The problem with Norquist's obsessive mantra is that it precludes helpful debate about the ways in which government can address the many serious problems in this country which all but the most fanatic libertarian would concede only the government can solve.

For example, the solution to the problem of poisoned peanut butter and other tainted foodstuffs is NOT - and cannot be - lower taxes and deregulation. The solution to the problem of criminal fraud on Wall Street is NOT lower taxes and deregulation. The solution to our crumbling infrastructure is NOT lower taxes and deregulation. Etc.

If Norquist and his fellow travellers were actually able to offer a constructive suggestion as to how these problems might be addressed, it might be possible to take them seriously, but they haven't and they won't because to do so would be to concede that government has a legitimate role to play in our society. I also might respect them a little more if they hadn't doubled the national debt and essentially destroyed the foundations of our entire society during their brief time in power.

Norquist is a media whore who has never held a real job in his entire life. Why he continues to receive this kind of attention is truly inexplicable. And his suggestion that the current financial crisis is the result of too little regulation belies either an ignorance that borders on the delusional or a willingness to lie that knows no bounds.

But you fail to understand. None of the people poisoned by that peanut butter will ever do business with that company again. Therefore it will lose customers and profits. For example, it is a proven fact that none of the people who went down with the Titanic ever sailed on a White Star Line ship again. See the wondrous magic of the free market settles everything.

I'm dead because of Salmonella poison. Sure does me a lot of good to know that people won't be doing business with that company anymore! And my neighbor is dying of lung cancer because the air in his town is so polluted. Can't really blame it any one company, since there are several pumping pollutants into the air. But that's ok, the free markets will handle it. And it sure is good to know that all those people who drowned on the Titanic have access to the free market.

Texvol:

For example, the solution to the problem of poisoned peanut butter and other tainted foodstuffs is NOT - and cannot be - lower taxes and deregulation. The solution to the problem of criminal fraud on Wall Street is NOT lower taxes and deregulation. The solution to our crumbling infrastructure is NOT lower taxes and deregulation. Etc.

Taxes aside, the tainted peanut butter is Exhibit A for the case that regulations don't work, at least not as they are currently conceived and implemented. There was no deregulation that led to the contamination. There is no current model of regulation that would have prevented the problem, which involved deliberate fraud and disregard for existing laws.

Regardless of other posters' attempts at irony, the fact that this company is going out of business will make other companies more diligent about food safety. Smart consumers will avoid industrially produced food - unless companies and the government can talk them back into it with promises that next time, they'll get it right.

Fitzpatrick:

Texvol:

For example, the solution to the problem of poisoned peanut butter and other tainted foodstuffs is NOT - and cannot be - lower taxes and deregulation. The solution to the problem of criminal fraud on Wall Street is NOT lower taxes and deregulation. The solution to our crumbling infrastructure is NOT lower taxes and deregulation. Etc.

Taxes aside, the tainted peanut butter is Exhibit A for the case that regulations don't work, at least not as they are currently conceived and implemented. There was no deregulation that led to the contamination. There is no current model of regulation that would have prevented the problem, which involved deliberate fraud and disregard for existing laws.

Regardless of other posters' attempts at irony, the fact that this company is going out of business will make other companies more diligent about food safety. Smart consumers will avoid industrially produced food - unless companies and the government can talk them back into it with promises that next time, they'll get it right.

You are right in asserting this .but wrong in what happend .There was no deregulation that lead to penut poison,it was NOT ENFORCING THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS BY LOOKING THE OTHER WAY that caused the problem.

Everyone in the town where the plant in Texas (Plainview) was located knew the plant was filthy and breaking state regulations. No one there was surprised that the product killed people. It was just that they were all desparate for the jobs.

Personally, I think human sacrifice is a bit too far in the religion of "free markets".

"I think human sacrifice is a bit too far in the religion of "free markets"

Your straw man is leaking.

J.MADISON:

You are right in asserting this .but wrong in what happend .There was no deregulation that lead to penut poison,it was NOT ENFORCING THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS BY LOOKING THE OTHER WAY that caused the problem.

What regulations were not enforced?

In this particular case, NONE of them were.

Yes, it's a straw man, but human life is not too high a cost to pay for free markets.

A common example used to refute the idea that saving one human life is worth any cost is the use of motor vehicles. A ban on cars, or a speed limit of, say, 10 miles per hour, would save tens of thousands of lives every year in the US.

That kind of cost is hard to justify philosophically without placing a higher value on freedom of choice than on human life.

Texvol:

In this particular case, NONE of them were.

Hmm. Not very enlightening, I'm afraid.

What regulation, had it been enforced, would have prevented the shipment of tainted peanut butter?

The point of the Peanut Butter Fiasco is that corporations are in business to make money, and if it means cutting corners to do so they will, even if cutting corners puts the consumer in danger. Regulations are in place to create ground rules of health and safety standards, and government oversight is needed to ensure that companies adhere to these standards.

Even the god of the free market himself, FA Hayek, recognized the need for such regulations and pointed out how they aren't contradictory to the market, but can instead help maintain the market. How can we engage in trade with people we don't directly know and trust without the guarantee that their products meet basic safety/health requirements?

To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose.(Hayek 1994, 43).

Hayek, along with the posters on this thread and many other commentators, are talking about the concept of regulation, not about specific regulations.

todji:

How can we engage in trade with people we don't directly know and trust without the guarantee that their products meet basic safety/health requirements?

My point is that you do this every day. Regulations don't provide any guarantees. The tainted peanut products were produced under a regime of regulations. Therefore, stating that a regime of regulations will prevent tainted products is clearly false.

To obtain a level of trust that enables you to do business with strangers, you can rely on a government regulator, or on the reputation of the company, or on a third party's assessment. In practice, we use all of them. However, the fallout from APC seems to be a call for more government regulation (without specifics), but no calls for more corporate transparency or additional third party assessments. This bias toward more government involvement is not helpful, espeically since, in this case, the government regulation was the most prominent control. APC sold only wholesale, so its brand was not directly assessed by consumers, nor did consumers have third party information about it.

Letting APC go bankrupt is a very good control on poor practices. Other companies do not want to suffer the same fate, so they will be more diligent about hygiene, regardless of whether more stringent or more frequent government inspections or other regulations are imposed.

Smart consumers, meanwhile, should strive to learn as much about their food as possible, and choose sources that are less prone to contamination.

Yeah, but what makes more sense? Hoping that everyone will someday just wake up and become a "smart consumer", or putting regulations in place to prevent the expoitation of the "ignorant consumer"?