4 ms·

> I write this as a man who has several uncles and cousins who are farmers, including some who raise cattle All of whom would not be harmed by outlawing the in

> I write this as a man who has several uncles and cousins who are farmers, including some who raise cattle All of whom would not be harmed by outlawing the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in agriculture. Right now we have a situation where people raising cattle can make more profit by using antibiotics, this drives down the cost of meat to where farmers raising cattle naturally can't compete on price (and must charge a premium for antibiotic-free meat). If the laws were changed, no one would use antibiotics, consumers would pay an extra 50 cents / pound of beef and the farmers would remain equally profitable. In fact, it might make the midwestern family farm viable again, right now they can't compete with the massive cattle lots, but such regulation could make raising 10-100 head of cattle a worthwhile endeavor again.

maxerickson 13y ago
The FDA has asked nicely for industry to please stop using antibiotics in feed: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304444604577338063592731138 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230444460...
- tene 13y ago
  One of the unfortunate truths of current human society is that economic incentives are far more powerful than polite requests for group cooperation.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    That's not an ill of modern society, it's just basic game theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
    - mark_integerdsv 13y ago
      No, it's modern society or even simply human nature. Game Theory is a method of examining it.
    - antimagic 13y ago
      This is not the Prisoner's Dilemma - the "prisoners" are allowed to talk to each other and coordinate in this case. Say all the farmers in the US sign an agreement not to use antibiotics. They also pay a small fee for policing this agreement amongst themselves to make sure that nobody is cheating. This gives a result completely different from that of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
  - dd36 13y ago
    Tragedy of the commons.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  As an extremist libertarian, one whom doesn't even want the FDA to exist in the first place, I can say that the failure of the FDA to control this outrageous overuse of antibiotics is just insane. Even extremist libertarians think that the government should be able to exert its' powers in order to prevent contagion. This is a clear example of the government failing in one of its core responsibilities.
  - hobs 13y ago
    Really? If you never wanted the FDA how could the government ever accomplish that feat? (which it currently isn't) Wouldn't an extremist libertarian say something related to the market sorting it out? I am genuinely interested in your opinion. (tragedy of the commons and all that)
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      There's no singular school of thought, but yes libertarians almost universally favor government prevention of contagion. It's also not unusual for us to favor some environmental regulations (though by no means approved by all of us!). Markets are only one facet of a healthy functioning society. You still need government and it's courts and law enforcement. Civil courts deal with the negative externalities (pollution, contagion, etc), not markets. There are of course myriad instances of humans banding together on their own to solve tragedy of the commons issues, without the courts or regulation, but of course in the US anti-trust laws would prevent such coordination as "cartel like behavior". But let's assume the "ultimate extreme libertarian society", in which even the air we breathe has been privatized. The air shareholders would still need to use the courts to enforce their ownership rights against polluters (a factory, for example). Without the authority of the court to back them up, the air shareholder would never be able to actually force the factory to pay for the right to pollute. The market helps ensure reasonably efficient allocation of air rights, but the courts (government) are still required to actually make the system function. And finally, to answer your first question: Why would you need an FDA to restrict antibiotic use in agriculture? Normal courts, cops, and laws can't do that?
bobbydavid 13y ago
Only partially true. You assume beef is an inelastic commodity; that we must consume our beef and will pay any price come hell or high water. True for some people, perhaps :P but other people may eat less meat, eat smaller portions, or switch to being vegetarian. The reality is that a world with expensive beef means less overall consumption of beef. In short, prohibiting indiscriminate antibiotics would make it easier on farmers who already forgo them, but it could still hurt GP's farmer relatives (assuming they're currently guzzling down antibiotics) because the overall market for beef would shrink.
- wisty 13y ago
  You're assuming that farmers would produce the same volume of beef.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
This ignores supply/demand, higher costs would definitely drive down demand, which would lower sales volume and potentially lower total revenue and profit. (Though I think it's a good idea regardless.)

maxerickson 13y ago

The FDA has asked nicely for industry to please stop using antibiotics in feed: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304444604577338063592731138 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230444460...

tene 13y ago
One of the unfortunate truths of current human society is that economic incentives are far more powerful than polite requests for group cooperation.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  That's not an ill of modern society, it's just basic game theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
  - mark_integerdsv 13y ago
    No, it's modern society or even simply human nature. Game Theory is a method of examining it.
  - antimagic 13y ago
    This is not the Prisoner's Dilemma - the "prisoners" are allowed to talk to each other and coordinate in this case. Say all the farmers in the US sign an agreement not to use antibiotics. They also pay a small fee for policing this agreement amongst themselves to make sure that nobody is cheating. This gives a result completely different from that of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
- dd36 13y ago
  Tragedy of the commons.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
As an extremist libertarian, one whom doesn't even want the FDA to exist in the first place, I can say that the failure of the FDA to control this outrageous overuse of antibiotics is just insane. Even extremist libertarians think that the government should be able to exert its' powers in order to prevent contagion. This is a clear example of the government failing in one of its core responsibilities.
- hobs 13y ago
  Really? If you never wanted the FDA how could the government ever accomplish that feat? (which it currently isn't) Wouldn't an extremist libertarian say something related to the market sorting it out? I am genuinely interested in your opinion. (tragedy of the commons and all that)
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    There's no singular school of thought, but yes libertarians almost universally favor government prevention of contagion. It's also not unusual for us to favor some environmental regulations (though by no means approved by all of us!). Markets are only one facet of a healthy functioning society. You still need government and it's courts and law enforcement. Civil courts deal with the negative externalities (pollution, contagion, etc), not markets. There are of course myriad instances of humans banding together on their own to solve tragedy of the commons issues, without the courts or regulation, but of course in the US anti-trust laws would prevent such coordination as "cartel like behavior". But let's assume the "ultimate extreme libertarian society", in which even the air we breathe has been privatized. The air shareholders would still need to use the courts to enforce their ownership rights against polluters (a factory, for example). Without the authority of the court to back them up, the air shareholder would never be able to actually force the factory to pay for the right to pollute. The market helps ensure reasonably efficient allocation of air rights, but the courts (government) are still required to actually make the system function. And finally, to answer your first question: Why would you need an FDA to restrict antibiotic use in agriculture? Normal courts, cops, and laws can't do that?

bobbydavid 13y ago

Only partially true. You assume beef is an inelastic commodity; that we must consume our beef and will pay any price come hell or high water. True for some people, perhaps :P but other people may eat less meat, eat smaller portions, or switch to being vegetarian. The reality is that a world with expensive beef means less overall consumption of beef. In short, prohibiting indiscriminate antibiotics would make it easier on farmers who already forgo them, but it could still hurt GP's farmer relatives (assuming they're currently guzzling down antibiotics) because the overall market for beef would shrink.

wisty 13y ago
You're assuming that farmers would produce the same volume of beef.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

This ignores supply/demand, higher costs would definitely drive down demand, which would lower sales volume and potentially lower total revenue and profit. (Though I think it's a good idea regardless.)