That’s not what I was asking. And I’ll hold by breath, and let another ridiculous strawman pass by unmolested, to continue apace.
Yes. A lot of individuals made bad decisions. But how did that hurt you? I thought that was your claim.
A lot of individuals go to Las Vegas every day and make bad decisions on the craps tables. But that doesn’t hurt you, does it? Quarterbacks throw interceptions in football games. People forget to refill laser printer cartridges. They drink too much wine in the evening and have a headache the next morning. None of those hurt you.
I thought your claim was that the subprime mortgage issue hurt all of us in a big way, even though they were individual decisions. Which is true. But I’m asking you why that is. And why it’s different than the little examples I’ve shown above.
So… we need government to protect people from their foolishness, and to impose the superior wisdom of the majority. Got it.
I am reminded of the story of the lawyer defending someone who was being sued for wrecking a borrowed car. “First, I will prove that my client never touched this car. Second, I will prove that this car was already damaged when my client took possession of it. Third, I will prove that this car was in perfect condition when my client returned it.”
And in what way am I contradicting myself ? I’m claiming that people are smart enough to collectively choose the direction of a country, usually; but aren’t the godlike omniscient omnicompetent beings that libertarians want to pretend they are.
And as had been said before, they are much the same. Libertarianism is just anarchy for the privileged.
Are you asking me why we need laws restricting or controlling what other people can do?
To be very frank with you, the idea of having to reach a higher bar to intellectually justify something with words means next to nothing to me. To me its pretty much common sense. I don’t want some drunk driver plowing into my family so we pass a law controlling and restricting their behavior. I don’t want some corporation speweing poisons into the public air space or water so we restict his behavior. I don’t want some bozo target shooting in his back yard and have my kid killed by a stray bullet so we restrict his behavior.
This is common sense based on protection of the public.
Truthfully, I really do not know or understand the idea that some threshold for one must be inherently higher than another. Its all the same thing to me. Government passes laws for the people. Period.
I am not saying this to be mean or snarky… but … I will put it out there just the same … many of these “deep thoughts” that seem to occupy libertarian discussion are what I call “college sophmore stuff”. Its the kind of stuff college sophmores drone on about all through the night hopped up on too much coffee and a sense of self importance and intellectual discovery. One example is the classic “is it enough to do the right thing for the wrong reason or do you have to do the right thing for the right reason”. I could not care less. Most people move on from that sort of thing.
I do not think there are any answers.
In fact, there really are not any questions either.
That distinction nakes sense if and only if ordinary personal decisions (which libertarians assume people can generally handle) are more complicated than running a nation (which statists assume people can generally handle). If that were true, even Sarah Palin could run the country.
No, I am asking you to defend the notion that the government can make any old law it likes, without boundaries that prohibit it from encroaching on individual liberty.
And Elmer Gantry doesn’t want some queer living in his town, so they passed a law against sodomy. And Carrie Nation doesn’t want drunkards around, so they passed Prohibition. And Mrs. Grundy doesn’t like deviated preverts, so they restricted depictions of nekkid wimmin.
By your argument, those three examples of Holy People’s Will are every bit as legitimate as your three examples.
And Elmer Gantry doesn’t want some queer living in his town, so they passed a law against sodomy. And Carrie Nation doesn’t want drunkards around, so they passed Prohibition. And Mrs. Grundy doesn’t like deviated preverts, so they restricted depictions of nekkid wimmin.
Not really, because in his examples the purpose of the laws is to protect life, which pretty much everyone, including the Supreme Court, agrees is one of government’s most legitimate functions. Your examples, on the other hand, aren’t based on motivations nearly so sacrosanct.
The reason I didn’t answer your post is that it is clear - just because of the question you asked - that you still don’t get it. You don’t get what I nor Sam Stone is proposing.
You’re making it far, far more complicated than it needs to be. It’s actually painfully simple.
I don’t need to know how the drug companies will go about their testing. It’s not important. They can try and go about it any way they wish. Or not go about it at all. Or hire the beloved FDA to do their testing for them, and pay the fee that the FDA charges. Which they will then undoubtedly pass along to their end users, meaning me, who will decide to buy the product or not.
That’s all there is to it. It’s not any more complicated than that.
I also don’t need to know how Dell designs it RAM-BIOS system, how their suppliers inject-mold their laptop structures, how BMW presses in its axle bearings on a 525i, how DuPont coats their carpet with stain-proofer, how General Mills paints the little dragon on the side of my kids’ breakfast cereal, or why shoelace companies put the little plastic thingy on the end of my shoelace.
I also don’t need to grill my pilot on the transatlantic flight I take in a 747 about the maintenance schedule on the rudder actuator, or make sure I check with Clear Channel about what type of radio programming they plan to load up for tomorrow morning during my drive in the car, or know exactly how the electronic bits go from this laptop through the Internet to your eyeballs.
All I need to do is take the price the company is offering and decide whether or not to buy it. And then live with the consequences of my decision.
That’s all there is to it. It’s not any more complicated than that.
Why is that so hard to understand? Is this microphone on? <tap tap> Is my HTML editor translating my posts into Greek, or hieroglyphics, or something like that?
I think you have misunderstood, I am not interested in how they go about their testing. I am asking you to elaborate on the consequences of having independent drug rating agencies and whether they are a good idea. Currently we have one standard that all drug firms have to adhere too – you are talking about having many standards that drug firms can choose to adhere too.
In an attempt to make it clearer I’ll ask you one question. How do you think opening up drug testing to the free market will improve the quality of drugs on the market for the consumer?
I certainly am not taking that position. I live in the USA and there are boundaries and limits as set by the US Constitution.
Liberty… interesting word that most people use any old way they want to use it. I read too many people saying that liberty means they can do anything they want to. You need your own sovereign island for that one. There are some for sale too. So there is hope.
Democracy doesn’t require that everyone be better than average. Some people are idiots. Some people are crooks. Some people just don’t care. But in a democracy, you don’t have to worry about these people as long as the majority of people aren’t stupid, unlawful, or apathetic. They’ll set up a system that will work for everyone.
But in Libertopia, it’s every man for himself. The people who don’t care are forced to do things they didn’t want to. The idiots are forced to do things they’re not capable of. And the crooks are allowed to do things the rest of us wish they wouldn’t.
Are you talking real libertarianism or pseudo-libertarianism? Because real libertarinism is pretty much anarchy. It’s based on the premise that personal liberty is the first principle and nobody should be coerced by the government in any manner. Which pretty much means there is no government. Everything will be done by the free market and voluntary cooperation.
Pseudo-libertarianism concedes something to how the real world works. They acknowledge that there has to be a government and that it has the power to pass laws and enforce those laws. So it accepts the principle that the government can coerce individuals.
In which case, Libertarians are no different than Democrats or Republicans. They all want to have the laws they think are right. It’s just annoying when the Libertarians act like they’re acting on some higher moral plane than the rest of us and our laws are bad and their laws are good.
if your objection is to central planning, then I’m right with you. But experience with societies with nonexistent or poor regulation (like China today) clearly shows the social harm from it. Regulations don’t typically pop up out of the blue, they are in response to industry caused disasters like the Triangle fire.
I’m talking about relying on regulations. If you include every action by governments, then you include the Great Leap Forward and the Iraq War and other lovely blunders. I’ve already mentioned places where you need to tradeoff, like safe drugs vs early access to life saving drugs. Do you have any data on deaths from regulation? I’m sure I can find the decrease in cholera deaths thanks to water purity regulations, the benefit of the major reduction in smog in California thanks to regulation, and tons more.
Are you saying that image at a given time is an accurate indicator of actual quality? That there is no lag up or down? The quality of American cars improved long before the image of this quality did. I was on a call with a very high level executive of AT&T Computer Systems who said that they were justifying their high ASPs through the perceived quality of their products - quality that was not there. BTW this didn’t have a lot to do with the failure of this product line. That had more to do with a top manager whose qualification for running a computer business was that he was a CPA who knew how to use spreadsheets. A real male Sarah Palin type.
I don’t own BMWs, but I believe I read that their electronics system introduced a few years back was an unmitigated disaster. So, we do absorb cues about quality from lots of places, some of which have been put there by companies building an image.
I don’t think you understood the example. The quality of the AT&T phones was still good. The all-knowing consumers made poor purchase decisions based on an inaccurate assessment of the quality of the new phones on the market. I don’t know for sure that the knockoffs deliberately played on this perception of quality, but I suspect so. Happens all the time in the toy business, that I do know.
I never mentioned government here at all. I was just saying that your statement that consumers homed in on optimal quality was simplistic. The government doesn’t make a lot of products, nor should they. Where they define products, like in the defense industry, there are problems on both sides. I don’t know anyone here who has proposed regulating in quality. Regulations are for conformance to standards, requiring standards of product safety, or dealing with tragedy of the commons issues which I admit I omitted. If you consider making a product not kill or maim the user regulating in quality, then I plead guilty.
Lucky, then, that I am advocating no such thing. But the same consumers who might buy cheap shit and get disappointed may buy dangerous shit and get dead. The former is fine with me, the latter not so fine.
Do fake Rolex sellers in Canada advertise that their stuff is fake? You people are so polite. Surely at least some purchasers are naive enough to think they are getting a deal, perhaps capitalizing on someone’s theft of a Rolex shipment. Definitely some people buy them for laughs.
Simple. A significant percentage of the nails they sell are to contractors who actually care and who no doubt would be back if they had a high failure rate. You ride on their coattails, since it doesn’t pay for HD to have two classes of nails. That’s why it pays to eat at the same place the truckers eat. High volume users of a product can afford to do the testing and feedback which consumers can’t.
I have no problem with them doing it, but I wouldn’t put much faith in what I’d find there. The government is not going to know, or publish, proprietary quality measurements, like DPM rates, which might affect consumer quality. Plus, how would they evaluate things like reviews. I’m sure you’ve found that you have to filter product or hotel reviews, since they are often heavily biased towards people who have had problems. I worry that the government image might give this information more credence than it deserves.
Maybe because you wrote
This is not about perfect choices - you may not know which choice was optimal until after you made it and found the actual weighting of the factors. This is about once you find out what the third party knows you’d agree that his choice would be better for you than yours. The FDA is exactly the third party in this example. Hell, when I had a heart problem I would have been an idiot to think that I could learn enough in a week or so to outguess my cardiologist about what medicine was best.
Why do have such a bimodal view - the choices being minimal regulation or socialism. People make poor or uninformed choices. People actually bought Yugos. I bought a Pinto (excellent car, actually, far better than its reputation.) I don’t give a crap nor should the government - except for cases in which the poor quality is dangerous, not just annoying.
Well, prices have more to do with patent monopolies rather than sales. As for depending on journals, without the FDA there wouldn’t be the kind of clinical trials that produce the data that gets published. As for journals, though I know peer reviewed articles are the holy grail around here, anyone who has been a journal editor knows that is not wise to pin your life and health on articles reviewed by five or six overloaded professors. Reviewers don’t get the raw data. The FDA does. So, the doctor is useful in recommending what he or she sees as the best choice among several safe choices. Not that this is purely factual. The Times noted a while back that former cheerleaders had good careers as drug company sales reps. Drug company reps don’t actually sell drugs, they just make doctors aware, and I suppose perky cheerleaders got in the door more effectively than boring male reps.
I’d hate for the situation to be that these reps are pushing unsafe drugs. At least FDA approval and a look at the side effects in the PDA (which come in part from clinical trials) means that the doctors are unlikely to accidentally kill anyone with the drugs.
Headline: Drug you are taking likely to kill you in five years. Oops. Hooray for the free market!
But if drugs weren’t regulated at all, there would be many other ways for me to learn it. For example, a doctor who is insured by the best insurance companies, who have the best testing labs and most stringent drug approval processes, might advertise that fact.
[/quote]
I’ve addressed this before. I wonder why no insurance company does this now - after all, there is a variety of quality in doctors and hospitals. As far as I can tell, in the US, insurance companies “certifying” doctors has a lot more to do with the negotiated fee structure than patient results. I’m sure that if patients start to die something will be done.
All that information is available only after the drug is in the market. The FDA works before the drug is in the market. Statistically there will be escapes where bad drugs get caught by the larger clinical test of wide usage.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if the tainted formula in China had gotten detected before it got shipped?
Optimal is a loaded word, that many might misunderstand. There is a problem with only measuring and acting on economic efficiency. First, it is hard to measure the economic costs of social inequality. It is easy to measure output and profit, harder to measure the cost of sickness and lost opportunity. Second, by depending solely on local decisions, you may get local optima which are not even economically optimal in the long run - see the current credit crisis. Finally, things like CAFE standards are not command and control. They are considering the macro cost of damage to the environment and over dependence on foreign oil, and giving goals which car companies can reach however they wish. Some upstart may find some great new method and wipe out Detroit - that would be fine in my book. If Washington required that CAFE standards be achieved by cutting weight out of SUVs, or using fuel cells, or anything like that, it would be a mess.
WTF does a stimulus package have to do with regulation. I happen to be a free trader also, with the proviso that companies doing it should be forced to take social costs into consideration, to make the tradeoff decision more accurate. I’m against corporate welfare also.
Tax breaks etc. are good to help get interesting technologies up the learning curve. Tax breaks didn’t invent hybrids, they helped people save gas by making the buying decision a bit more advantageous. In California hybrids got something better than a tax break - for a time, they got car pool lane stickers. That helped jumpstart the market here, and the program is terminated as a success.
I don’t see how the Food and Drug Act was written to maximize votes, except in the trivial sense that the number of people at risk from shady drug makers is greater than the population of these people.
True for legitimate companies. I live in a sea of venture capitalists. But they guy planning to rip off consumers does not have a business plan with an initial loss then profit from word of mouth!
Representative democracy doesn’t have the general population “running the country”; they just decide the general direction, not the details. Deciding what direction the country goes requires general knowledge; running the country requires the knowledge of a great many specialists in a great many fields doing a great many different things at the same time. No one person can know that much or pay attention to that many different things.
It’s the difference between knowing you want to be healthy and being a doctor; guess which is more complicated ?
I’ll try to give it a go. This might take a while, so please bear with me.
The FDA, like all ‘companies’, creates the impetus for a consumer exchange in 3 basic ways
It offers a value proposition (We promise to do XX for You, the consumer)
It performs against that value proposition with a certain amount of efficacy
It charges a price for its efforts
Points 1 and 2 above combine for the overall ‘Benefits’ to the consumer, and the price is what the company extracts for its efforts. Value = Benefits - Price.
Benefits, and therefore Value, is defined in the mind of the consumer. That means YOU. The one with ultimate control over the decision. Not the company. That is the pain that Ford, GM and Chrysler are living through right now. They claim their products are just as reliable as the Japanese Imports. And they may be correct, in a technical defects-per-million sort of way. But it doesn’t matter what they think. It matters what YOU think. And what you are willing to pay for.
Right, then. Back to the FDA.
The answers for the FDA above are as follows
A defined risk profile.
They are shooting for a certain level-of-confidence in the safety of the food, drugs and other personal products (such as hairspray, believe it or not) that they stamp with their approval. A certain defect-rate-per-million, so to speak.
How well the FDA-approved products perform as certified.
In other words, how closely the actual defect-rate-per-million matches the targeted defect-rate-per-million.
It is impossible for the defect rate to be zero and for the products to have zero risk. Anybody who claims otherwise, or believes otherwise, is deluding themselves. I posted one cite above about the FDA letting defective spinach get through their net. Do a Google search on ‘E Coli FDA Taco Bell’ and you will find another.
The defect rate of the products certified by the FDA is not zero. It is some measurable figure.
Now at this point, it’s probably worth it to pause and quickly revisit items 1 and 2 above to answer your question about drug ‘quality’.
The purely correct answers to 1 and 2 above are the defined risk profile, and the product performance as defined and perceived by the consumer. You might be able to waive actual defect rates in front of consumers and they may not give a damn. They may go with the other product anyway for reasons of their own. That’s exactly what the CEOs of GM and Ford are trying to do right now, and it ain’t working. The early Apple iPods had horrific defect rates compared to their competition, but surveys consistently showed customers still thought they were of higher quality.
So YOU are going to have to define what ‘quality’ means to YOU. And YOU are going to have to be comfortable with whether the product is peforming at that standard, or not. You are the consumer. You have the power to define ‘quality’ any way you want to.
The price to the consumer
The ‘price’ the FDA charges is their direct costs, paid for by our taxes, PLUS THE AMOUNT THE COMPANIES SPEND TO COMPLY WITH THE FDA. I’m bolding the last bit here because that often gets lost in the shuffle. It definitely shouldn’t be lost in the shuffle. It’s probably orders of magnitude bigger than the direct costs of the FDA itself. Drug companies can spend close to $1 billion to get a drug through FDA compliance procedures. That’s a real cost and it is passed along to you and me.
OK. So to sum up
Value = Benefits - Price, or
Value = ( Proposition * Performance - Price )
I took the liberty of inserting Benefits = Proposition * Performance, a bit of false math which I just made up. I hope it is conceptually possible to understand that.
The FDA is a monopoly. What that means for each of the 3 categories above is
It has defined its Value Proposition for us.
It has defined the risk profile that we will get, whether we like it or not. We don’t get a choice. My personal assessment is that
It’s wayyyyy too risk-averse for drugs, probably keeping many life-saving drugs off the market for too long; driving availability down, and price up
It’s probably a bit too risk-averse for food overall; maybe just about right in some cases
It’s completely unnecessary for a lot of other things, like personal care products
But again, that’s just the preference of one solitary consumer. Meaning me, IdahoMauleMan. You may have other preferences. Preferences that the free market may be able to satisfy. More on that in a moment.
It has no consumer-defined standards for performance.
Oh, Henry Waxman will hold a C-Span hearing every now and then and rap somebody over the knuckles if a huge, catastrophic blowup occurs and makes the newspapers. But there is no real transparency of measurement or published information about how well it does it’s job. No JD Power ratings or Consumer Reports. The only way you’ll find out anything about it’s performance is if there is a terrible catastrophe. Hence, it’s tendency to tilt towards extreme risk aversion.
People scream at them if they screw up. Nobody pats them on the back if they target a more reasonable risk profile and actually deliver against it. Come to think of it, nearly all government agencies are that way.
There is ZERO competitive pressure for them to run a tight ship, make reasoned judgements about investments in new technology that could drive down costs, market themselves better to generate new sources of revenue (for example, providing consulting services), aggressively recruit top-notch employees so they can trade 2 so-so ones for 1 really good one, etc. Or stated more generally, there are no incentives to be more efficient.
In fact, the outcome of the Waxman hearings from the 2006 E coli blowup was…to ask for more money. Which is also typical of government agencies. We screwed up. So give us more money. The SEC is going through that little cycle as we speak.
Now, then. How could the free market and a little competition change all of this? Nobody really knows. But we can brainstorm a bit and think about some potential scenarios that could arise.
Different Value Propositions (meaning: different risk profiles) for different customer segments.
I’m 100% positive there is no single, solitary risk profile that is acceptable to all consumers. Just as I’m 100% positive there is no single, solitary automobile design that will satisfy all 3 billion potential drivers on this planet.
Some examples might be,
1a. Personal care products companies say ‘Screw it, there is no reason for the FDA to get involved in hairspray’. Those companies decide to go without testing and approval procedures. They try and sell their products. Some customers also decide they don’t care, and that they are comfortable with the risks, and buy it. Presto. A voluntary transaction has occurred.
1b. Competing personal care products companies surmise that there is a certain segment of the population that is more ‘safety conscious’. To serve this segment, they contract with testing companies to test their brands. They advertise their products with labels like ‘Tested by Dr. Goodbody’s’, or ‘FDA-approved’, or whatever they want to do.
If enough customers value this buying factor, they will buy their products instead of the other company’s. But it will probably cost a little bit more, since the company has incurred costs to test their products and they will have to recoup them somehow.
Consumers may notice that there are different testing agencies being marketed. One product has a picture of a doctor in a lab coat saying ‘Hi! I’m Dr. Goodbody. And I approve this product!’ The other has a label that says ‘FDA approved’. The consumer will have to decide which testing brand is more valuable and choose accordingly.
Food and drugs are just variations on the same theme above.
[Quick Aside]
My ex-brother-in-law (there was a divorce on my wife’s side) started a small company about 20 years ago that tests dairy products for fast food chains. What he does is actually a ‘pre-FDA check’, which means he tests and documents the products in advance of FDA inspections. He essentially ensures the company is performing at an FDA standard, and provides the documentation to the FDA to prove it on the company’s behalf.
As a result, there are essentially two sets of costs built into his clients’ value chain to the consumer. One set of costs to pay my ex-BILs company, which the company does voluntarily, and more costs embedded via compliance with the FDA’s processes. We’ll revisit this in a second.
[End of Quick Aside]
Transparency of Performance
When companies compete and market their products, one method they choose it is via comparative performance.
And a big, big way consumers research products is by looking at comparative performance measures. Which YOU, THE CONSUMER define. Not by how the company defines it.
How often are flights on time? How clean are hotel rooms? How long is the battery life on that laptop, really? Can somebody tell me what ‘gotcha’ I have to look out for, with this credit card deal I’m considering? Am I really going to get that mileage from a Prius, or is it all marketing BS?
People research this stuff all the time online, via solicitation of friends’ opinions, by reading Consumer Reports and such.
How well does the FDA do it’s job? Do you know? I sure don’t, other than by seeing the occasional blowup in the newspaper.
There could many, many ways that entrepreneurial companies compete to define their performance in the mind of the consumer. They could post PDFs of testing reports. They could invite trusted auditors to come in and inspect their labs. Maybe they partner with the FDA and have the FDA come in for a ‘consulting audit’, for which the FDA charges a fee. That is, if the FDA is interested in doing that. Then they could market their products with something like ‘The FDA reviews all of our testing procedures!’ and see if consumers bite.
They could offer bounties to anybody who can find a defective product and report it to them. They could just go with a celebrity endorsement and hope that does the trick.
If my ex-BILs company wanted to get into the ‘testing-approved’ business, they could brainstorm a variety of methods like the ones above and go with whatever one they think will work. I’ve only given a few ideas above.
Thousands of Websites have already sprung up for consumers to rate the performance of products. ‘Cafe Society’ in the Straight Dope, for example, is a trusted resource for many Dopers on the quality of entertainment. There is no reason why it couldn’t work for food, drugs and personal care products. In fact, I’d bet it already has.
Ultimately, the riskier the consumer judges the product to be, the greater demands he/she will place on the company to prove it in advance. But it will be up to the consumer to define the what, where and how he gathers that information.
You may not care all that much about quality for a toothbrush. You may care a lot about gene therapy. I suspect you will have different standards for each. And the market can provide a response to those desires for different standards, at different prices.
My hypothesis? If you opened testing up to competition, you would see a flurry of interesting innovation by testing companies, like my ex-BILs, who want to earn the right to test branded products. I have no idea in advance of what would work with the consumer public.
Price (cost competition)
The varying risk profiles, and performance standards, will have different costs associated with them. Obviously, the price of testing will be zero if the company decides to forgo it altogether and the you agree with them (by buying it).
But even if that wasn’t the case…even if private companies targeted the same exact risk profile as the FDA, and had the same exact delivery performance as the FDA, I think consumers would see some payback almost immediately. I have enormous faith in the private sector to do better than the government in terms of cost efficiency.
Here’s one example of how they might do that, that I would guess at. Just a hypothesis…but hey, you asked for my opinion, didn’t you?
Most of the government agencies for which I’ve done consulting work for have horrible document management processes. That is, collecting data, collating it, checking to make sure they have everything, going back-and-forth with the customer to clean up a few missing details, sending out requests in understandable formats so the customer even knows what he has to provide, storing it in formats that are easily retrieved later, etc.
There are some exceptions, of course. And the gubmint is getting better. But overall, it’s really bad at document management. And there are usually armies of secretaries and document people, earning full salaries and nice cushy government benefits, shuffling all this paper around.
There are new technologies that sprout up all the time that make document management cheaper, faster and more user-friendly for the customer. Even if a testing company targeted the same exact risk profile as the FDA, and the same exact delivery standard as the FDA (Items 1 and 2 above) they could probably save 2-5% or so in costs immediately just by improving administrative processes such as document management.
Then there are potential efficiencies in lab design and management. Procurement of supplies. Organizational benefits like hiring 5 really sharp people, paying hem 50% more than government salaries, but only needing those 5 where the government hires 10. They still save 25% overall.
Those are just ideas. I don’t know if they would work. But think of the marketing message for a aggressive, entreprenuerial company…
“We do the exact same testing as the FDA…for 25% less cost!”
Or, they could plow those cost savings back into increased testing, or different testing, or better testing with new technologies. Then their marketing message could be
“We do more testing than the FDA…at the same price!”
That might appeal to a certain segment of the population, like yours, who is actually interested in increased quality.
So in summary, the essence of the stuff the free market is capable of:
Creating new value propositions for different consumer segments, instead of just the one, single risk profile the government monopoly decides to give to us
Creating transparency amongst companies as to how they actually perform, giving consumers the information they need to make informed decisions
Driving down prices for consumers by lowering costs
I really hope that’s what you were shooting for with your question. Because as you can see, I probably don’t have much energy left for a followup.
IdahoMauleMan-what about the case of the thalidomide children? In that instance, it wasn’t the the one taking the drug who had to live with the consequences-but an innocent “bystander”, let’s say. In this case, YOUR choice to take a drug could affect someone else. (Well, had you been a woman)
Thanks to the FDA, only 17 children in the US were affected, compared to aprox. 10,000 in Europe and Africa, due to inadequate testing.
What about those who have to make choices for others-children, the mentally disabled, the elderly (who are unable to care for themselves anymore, etc).
Surely at least some purchasers are naive enough to think they are getting a deal, perhaps capitalizing on someone’s theft of a Rolex shipment. Definitely some people buy them for laughs.