Cricket Player Manager
Page 74 of 238 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684124174 ... LastLast
Results 1,096 to 1,110 of 3556
Like Tree80Likes

Thread: The American Politics thread

  1. #1096
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,696


    "If I have two beans, and I add two more beans..."

  2. #1097
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Um, what?



    No, they will. Because the consumers demand it. That's where individual freedom meets individual responsibility. We must only buy products that are accepted as safe by private agencies. Then they will open their doors willingly. People already show preferences towards seals like the Heart Foundation and food businesses seek out their tick of approval - i.e. the real world.

    Home
    http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/Si...pping_List.pdf
    ...

    (1) except the heart foundation determines how "heart-friendly" a product is. not whether i will die or not when i eat it.
    (2) the heart foundation is a not-for-profit organisation which is hence outside the scope of traditional market pressure.
    (3) the heart foundation tick is voluntary which is the whole ****ing point. the vast majority of foods will not have one.
    (4) the vast majority of people do not actually care that much about the heart foundation tick.
    (5) i find it utterly rephrensible that you find it appropriate that people who do not fit your requisite definition of "responsible" are left to the jungle without any protection from the left of society. utterly reprehensible.

    i'm not going to even answer the first part of the post. go do some research.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  3. #1098
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I've just noticed Spark has 21,000 posts in two years.
    tour threads will never be the same again

  4. #1099
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    33,580
    if people don't want to eat food that will kill them they won't eat food that will kill them, you morons.
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left


  5. #1100
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,067
    Dead people don't need food tbf.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  6. #1101
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,056
    dead people are incredibly responsible members of society tbf. they don't drink, smoke, get sick or place any burden on the economy whatsoever.

    now if we could just get rid of undertakers somehow...

  7. #1102
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    33,580
    less people = less demand = prices drop

  8. #1103
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,056
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Regulatory capture, anyone?
    industry self regulation ===> regulatory capture. guaranteed every single time. especially when the product is so "black box" where there is so little knowledge at the consumer level of critical components of the product and how it is put together. like, for example, "was the machine this tuna tin was made in properly sanatised on a regular basis?"
    Last edited by Spark; 22-04-2012 at 07:55 AM.

  9. #1104
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,067
    Unlikely I'm afraid. With the new enlightenment, market forces will dictate a rise in demand for undertakers.

    No info on whether these undertakers have chop shop businesses on the side.

  10. #1105
    International Coach morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    11,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post


    "If I have two beans, and I add two more beans..."


    "A very small casserole dish"
    5-0

    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
    RIP Hughesy

    Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

  11. #1106
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    ...

    (1) except the heart foundation determines how "heart-friendly" a product is. not whether i will die or not when i eat it.
    (2) the heart foundation is a not-for-profit organisation which is hence outside the scope of traditional market pressure.
    (3) the heart foundation tick is voluntary which is the whole ****ing point. the vast majority of foods will not have one.
    (4) the vast majority of people do not actually care that much about the heart foundation tick.
    (5) i find it utterly rephrensible that you find it appropriate that people who do not fit your requisite definition of "responsible" are left to the jungle without any protection from the left of society. utterly reprehensible.

    i'm not going to even answer the first part of the post. go do some research.
    1) Irrelevant. You are taking the example literal - as if the heart foundation is concerned with being Australia's FDA. An independant regulatory agency can determine with their own trials with it's effects on health.
    2) Whether an agency should be for profit or not is a discussion in itself. It is not a defence to having government regulatory agencies. Nor should there be an assumption that there'd only be one.
    3) That is whole point. That companies will voluntarily want to be given accreditation due to the demands of the public and the prestige that can be garnered with the association of being given a seal.
    4) Again, it was just an example. One must have a less myopic view. They may not care now when there is a regulatory body, but once people are reliant on them it'll become second nature to look.
    5) People who are not looking out for their best interests and actively seek it so someone else does so are irresponsible. It is a pretty simple definition and hardly worthy of it being found reprehensible. I find it reprehensible that someone wishes to live a certain lifestyle and have the temerity to expect others to pay for it.
    Last edited by Ikki; 22-04-2012 at 08:02 AM.
    ★★★★★

  12. #1107
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    industry self regulation ===> regulatory capture. guaranteed every single time. especially when the product is so "black box" where there is so little knowledge at the consumer level of critical components of the product and how it is put together. like, for example, "was the machine this tuna tin was made in properly sanatised on a regular basis?"
    You keep talking of information asymmetry and brought it up in the discussion regarding FDA. It frankly is not a justification to have a public regulatory body because in damn near everything there is information asymmetry.

    Proponents of central planning in matters of health point to Arrow's paper and his justifications that it garners a special recognition - their is a health risk determination. But that is no different to a mechanic fixing your car. You also have information asymmetry and are vulnerable to being taken advantage of. Your car crashes you die. Should their be a regulatory body there too?
    Last edited by Ikki; 22-04-2012 at 08:01 AM.

  13. #1108
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,056
    1) Irrelevant. You are taking the example literal. An independant regulatory agency can determine with their own trials with it's effects on health.
    2) Whether an agency should be for profit or not is a discussion in itself. It is not a defence to having government regulatory agencies. Nor should there be an assumption that there'd only be one.
    3) That is whole point. That companies will voluntarily want to be given accreditation due to the demands of the public and the prestige that can be garnered with the association of being given a seal.
    4) Again, it was just an example. And again, one must have a less myopic view. They may not care now when there is a regulatory body, but once people are reliant to them it'll become second nature to look.
    5) People who are not looking out for their best interests and actively seek it so someone else does so are irresponsible. It is a pretty simple definition and hardly worthy of it being found reprehensible. I find it reprehensible that someone wishes to live a certain lifestyle and have the temerity to expect others to pay for it.
    (1) seriously wtf? do you have any comprehension of how food outbreaks work? hint: give me a box of 1000 random samples of food from a contaminated factory and chances are not one will be contaminated. but people will still buy products that will put them in hospital, because it only takes an extremely small number of contaminated products to cause an outbreak.
    (2) ffs it's the whole point. how can you have any understanding of market economics and not understand the effect market forces have and when organisations are exempt from said forces?
    (3) + (4) which brings me back to my previous point. regulatory capture will occur, and in essence a private monopoly will take the place of the public monopoly on food regulation, one that is deeply insidious because it is entirely reliant, it makes its profits entirely from the wishes of other businesses. a balance will be struck but because of the nature of food outbreaks, which are sporadic and extremely difficult to trace, the requisite quality required for businesses to prevent them - as they do now to a large extent - will be regarded as not maximizing potential profit and hence standards will fall. THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL POINT.
    (5) i expect to be able to survive and yes i do expect others to chip in a little via taxes to make sure that i can do so. this is not me being able to buy yachts. this is not me wanting to buy a ferrari. this is wanting me being able to EAT LUNCH WITHOUT BEING POISONED.

    i actually have more time for the reason.com "cbf" argument than this.

  14. #1109
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    You keep talking of information asymmetry and brought it up in the discussion regarding FDA. It frankly is not a justification to have a public regulatory body because in damn near everything there is information asymmetry.

    Proponents of central planning in matters of health point to Arrow's paper and his justifications that it garners a special recognition - their is a health risk determination. But that is no different to a mechanic fixing your car. You also have information asymmetry and are vulnerable to being taken advantage of. Your car crashes you die. Should their be a regulatory body there too?
    there is. if your car is found to have been damaged or made worse by the mechanic, the mechanic is liable. regulation 101.

    kind of worried that i had to explain this...
    Last edited by Spark; 22-04-2012 at 08:07 AM.

  15. #1110
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    (1) seriously wtf? do you have any comprehension of how food outbreaks work? hint: give me a box of 1000 random samples of food from a contaminated factory and chances are not one will be contaminated. but people will still buy products that will put them in hospital, because it only takes an extremely small number of contaminated products to cause an outbreak.

    Regulatory agencies look at the practices of production. They do not inspect every box or every single chocolate to make sure there isn't an outbreak. The argument here is whether the funding of this body to perform regulatory checks should be private or public.

    Why should methods of risk assessment or contamination control change because of that? I fail to see how you even came to that point.

    (2) ffs it's the whole point. how can you have any understanding of market economics and not understand the effect market forces have and when organisations are exempt from said forces?
    You do know regulatory agencies are funded not just by providing a service right? And let's say they are for-profit. What is your point? That they can be influenced? Sure, but in the end they're in competition. Once they approve something and it causes harm - especially if a rival regulator has denied it - their repute plumets.

    (3) + (4) which brings me back to my previous point. regulatory capture will occur, and in essence a private monopoly will take the place of the public monopoly on food regulation, one that is deeply insidious because it is entirely reliant, it makes its profits entirely from the wishes of other businesses. a balance will be struck but because of the nature of food outbreaks, which are sporadic and extremely difficult to trace, the requisite quality required for businesses to prevent them - as they do now to a large extent - will be regarded as not maximizing potential profit and hence standards will fall. THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL POINT.
    Why are you assuming there would be one or their would ultimately be a monopoly? You've gone from a to z with little understanding in what is being said.

    Moreover, let's take that as the worst case scenario. It is still better than having a public body. The same body under it's public guise is prone to the same perversions. What is worse, however, is that a public body will remain indefinitely due to the monopoly position it has garnered through force - through legal means and funding through government. Or that it will ruin it's reputation and be re-built again as a renamed body, still funding through government.

    In a private framework that regulatory body is always at the mercy of competition - even if it takes that competition 100 years to get to a place to economically worry the rival and perverse body. But it is still much better because it has the possibility of doing that. Whereas the government gives you no possibility of doing that.

    I explained this to you before in the FDA discussion and it seemed you understood and accepted it then. The same principle applies.

    (5) i expect to be able to survive and yes i do expect others to chip in a little via taxes to make sure that i can do so. this is not me being able to buy yachts. this is not me wanting to buy a ferrari. this is wanting me being able to EAT LUNCH WITHOUT BEING POISONED.

    i actually have more time for the reason.com "cbf" argument than this.
    So, you are definitively irresponsible. You do want others to chip in. The problem with this mentality is that it forgets that you also have to chip in for others. Moreover, you forget some people don't want to have to pay for something you want because they have no need or want for it themselves. And when such a thing is publicly funded it inevitably ratchets up in cost because of the waste of such a bureaucracy.

    If such a thing is viable financially, then you and the people who think like you should use your own initiatives to pool your resources and buy what you want for the greater good. If it doesn't, why do you have to drag everyone with you?

    As I said, this is the most reprehensible mindset I can thing of. It is a testament to our indoctrination as citizens that we not only have this mindset prevalent, but we feel ENTITLED to it and if someone points it out we get angry at them for not living in their world. You try to paint it out as if going out to eat is not a big ask - it's not a yacht - but who says it isnt? That's a relative ask - some people can't afford to eat out. And let's say it isn't, who says I should chip in for you anyway? I would much rather help people I know and that are closer to me than spend it on you. In the end, if I want to piss away or on that money, that is my choice too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    there is. if your car is found to have been damaged or made worse by the mechanic, the mechanic is liable. regulation 101.

    kind of worried that i had to explain this...
    Haha, but that is what I have been saying all along. My question is, why shouldn't there be a regulatory body - other than the courts (which is what I have been promoting for food business violations, so don't argue that to me)? Are mechanics subject to stringent checks? When they sell you a car part, is there an overview of prices they must adhere to? Does a public regulatory body shut them down if they don't use the right part or method?
    Last edited by Ikki; 22-04-2012 at 08:35 AM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The British Politics Thread
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4159
    Last Post: 23-11-2014, 04:33 AM
  2. Media
    By SirBloody Idiot in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 07:10 AM
  3. FAQ & Introduction Thread
    By Samuel_Vimes in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-06-2011, 12:06 PM
  4. Finally ! A Last Word Thread
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •