3 ms·

My point about brands was that this kind of thing is VERY bad for the companies at fault and they work hard to avoid it. Another point about regulation is that

My point about brands was that this kind of thing is VERY bad for the companies at fault and they work hard to avoid it. Another point about regulation is that is actually doesn't solve much. Not only do people die from drugs both from failures in testing despite regulation, but they also die from NOT taking drugs because of delays in the regulator process. Most business take pride in what they make. Most people look for that, and look for recommendations from peers. That system is remarkably effective.

aswanson 18y ago
I would not argue the effectiveness of that system, but can you honestly say we should not regulate who can fly an airplane or drive a car, practice heart surgery or design bridges and buildings? Do you think an unfettered market with no regulation of these things is a good idea?
- Darmani 18y ago
  Depends how much people care about who they go to for heart surgery.
- vitaminj 18y ago
  The free market would eventually fix all these problems, albeit after a period of suffering and very likely, many deaths. Industry standards and associations would crop up after a string of failures, and consumers would eventually move towards firms that are endorsed by the industry standard bodies. eg. chartered accountants. Regulations are just there to try and avoid the transition period of pain (and death).
  - aswanson 18y ago
    Industry standards and associations would crop up after a string of failures, and consumers would eventually move towards firms that are endorsed by the industry standard bodies. eg. chartered accountants Sounds remarkably similar to where we are.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > The free market would eventually fix all these problems Saying that doesn't make it true, it's a belief, not a fact, keep that in mind.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  After a bit of thought, most calls for regulation are unfounded. I would start by emphasizing that things that can kill lots of people should be regulated. Cars and planes and buildings fall in that category. But how? An airline should be forced to get insurance for the risk of bad pilots. That might be enough to align incentives and protect people from risk. It is a slightly irrelevant issue as laws will be passed within our lifetimes that mandate a human must _not_ fly a commercial airplane. Only robots. Driving is similar, but much easier, so more people can do it. It's harder from a robotics front, but will also be solved soon. I've worked on robot cars. Heart surgery is where it gets interesting. By mandating a certain level of quality, you essentially place a price floor above the market price on medical care. That means a lot of people don't get it. Would you rather have a shoddy operation or none at all? As desperate times often demonstrate (e.g. delivering a baby outside a hospital by necessity), people want shoddy care over none at all. So licensing doctors is bad. Private accreditation is enough. I will trust a doctor that has received a credential or accreditation from an institution I trust. I certainly trust Harvard more than I trust the AMA or HHS. You should read Capitalism and Freedom by the way. Milton Friedman is an excellent author. He makes this issue crystal clear.
  - aswanson 18y ago
    I will give it a read, thanks for the suggestion.
aswanson 18y ago
Most business take pride in what they make.. And some didn't/don't: By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, cosmetics which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. The only way that the FDA could even seize the product was due to a misbranding problem: an "Elixir" was defined as a medication dissolved in ethanol, not the diethylene glycol used in the Elixir Sulfanilamide. http://www.calcompnutrition.com/natural-cures-kevin-trudeau.html http://www.calcompnutrition.com/natural-cures-kevin-trudeau.... http://www.ripoffreport.com/searchresults.asp?q1=ALL&q4=&q6=&q3=&q2=&q7=&searchtype=0&submit2=Search!&q5=Aamco http://www.ripoffreport.com/searchresults.asp?q1=ALL&q4=...
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Medicine and media today are very different. Also, stories like this get lots of attention. They skew perception about instances of events like this. Regulation's side effect is often inaction or inactivity. You don't really hear much about that. Many real elixirs are killing people right now, by not getting on the market fast enough to save lives because of the lengthy FDA approval process. You don't hear about that.

aswanson 18y ago

I would not argue the effectiveness of that system, but can you honestly say we should not regulate who can fly an airplane or drive a car, practice heart surgery or design bridges and buildings? Do you think an unfettered market with no regulation of these things is a good idea?

Darmani 18y ago
Depends how much people care about who they go to for heart surgery.
vitaminj 18y ago
The free market would eventually fix all these problems, albeit after a period of suffering and very likely, many deaths. Industry standards and associations would crop up after a string of failures, and consumers would eventually move towards firms that are endorsed by the industry standard bodies. eg. chartered accountants. Regulations are just there to try and avoid the transition period of pain (and death).
- aswanson 18y ago
  Industry standards and associations would crop up after a string of failures, and consumers would eventually move towards firms that are endorsed by the industry standard bodies. eg. chartered accountants Sounds remarkably similar to where we are.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > The free market would eventually fix all these problems Saying that doesn't make it true, it's a belief, not a fact, keep that in mind.
ivankirigin 18y ago
After a bit of thought, most calls for regulation are unfounded. I would start by emphasizing that things that can kill lots of people should be regulated. Cars and planes and buildings fall in that category. But how? An airline should be forced to get insurance for the risk of bad pilots. That might be enough to align incentives and protect people from risk. It is a slightly irrelevant issue as laws will be passed within our lifetimes that mandate a human must _not_ fly a commercial airplane. Only robots. Driving is similar, but much easier, so more people can do it. It's harder from a robotics front, but will also be solved soon. I've worked on robot cars. Heart surgery is where it gets interesting. By mandating a certain level of quality, you essentially place a price floor above the market price on medical care. That means a lot of people don't get it. Would you rather have a shoddy operation or none at all? As desperate times often demonstrate (e.g. delivering a baby outside a hospital by necessity), people want shoddy care over none at all. So licensing doctors is bad. Private accreditation is enough. I will trust a doctor that has received a credential or accreditation from an institution I trust. I certainly trust Harvard more than I trust the AMA or HHS. You should read Capitalism and Freedom by the way. Milton Friedman is an excellent author. He makes this issue crystal clear.
- aswanson 18y ago
  I will give it a read, thanks for the suggestion.

aswanson 18y ago

Most business take pride in what they make.. And some didn't/don't: By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, cosmetics which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. The only way that the FDA could even seize the product was due to a misbranding problem: an "Elixir" was defined as a medication dissolved in ethanol, not the diethylene glycol used in the Elixir Sulfanilamide. http://www.calcompnutrition.com/natural-cures-kevin-trudeau.html http://www.calcompnutrition.com/natural-cures-kevin-trudeau.... http://www.ripoffreport.com/searchresults.asp?q1=ALL&q4=&q6=&q3=&q2=&q7=&searchtype=0&submit2=Search!&q5=Aamco http://www.ripoffreport.com/searchresults.asp?q1=ALL&q4=...

ivankirigin 18y ago
Medicine and media today are very different. Also, stories like this get lots of attention. They skew perception about instances of events like this. Regulation's side effect is often inaction or inactivity. You don't really hear much about that. Many real elixirs are killing people right now, by not getting on the market fast enough to save lives because of the lengthy FDA approval process. You don't hear about that.