say someone actually told me it was fake. Was it the "Wal-Mart Premium Aloe" or the "Wal-Mart Organic Aloe"? I would happily pay $0.20 more for real aloe over fake, but I'm not going to spend 20min on my phone then pay $0.20 more for each item I put in my cart. Which brand of olive oil isn't the fake one, again?
  - nickik 10y ago
    Legal scholars have actually found many elegant solutions to this sort of stuff. The simplest one is that if you find out that you were the victim of small scale fraud. You should be able to sell your claim to a third person. This third person can then gather many small claim and do the lawsuit for profit. Your claim might only be worth 10$ in this case (since this is just wrong labeling and not anything worse) but its still free money. This system would also give consumer groups for example a better financial situation. Currently, fines usually go to the government if some group detects that some law was abused. In the system im talking about a consumer group could ask for the data of all the people, should the find something they inform everybody of this and ask them to sell their claims. Then they sue the producer and make a profit. Such system could essentially be automated. Selling a claim should not be harder then making online bank payments (in Switzerland we have E-Bills, pops up, 1-click, done). If you trust the consumer group you could just automate it completely (in Switzerland you can actually give access to your bank accounts companies you trust). This is also not some new idea, there are historical systems that worked exactly like this. Those system were found to perform quite well.

SixSigma 10y ago

You mean by the way it is Bloomberg who did the investigation ?

nickik 10y ago

So it turns out, people love to make overly simplistic arguments don't actually win any debates