4 ms·

Seems to me that still falls under the umbrella of "bad government policy". So, you could say bad government policy doesn't explain the whole problem. There's

Seems to me that still falls under the umbrella of "bad government policy". So, you could say bad government policy doesn't explain the whole problem. There's also bad government policy.

lupire 4y ago
This is Reason. Ther good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. There's a case to be made about fine-tuning things in some ways as the article suggests, but it's still gross to frame this under the "government is bad" banner as Reason does. This concern is especially relevant in the baby formula space, where Nestle killed thousands of babies by pushing their mothers off breast milk onto unreliably supplied formula.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > This is Reason. Ther good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. Their good government policy would be to give the poor families money. This would have the great side effect of getting rid of the idiotic state by state monopolies but the justification is the same as every other tied benefit. This is stupid. Give people the money and let them decide what to spend it on. They have the information and motivation.
  - doyouevensunbro 4y ago
    I have zero faith that once the government programs are stopped the second step of giving money to the poor would actually happen.
- russellendicott 4y ago
  As a parent of a newborn, none of the mothers we talk to actually want to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is a huge PITA for women, especially if they work. Despite the advice to breastfeed for 2 years it's rare if a mother lasts 6 months. I guess you could argue that if formula wasn't an option then mothers would _have_ to breastfeed but then they couldn't work. My point is that formula is a very attractive option for women so it's not like Nestle is holding a gun to their head. It's just a product they know people will buy.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    The nestle thing is referring to a specific set of events it sounds like you might not be aware fully of. "Thousands" is a dramatically conservative understatement and while they didn't literally hold a gun to anyone's head (that I'm aware of, in this case,,,) they did do things like have reps dress as nurses and advise impoverished illiterate mothers that they needed to use formula knowing it would be received as trustworthy medical advice. I may not be representing it that well but if anything because I'm trying to carefully control my tone and am downplaying the harm knowingly caused. There are lot of different pressures on people and a lot of reasons why they might choose not to breastfeed but the nestle thing is not really that and is as clear cut evil as it gets really go check it out.
  - watwut 4y ago
    It is more that you live in an anti brestfeed bubble then anything else. 57.6 percent of mothers breastfeed after 6 months. That is not rare, that is majority. Also, women who stay with baby for few months or weeks arw no rarity - and breastfeeding is significantly easier in that setup. Not everyone can or find it comfortable, but it is not that much PITA in median.
  - MandieD 4y ago
    That’s one of the many reasons I’m glad that I live in, and had my kid in, Germany. The year I was off work wasn’t paid anywhere near my pre-baby post-tax salary (those payments are capped at 1800 EUR/mo), but because they cover up to 65% of previous net, and there are very strong legal protections for your job, taking that year is pretty much expected, followed on by a further two years part-time. That said, I was also amazed at how reasonably-priced formula is here. I had other issues and ended up supplementing for awhile, and it really wouldn’t have been that big a deal - about 2-3 EUR/day using Hipp (midrange) powder if we’d had to feed it exclusively.
- bradleybuda 4y ago
  > Their good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. Sure it would. If baby formula were unregulated the price would be lower - this is obvious on its face. It would also (probably) be riskier, and the trade-off might not be worth it, but it would be cheaper. We systematically underestimate how much poverty is worsened by regulation that increase the prices and/or reduces the availability of goods. The left has finally gotten religion here on housing ("YIMBY" just means "deregulate construction in order to drive down prices") so maybe there's hope.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    We are all worsened if the cheap baby formula has a 20% chance of killing your baby.
  - sorethescore 4y ago
    Cheaper but deadlier doesn't sound like a very good tradeoff when talking about infants.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    > If baby formula were unregulated the price would be lower - this is obvious on its face This isn’t obvious at all. One steady state condition that occurs without regulation is a predatory monopoly and price gouging. And we aren’t even talking about fraudulent or harmful products reaching the market. No regulation just leads to a mafia state. Nobody wants it.
  - specialist 4y ago
    What are some examples of CPG unregulated less expensive products?
- anonuser123456 4y ago
  >This is Reason. Ther good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. This is not quite true. There are plenty of libertarian thinkers that would be perfectly happy just cutting checks to poor people and letting them procure what the need.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    It's a good thing our leftist betters are always around to remind us that every time this has been tried, it has resulted in baby formula manufacturers switching to bottling pure toxic waste and killing millions of babies.

Seems to me that still falls under the umbrella of "bad government policy". So, you could say bad government policy doesn't explain the whole problem. There's also bad government policy.

lupire 4y ago

This is Reason. Ther good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. There's a case to be made about fine-tuning things in some ways as the article suggests, but it's still gross to frame this under the "government is bad" banner as Reason does. This concern is especially relevant in the baby formula space, where Nestle killed thousands of babies by pushing their mothers off breast milk onto unreliably supplied formula.

barry-cotter 4y ago
> This is Reason. Ther good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. Their good government policy would be to give the poor families money. This would have the great side effect of getting rid of the idiotic state by state monopolies but the justification is the same as every other tied benefit. This is stupid. Give people the money and let them decide what to spend it on. They have the information and motivation.
- doyouevensunbro 4y ago
  I have zero faith that once the government programs are stopped the second step of giving money to the poor would actually happen.
russellendicott 4y ago
As a parent of a newborn, none of the mothers we talk to actually want to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is a huge PITA for women, especially if they work. Despite the advice to breastfeed for 2 years it's rare if a mother lasts 6 months. I guess you could argue that if formula wasn't an option then mothers would _have_ to breastfeed but then they couldn't work. My point is that formula is a very attractive option for women so it's not like Nestle is holding a gun to their head. It's just a product they know people will buy.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  The nestle thing is referring to a specific set of events it sounds like you might not be aware fully of. "Thousands" is a dramatically conservative understatement and while they didn't literally hold a gun to anyone's head (that I'm aware of, in this case,,,) they did do things like have reps dress as nurses and advise impoverished illiterate mothers that they needed to use formula knowing it would be received as trustworthy medical advice. I may not be representing it that well but if anything because I'm trying to carefully control my tone and am downplaying the harm knowingly caused. There are lot of different pressures on people and a lot of reasons why they might choose not to breastfeed but the nestle thing is not really that and is as clear cut evil as it gets really go check it out.
- watwut 4y ago
  It is more that you live in an anti brestfeed bubble then anything else. 57.6 percent of mothers breastfeed after 6 months. That is not rare, that is majority. Also, women who stay with baby for few months or weeks arw no rarity - and breastfeeding is significantly easier in that setup. Not everyone can or find it comfortable, but it is not that much PITA in median.
- MandieD 4y ago
  That’s one of the many reasons I’m glad that I live in, and had my kid in, Germany. The year I was off work wasn’t paid anywhere near my pre-baby post-tax salary (those payments are capped at 1800 EUR/mo), but because they cover up to 65% of previous net, and there are very strong legal protections for your job, taking that year is pretty much expected, followed on by a further two years part-time. That said, I was also amazed at how reasonably-priced formula is here. I had other issues and ended up supplementing for awhile, and it really wouldn’t have been that big a deal - about 2-3 EUR/day using Hipp (midrange) powder if we’d had to feed it exclusively.
bradleybuda 4y ago
> Their good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. Sure it would. If baby formula were unregulated the price would be lower - this is obvious on its face. It would also (probably) be riskier, and the trade-off might not be worth it, but it would be cheaper. We systematically underestimate how much poverty is worsened by regulation that increase the prices and/or reduces the availability of goods. The left has finally gotten religion here on housing ("YIMBY" just means "deregulate construction in order to drive down prices") so maybe there's hope.
- fragmede 4y ago
  We are all worsened if the cheap baby formula has a 20% chance of killing your baby.
- sorethescore 4y ago
  Cheaper but deadlier doesn't sound like a very good tradeoff when talking about infants.
- CPLX 4y ago
  > If baby formula were unregulated the price would be lower - this is obvious on its face This isn’t obvious at all. One steady state condition that occurs without regulation is a predatory monopoly and price gouging. And we aren’t even talking about fraudulent or harmful products reaching the market. No regulation just leads to a mafia state. Nobody wants it.
- specialist 4y ago
  What are some examples of CPG unregulated less expensive products?
anonuser123456 4y ago
>This is Reason. Ther good government policy would be doing nothing, which wouldn't help poor families get formula either. This is not quite true. There are plenty of libertarian thinkers that would be perfectly happy just cutting checks to poor people and letting them procure what the need.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  It's a good thing our leftist betters are always around to remind us that every time this has been tried, it has resulted in baby formula manufacturers switching to bottling pure toxic waste and killing millions of babies.