My Socialist leaning Sherbro's, help me understand this one?

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by MikeMcMann, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:37 AM.

  1. HomerThompson

    HomerThompson President of the War Room Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    38,468
    Likes Received:
    59,521
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    But I'm sure the auto industry would've enacted all those safety measures on their own, because reasons.
     
    kpt018 and franklinstower like this.
  2. franklinstower

    franklinstower Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    2,201
    Likes Received:
    2,090

    Of course they would!!!! That is why the mining industry has always willingly created and maintained standards that have ensured that no one has ever been negatively effected by them. Duh....

    That is why power companies spare not a cent when ensuring that pollution from power plants does not impact the health of people especially children. No profits are made in these industries before absolutely doing everything that can be done to protect the health of the consumer.

    See regulations just limit profits which cause overall quality to go down cheating the consumer. Corporations would never place profits before the health of people.

    You also never see a revolving door with especially toxic industries where every few years or so the company is sold to another shell company ultimately run by the same people to shield themselves from potential lawsuits.

    I mean look at Exxon, in the 70's when their own climate scientists told them emissions can and would contribute to climate change what did they do? They immediately made the public aware of that and started investing in green power solutions right? They did not start a 30 year long public campaign to malign climate science and empower deniers.

    No regulations are needed man, they are just a from of government control and extraction of profits for useless government jobs.

    There are also no sociopaths and psychopaths who ever rise to powerful positions within corporations and big business.

    Homer, you just need to be less naive and pessimistic about people man. You need to trust more and also stand up for your fucking self man and quite wanting mother government to take care of you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM
    FIMN and HomerThompson like this.
  3. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    His argument is correct.

    Quality is separate, for these purposes from safety. The two may intersect WHEN the safety issue proves to lead to sickness and the consumer can identify and punish offenders but that is not always the case. Food illnesses can manifest days or even weeks after consumption leaving identifying the source as problematic.

    But that is not even the point. It is the 'preventative' measures that regulations address that are often gambles most restaurateurs and businesses might be willing to risk. Maybe its only 1 in a 100 restaurants that have ecoli issues due to improper storage and as such many are willing to risk not making the big expenditure for proper storage that is now required. You would say 'well then the market will punish them once enough people get sick and that restaurant is identified as the source' which is true but regulation attempts to ensure those instances never happen. we do not want reactive justice in this area where preventative maintenance can avoid most issues. You may then argue the 'fear' of being the 'next' one outed and busted may be enough of a deterrent but history does not bear that out as we see many who with thin economics or for other reasons are just willing to gamble they will not be the one with the problem. We consumers do not want to take that gamble with them. We want them red flagged by health inspectors so we know before we enter or shut down if they won't make the expenditures.

    For instance Ontario started a very public rating system for restaurant compliance which must be posted in the front entry way in a visible spot for all customers to see with colour codes that allow a customer to quickly identify the safety issues the restaurant has been cited with so they can then decide if they want to dine there.

    [​IMG]

    this system has lead to the wide scale clean up and change in handling of the industry because a conditional pass can be almost as bad as a 'closed' for business. Restaurateurs who are diligent ensure they maintain the highest standards now in those prior 'invisible to customer' areas where they could cut corners before and get away with it too often.
     
    kpt018 likes this.
  4. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    Well for the record my friend, who sent me the article has no kids and, at this point intends to never have kids, so this would not be, as i pointed out to her, in her own self interest.

    i specifically asked her if she spent 5 years working hard at her job to maximize her earnings and to get ahead and another woman came in the same time but had 3 kids in the 5 years and only worked a little over two years, if she would want that woman's earnings to be made equal to that of hers over 5 years? I stated I know of few people who would want that and see that as far.
     
  5. Greoric

    Greoric Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,262
    Likes Received:
    5,831
    Do they make their vehicles safe in ways beyond what's required in other ways?

    @MikeMcMann For sake of semantic bullshit, whether you want to arbitrarily separate safety from "quality" is immaterial. The same interest for looking after a product's safety (a factor of total quality) is in the same way (and for the same reasons) still an interest for a business.

    @kpt018
     
  6. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    I just don't get the concept that suggests a woman (or man) is punished for choosing to balance home life and family at the expense of less earnings unless we say money is the only reward in life.

    i think it can be argued that the woman (or man) who forego's maximizing earnings (workaholic) and instead focuses on a more balanced life (good money, family, quality time) has the better over remuneration package and that tends to show in life expectancy.

    it was Ross Perot who said in his first book that is how he succeeded in his early days with IBM. He knew if he did not marry and have kids young he could simply out work all the guys and gals who did have families. He admitted he may have not been smarter but he could work longer and harder often doubling or more the hours his colleagues put in. That lead to more production from him and more raises and promotions. That SHOULD BE OK. There should be no expectation that the man or woman who chooses a more balanced family life is being punished if they are not given the same earnings Ross Perot got if they only want to put in a fraction of the time and work because they prioritize other things more.

    This is exactly like the false aspects of the gender pay gap debate. yes it exists but in most part it exists for reasons tied to personal choices made by women that SHOULD and DO reduce pay. But then this politics is layered on to trying and guilt companies to level them up regardless. Just pay them the same despite those choices or we will shame you with misinformation claiming this is gender based discrimination.
     
    MMAisGod likes this.
  7. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    Sorry but you are just being purposely obtuse on that issue as you do not have a proper rebuttal, as many others have pointed out.

    What you call semantic bullshit is the crux of the issue and the distinction is important. You want to gloss over it as it expose the fallacy in your argument.


    (and f*ck you for putting me anywhere near the same side of an argument as HomerThompson.)
     
    kpt018 likes this.
  8. Greoric

    Greoric Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,262
    Likes Received:
    5,831
    You're not arguing anything distinct from that mental midget, so what else am I to assume?

    And I beg your pardon, but it looks as if you're projecting. How else would you like me to rephrase that safety is a factor in the totality of what's considered quality? To flesh out the projected mental retardation further even isolating safety as the concern, Do companies offer safety concerns and measures when producing their products that are not mandated?
     
  9. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    Well this is where I now move over more to the libertarian side.

    It is not JUST corporate money that causes issues with gov't. Gov't by its very nature is corrupt and self serving and more often than not the ENABLER of many of the worst corporate offenses and not the other way around.

    @Greoric will be happy to point out to you how gov'ts capping liability on companies such as Exxon and many others allows them to profit in ways they might be more careful in doing if they indeed could face the entire bill for their maleficence and not a capped one where it makes more economic sense to take the risk.

    Businesses do have incentive to be good corporate citizens and not do harm but the economic realities can lead many to take willing risks.

    Gov't and regulators do have incentives to govern corporations and ensure they do not take those risks but the danger of politicians being bought and paid for to act as a shield for corporations is real.

    Citizens do have an incentive to hold gov't accountable to act in our best interests but we are busy with life and do not often have the time to really understand what needs to be which creates gain holes for gov't officials to abuse.\


    But hopefully with all 3 in place enough gets done in a way that over all protects us. But every once in a while we get a shock at how lax things were and how exposed we were when all systems fail such as the Walkerton Water Tragedy in Ontario Canada.
     
  10. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    And you are repeating the same nonsense to avoid addressing his core point that a restaurant with risky and poor safety (hygiene) can still make food that from the customers stand point looks, tastes and is quality because they consumer can not quantify via taste the poor hygiene risk unless it results directly in a sickness they correlate back.

    So your view might be that a hygiene risk that does result in direct sickness today is OK while others say 'no, that risk should not be there at all if regulation can remove it'.

    How is a customer eating an otherwise good quality burger supposed to evaluate the quality issue of 'food hygiene risk' if no incident occurs during their specific meal?
     
  11. Greoric

    Greoric Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,262
    Likes Received:
    5,831
    His point is nothing more than a lament that there isn't a perfect means of quality control. So what? We aren't discussing what a perfect world looks like, or the fact that there's an asymmetry of knowledge between producers and consumers. From those two premises you don't then leap to therefore gov't regulation. We're discussing which societal organization would best distribute a service we all want anyway.

    Soooo, considering the margin at which gov't currently provides (and fails to provide) regulation, and the higher margin that businesses provide it themselves out of their own interest for safety for their customers, we know that gov't isn't needed in that space.

    Hell, in your last post you already laid out the moral hazard gov't creates to mitigate the liability incorporated businesses have more than they otherwise would.
     
  12. MikeMcMann

    MikeMcMann Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,273
    Likes Received:
    10,077
    You assume your lack of comprehension of his point allows you to define his point and it does not.

    It is not a lament. he is making a very clear distinction which you completely ignore or do not understand.

    While he and I and others recognize the desire for a quality product will drive most restaurant to ensure a product looks, tastes and is good in a food taste experience, there are issues around food safety and handling that need to be seperated from that as the risk is more nebulous and not always visible and identifiable which can lead restaurants to very different approaches in how to handle and manage that risk. Regulation tries to ensure that risk is handled in a uniform manner and not one off with each restaurant deciding how much e coli and other risk is ok and what is their chances of being busted even if someone does get sick and that is a good and needed thing.
     
    kpt018 likes this.
  13. Greoric

    Greoric Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,262
    Likes Received:
    5,831
    Yeah, again you're guilty precisely of what you're projecting on to me. This discussion, if you hadn't noticed has moved past the squabbling bullshit about semantics and classification, and you're not addressing my points, intentionally or otherwise.

    For the sake of argument and moving this forward, I granted that we isolate safety out of the totality of quality (even though that's just a factor in it's total grade).

    All you're doing now is just introducing asymmetry of knowledge. So what? Gov't doesn't mitigate that, and you're not addressing how gov't would mitigate that better than a decentralized service. If you didn't catch one of my first posts on the issue. I love regulation. This isn't a discussion of whether companies need to have oversight from third parties. I want mountains of it from the businesses I frequent. I just don't want a compulsory funded monopoly to provide it.
     
  14. franklinstower

    franklinstower Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    2,201
    Likes Received:
    2,090

    Libertarian = strong men gangs. There is no such thing as no government.
     
  15. MayhemMonkey

    MayhemMonkey ... Im kind of a big deal!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    42,741
    Likes Received:
    43,312
    Location:
    Scotland
    in the EU its because our regulations are stricter..... which is why our food safety standards are way higher. Our cars are made to a higher standard due to the regulations in place.

    you guys are blind if you think regulations are bad
     
  16. Jack V Savage

    Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    60,137
    Likes Received:
    22,522
    Recently finished this:

    [​IMG]

    There's a bit on milk regulations. Pre-regulation milk was really gross and really dangerous.
     
    GOATER and HomerThompson like this.
  17. MayhemMonkey

    MayhemMonkey ... Im kind of a big deal!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    42,741
    Likes Received:
    43,312
    Location:
    Scotland
    yes, if they are made in the EU
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 5:51 PM
  18. HomerThompson

    HomerThompson President of the War Room Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    38,468
    Likes Received:
    59,521
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    Is it a good read?
     
  19. HomerThompson

    HomerThompson President of the War Room Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    38,468
    Likes Received:
    59,521
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    LOL.

    Hurtful. Rude.
     
  20. Greoric

    Greoric Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,262
    Likes Received:
    5,831
    "Yes" is not an answer to the question posited. With respect, you're not at the requisite level to be discussing anything with me. You're welcome back when you are.
     

Share This Page