7 ms·

Magnet companies do not benefit when a child dies. On the contrary it can put all their business at total risk. Magnet companies are more likely to care about

by tn13 10y ago

Magnet companies do not benefit when a child dies. On the contrary it can put all their business at total risk. Magnet companies are more likely to care about their customers than government caring about my child. > We don't sell fireworks nor guns to children. UK is not a good example because they dont even sell hardware tools to kids. That is simply wussyfication of the society.

matt4077 10y ago
> On the contrary it can put all their business at total risk. ...mostly by regulation, right? I mean – we can all hope that all parent read about all accidents that kill people and then independently come to the smart conclusion, including a level-headed appreciation of the risk, normalized within the background context and the market penetration of ultra-strong magnets... or – better idea – let's put some smart people in a room and let them make a recommendation. There's even a staunchly capitalistic argument for regulation: it's the only reason we trust food from a supermarket we've never visited before, or a new toy, or an online bank, or a really fast looking electric car from California made by this guy who mostly deals in explosions controlled by 400,000 mechanical parts all supplied by the lowest bidder. In other words: Regulation creates the trust that's essential for any economic activity.
- tn13 10y ago
  > ...mostly by regulation, right? Mostly by bad reviews, lawsuites and bad PR. One good example of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide While everyone thinks that it was an evil pharma that should have stopped by regulators it appears that the pharma company lost billions but saved by regulators instead. >we can all hope that all parent read about all accidents that kill people and then independently come to the smart conclusion Neither parent not bureaucrats can do that 100% correctly. Parents can do it infinitely better that the people in washington. Babies will die no matter what. > let's put some smart people in a room and let them make a recommendation. Like smart people deciding on housing loans, student loans, cheaper healthcare, invasion of Iraq ? It eventually snowballs into a giant problem that makes the original problem far less worse. Smart people do not possess the intelligence or information to make decisions for others.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    You're really bringing Thalidomide, of all examples? To quite the Wikipedia article you linked: For correctly denying the application despite the pressure from Richardson-Merrell, Kelsey eventually received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service at a 1962 ceremony with President John F. Kennedy. In September 2010, the FDA honored Kelsey with the first Kelsey award. The award, given annually to an FDA staff member, came 50 years after Kelsey, then a new medical officer at the agency, first reviewed the application from the William S. Merrell Company of Cincinnati.[109] Cardiologist Helen B. Taussig learned of the damaging effects of the drug thalidomide on newborns and in 1967, testified before Congress on this matter after a trip to Germany where she worked with infants with phocomelia (severe limb deformities). As a result of her efforts, thalidomide was banned in the United States and Europe. I mean, it did take a while, but they didn't just give her an award – they _named_ the thing after her when they finally got around to recognize her. Meanwhile, in places where the market was regulating itself: Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived.
    - tn13 10y ago
      It only strengthens by argument. FDA saved people from Thalidomide ? What about over 100K people who lost their life because FDA delayed approval of Provenge and many other life saving drugs ? What about the near monopoly that FDA has granted to EpiPens ? What about millions of Americans who can afford basic healthcare because of FDA's compliance costs and die as a result ? Just for sample check this : http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2010/11/FDA-Delay-of-One-Drug-Causes-Lost-Life-Years/Page-01 http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2010/11/FDA-Delay-of-O... FDA or market based regulation totally depends on the outcomes and at least for me it is very apparent that market is extremely good at figuring out what works and what not than FDA. Also at significantly lower costs. >Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. It is actually a very good example of how quickly market can detect signals and respond to it. FDA in this case is purely awarded for being slow. FDA has a very poor history of preventing harmful drugs one has to only look at the list of lawsuites after which the drugs ere taken back from market.
- tn13 10y ago
  > Regulation creates the trust that's essential for any economic activity. At the moment that seems completely false to me. I don't remember a single time I took any government regulation seriously. For example I take my mechanic's advice about car safety far more seriously than government reports and ratings. I trust Yelp lot more to chose a doctor for my kid than any government report. Honestly, I dont even care if the doctor actually had a medical degree or not if the yelp reviews and my peer's reviews about that doctor are good enough. Regulator's role in deceiving public on important issues on the contrary makes me fare more skeptical. Regulator's stand on marijuana, vaping, sugar, fat, mother's milk, ethanol in gas and many others things is often false.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > For example I take my mechanic's advice about car safety far more seriously than government reports and ratings. Why? Your mechanic might have useful insight into the reliability of cars but would have little more visibility into the safety of cars than the average person. > Honestly, I dont even care if the doctor actually had a medical degree or not if the yelp reviews and my peer's reviews about that doctor are good enough. I hope your kid is a rhetorical device and not an actual child.
    - tn13 10y ago
      > Your mechanic might have useful insight into the reliability of cars but would have little more visibility into the safety of cars than the average person. On the contrary he knows more people in real accidents unlike the regulators and sees on regular basis which car did better and worse. He has a clear skin in the game to offer me reliable advice. > I hope your kid is a rhetorical device and not an actual child. It is a rhetorical device but I hardly doubt people demand to see their pediatrician's degree certificate.
      - dpark 10y ago
        Your mechanic definitely doesn't have sufficient data to make meaningful statements about which cars are safer. Your mechanic might have opinions about which models look better or worse after certain types of accidents but that says nothing about safety. Safety data is gathered by either recording accident outcomes or by simulating accidents. Your mechanic is doing neither of those. In fact the most important outcome is whether a passenger or driver dies, and your mechanic probably never sees those because the cars are generally totaled. Most people don't demand to see the pediatrician's degree and certifications because the government regulates the industry.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I'm absolutely pro regulation (I'm from europe) but the notion that all regulation is good is just as flawed as the proposition that no regulation would be better. I also agree about the capitalistic basis for regulation, but it really seems to me as if people are substituting the economic asymmetry of the median consumer vs a manufacturer for the liability distribution. That is to say, because the manufacturer has deeper pockets than the consumer (by selling a somewhat dangerous product at a profit) then the manufacturer should bear the bulk of the liability solely because of a greater ability to pay, and regardless of whether the consumer was adequately informed. Profitability does not automatically imply liability...unless you want all manufacturers to carry total liability insurance for every product they sell and for every product to become significantly more expensive as a result.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by tn13 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

> On the contrary it can put all their business at total risk. ...mostly by regulation, right? I mean – we can all hope that all parent read about all accidents that kill people and then independently come to the smart conclusion, including a level-headed appreciation of the risk, normalized within the background context and the market penetration of ultra-strong magnets... or – better idea – let's put some smart people in a room and let them make a recommendation. There's even a staunchly capitalistic argument for regulation: it's the only reason we trust food from a supermarket we've never visited before, or a new toy, or an online bank, or a really fast looking electric car from California made by this guy who mostly deals in explosions controlled by 400,000 mechanical parts all supplied by the lowest bidder. In other words: Regulation creates the trust that's essential for any economic activity.

tn13 10y ago
> ...mostly by regulation, right? Mostly by bad reviews, lawsuites and bad PR. One good example of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide While everyone thinks that it was an evil pharma that should have stopped by regulators it appears that the pharma company lost billions but saved by regulators instead. >we can all hope that all parent read about all accidents that kill people and then independently come to the smart conclusion Neither parent not bureaucrats can do that 100% correctly. Parents can do it infinitely better that the people in washington. Babies will die no matter what. > let's put some smart people in a room and let them make a recommendation. Like smart people deciding on housing loans, student loans, cheaper healthcare, invasion of Iraq ? It eventually snowballs into a giant problem that makes the original problem far less worse. Smart people do not possess the intelligence or information to make decisions for others.
- matt4077 10y ago
  You're really bringing Thalidomide, of all examples? To quite the Wikipedia article you linked: For correctly denying the application despite the pressure from Richardson-Merrell, Kelsey eventually received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service at a 1962 ceremony with President John F. Kennedy. In September 2010, the FDA honored Kelsey with the first Kelsey award. The award, given annually to an FDA staff member, came 50 years after Kelsey, then a new medical officer at the agency, first reviewed the application from the William S. Merrell Company of Cincinnati.[109] Cardiologist Helen B. Taussig learned of the damaging effects of the drug thalidomide on newborns and in 1967, testified before Congress on this matter after a trip to Germany where she worked with infants with phocomelia (severe limb deformities). As a result of her efforts, thalidomide was banned in the United States and Europe. I mean, it did take a while, but they didn't just give her an award – they _named_ the thing after her when they finally got around to recognize her. Meanwhile, in places where the market was regulating itself: Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived.
  - tn13 10y ago
    It only strengthens by argument. FDA saved people from Thalidomide ? What about over 100K people who lost their life because FDA delayed approval of Provenge and many other life saving drugs ? What about the near monopoly that FDA has granted to EpiPens ? What about millions of Americans who can afford basic healthcare because of FDA's compliance costs and die as a result ? Just for sample check this : http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2010/11/FDA-Delay-of-One-Drug-Causes-Lost-Life-Years/Page-01 http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2010/11/FDA-Delay-of-O... FDA or market based regulation totally depends on the outcomes and at least for me it is very apparent that market is extremely good at figuring out what works and what not than FDA. Also at significantly lower costs. >Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. It is actually a very good example of how quickly market can detect signals and respond to it. FDA in this case is purely awarded for being slow. FDA has a very poor history of preventing harmful drugs one has to only look at the list of lawsuites after which the drugs ere taken back from market.
tn13 10y ago
> Regulation creates the trust that's essential for any economic activity. At the moment that seems completely false to me. I don't remember a single time I took any government regulation seriously. For example I take my mechanic's advice about car safety far more seriously than government reports and ratings. I trust Yelp lot more to chose a doctor for my kid than any government report. Honestly, I dont even care if the doctor actually had a medical degree or not if the yelp reviews and my peer's reviews about that doctor are good enough. Regulator's role in deceiving public on important issues on the contrary makes me fare more skeptical. Regulator's stand on marijuana, vaping, sugar, fat, mother's milk, ethanol in gas and many others things is often false.
- dpark 10y ago
  > For example I take my mechanic's advice about car safety far more seriously than government reports and ratings. Why? Your mechanic might have useful insight into the reliability of cars but would have little more visibility into the safety of cars than the average person. > Honestly, I dont even care if the doctor actually had a medical degree or not if the yelp reviews and my peer's reviews about that doctor are good enough. I hope your kid is a rhetorical device and not an actual child.
  - tn13 10y ago
    > Your mechanic might have useful insight into the reliability of cars but would have little more visibility into the safety of cars than the average person. On the contrary he knows more people in real accidents unlike the regulators and sees on regular basis which car did better and worse. He has a clear skin in the game to offer me reliable advice. > I hope your kid is a rhetorical device and not an actual child. It is a rhetorical device but I hardly doubt people demand to see their pediatrician's degree certificate.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Your mechanic definitely doesn't have sufficient data to make meaningful statements about which cars are safer. Your mechanic might have opinions about which models look better or worse after certain types of accidents but that says nothing about safety. Safety data is gathered by either recording accident outcomes or by simulating accidents. Your mechanic is doing neither of those. In fact the most important outcome is whether a passenger or driver dies, and your mechanic probably never sees those because the cars are generally totaled. Most people don't demand to see the pediatrician's degree and certifications because the government regulates the industry.
anigbrowl 10y ago
I'm absolutely pro regulation (I'm from europe) but the notion that all regulation is good is just as flawed as the proposition that no regulation would be better. I also agree about the capitalistic basis for regulation, but it really seems to me as if people are substituting the economic asymmetry of the median consumer vs a manufacturer for the liability distribution. That is to say, because the manufacturer has deeper pockets than the consumer (by selling a somewhat dangerous product at a profit) then the manufacturer should bear the bulk of the liability solely because of a greater ability to pay, and regardless of whether the consumer was adequately informed. Profitability does not automatically imply liability...unless you want all manufacturers to carry total liability insurance for every product they sell and for every product to become significantly more expensive as a result.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]