Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

......... my take is that federal regulation that protects the consumer/citizen is poorly enforced and federal regulation bought from Congress to protect corporate interests is. It's a matter of funding at the legislative level.

e.g., while not entirely at the Federal level (yet) minimum wage laws implemented at the state level have little enforcement, no penalties for ignoring them and outright dismissed by companies hiring cheap labor (below market value) because there is no enforcement. Meanwhile an underclass of workers with no ability to collectively bargain can't pay the rent, buy groceries or afford health care for their families and certainly don't have the means or the time to pursue claims against employers for failing to pay over time, shorting pay-checks or not paying at all.

[Dr. Strangelove]

When southern frat boys fight

http://deadspin.com/a-bunch-of-bros-in-pastel-shirts-brawled-at-the-kentuck-1775611002

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also, ESPN is letting Ray Lewis go.

Make peace with this decision and try to move on with your lives

[Mike]

Ha! How many felons are they down to now?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well Mike "Sexual Harassment Suit" Tirico is moving on also...so...maybe a dozen or so?

[iam416]

A practical example for the regulatory discussion: The FDA has decided to regulate vaping and do so as a tobacco product. Producers will have to submit applications for each different flavor and each different nicotine-strength. The applications, as I understand it, cost at least $200K.

Vaping producers are hugely decentralized. Thousands of small operations are in this business. You can produce the liquids with minimal employees and relatively minimal cost.

There is probably some risk associated with these products. Namely, the liquids, if ingested, can cause some real problems. And there's a predictable offshoot of users looking for a better high that use the product dangerously. And, of course, kids can accidentally drink it -- but that's resolved with child-proof caps.

So, the FDA's endeavors ostensibly serve a public good and will shut down thousands of small-shop operations and consolidate the market in the big-time producers - the tobacco companies. And the tobacco companies probably lobbied for this move -- assuming the upfront cost of the regulation will be justified by longer term market returns. But, I'm just guessing on the lobbying -- it's going to be a significant cost and I don't know if they actually want the FDA involved.

But, anyway, this strikes me as a pretty standard example of the regulatory scheme that probably serves one public interest and while the compliance costs crush competition, which I think is a disservice to another public interest.

[Wild Hoss]

I see a dual cause there. One, it serves to genuflect at the alter of the Safety Nazis, and second, it allows Big Tobacco to absorb and corrupt, by the means you describe, a competitive product which was potentially fatal to its business model. No way that's happenstance.

In the end, the consumer looses...and in this particular case, the costs might be staggering. I can say from personal experience that vaporizers can save or extend lives; they enabled me to quit after years of struggling with the other methods the FGA so kindly reminds people are available. I doubt I would have been able to without vapes, and frankly, they made it almost easy.

So, from my personal POV, I do not see this as serving the public good. Does the industry need more oversight...probably. Having mom and pop joints selling aerosol chemicals is a bit questionable, no doubt. But this essentially monopolizes vaping, and along with the other regs that severely limit opportunities for their use, are dooming untold numbers of Americans to remain in the clutches of Big Tobacco's addictive products. JMO

[iam416]

There's definitely a strong case to be made for the benefits vaping provide for those trying to quit.

I suspect there's a stronger case to be made for public safety than you (or I ) have made. But I also am fairly certain there's a less draconian way to regulate the market. For example, why on earth would you need to submit an application for each FLAVOR? But that point probably misses the forest...a single $200K (or more) expenditure is probably enough to put tons of vaping businesses out of the market.

Anyway, my point isn't to actually judge what the FDA is doing. I just thought this was a good example of how regulatory schemes affect markets whether it's FDA regs, paperwork regs, environmental regs, etc. -- increasing the cost of doing business obviously favors larger firms -- even if they don't like the regs. So, eh...some real earth-shattering shit..

[Wild Hoss]

What was eye-opening, IMO, was how quickly all this came about as well. The conversation began with statements about the FDA banning vaporizers, which I thought was interesting as an initial position. I mean, there is ZERO talk of banning tobacco products, which have proven health risks.

I think this can be an example of how regs can affect markets...but also how markets can manipulate regs to their benefit as well. Just a sad state of affairs in general.

[hack]

Well it's not as if you can have one without the other and be a developed country -- or, at least, there's no examples of that. Explanations of that are gonna vary, but the places where huge swathes of economic activity go unregulated are the poorest countries. State and business are stuck with each other, and until robots are invented can be programmed to strike just the right balance in ensuring compliance in both principle and spirit, we're going to be stuck using humans as regulators.

[entropy]

Also, ESPN is letting Ray Lewis go.

Make peace with this decision and try to move on with your lives

and they are replacing him with Randy Moss....

[Da Geezer]

As to the vaping discussion, let's also recognize that the government is in business, literally, with Big Tobacco since the "overall settlement" that was reached many years ago.

Hack, your point that "..... the places where huge swathes of economic activity go unregulated are the poorest countries" may be true, but it does not follow that regulation causes or results from wealth, which you seem to imply. If a person makes $ 20/mo, there is less incentive to take his money and transfer it to the government or to others. In this vaping instance, the Government/Big Tobacco nexus in the delivery of nicotine needs to destroy the thousands of small shops that either make the liquid or allow on-site vaping. Virtually all FDA and EPA regulation is now done to protect the politically well connected.

I'd like to read a study of the adverse effects of vaping. How is vaping different than the nicotine gum or nicotine patches that are not under fire? I think vaping could well be a net health positive if it is true that cigarette smokers quit cigs and move to vaping. That is what the FDA should be concentrating on, not protecting the tobacco oligopoly.

[iam416]

I think regulation probably results from macro-economic advancement, at least in liberal western countries. That is to say, economies get to a point where the people are willing to pay for the "public good" or whatever. It's probably a natural evolution of things, but I could be wrong. Totally spitballing.

In any event, as I've said, I think it's interesting to consider regulatory schemes in their totality even those ostensibly aimed public safety and the like.

BTW -- I mean, this is a D initiative by and large. I don't think this thing is a ruse -- I think there's probably some true believers. And when you combine "public safety" w/ "protecting tobacco interests" -- well -- it's what Hoss said. That's a powerful coalition.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I think Talent should be regulated...before vaping...should have been neutered years ago...like at birth...

[Ghengis Jon]

Regulation is a necessary evil, but needs to be selectively applied.

Deregulation tends to be a license to rape at will. Just look at the cable tv and airline industries.

I'm old enough to remember when cable first came on the scene. The marketing pitch was "Since you'll pay a monthly fee, you will never see another commercial. Not just movies, but all television shows as well." Tell me how that worked out. 200 channels showing the same 30 shows, intermittant service, piss poor customer service, monopolized coverage, skyhigh prices. Oh, and commercials every 30 seconds.

And how about the airlines since deregulation? Has service improved? NO. Have prices gone down? NO. Have routes increased? NO. Have they shrunk seats and space to the point of confinement torture? YES. Are they consolidating to form near monopolies in large markets? YES. Are they driving smaller carriers that are supposed to be providing competition out of business? YES. Is the gov't bowing to corporate cash to look the other way? YES.

Regulation is a response to unfettered, unsavory practices by business. It is a necessary evil to counter an unnecessary evil. Same goes for unions. If corporations took a less Darwinistic attitude toward its employees and less of a 'money is the only thing' attitude toward business, unions and regulations would both disappear.

Re unions. My company is unique and has no unions despite having engineering, manufacturing and distribution facilities. I've been here for 25 years. I've never had the need to ask for a pay raise or a promotion. Pay raises and a bonus are forced upon me (and all the employees) every year. (One year I tried to refuse a bonus and I was disciplined (!!!) for trying to return money to the company. The company was considering laying off people for the first time in its history and I offered to refuse my bonus (as did many others) to keep people from getting laid off. We got scolded and told we had to accept our bonuses. No layoffs ever came about, but headcount was not replaced after attrition.) So I see no need for a union in my workplace. You treat people well and you ill have a loyal and productive workforce. But other people work in hellholes and should be unionized. I've never been a member of a union but I recognize that they are a necessary part of the American workforce.