Picking Up Where I Left Off

I began this blog with high hopes and good intentions. And - as with a lot of things in life - it just fell by the wayside after my first two blogs.

I've decided to try and start it up again with a little more modest goals. I started thinking a post once a week would be feasible. I got burned out and other obligations took priority. I think about writing quite a bit, and its something I truly long to do. Thus, I'm going to start again and hopefully fulfill that want.

My good buddy from college, Kollin Fields, and I correspond every once in a while via email. We'll fire questions at each other about something we read, and the other will weigh in with his two cents. We always have great discussions. I've decided to post one of our correspondences as my comeback blog. I figure its an easy, simple way to get back into the swing of things and might make for an interesting read.

Please post your comments and thoughts. I'd love for everyone to add to the discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I write. It means a lot to me.

Here it goes:

Kollin:
Did you catch this article?
http://mises.org/daily/6652/Why-There-Should-Be-a-Free-Market-in-Food-Labeling

Do you think this laissez-faire concept would work for all interactions between the government and food or drug companies? The only problem I can think of is that, take for instance, farmers and agricultural industries. If they mislabeled and sold bad meat and poultry and people eventually became sick, which and how many consumers are going to make that connection to the bad meat and then publicize it enough to take demand down?

Similar to the problems written about in The Jungle.

Brad:
I do think it would work in totality. As an answer to your question concerning mislabeling and sickness, I would say: yes, absolutely. There are more forces and interests to consider than just the consumers'.

First off, the distributors. If Brookshires, Wal-Mart, or a local mom-and-pop store got a shipment of bad meat in, and their patrons got ill, you would assume they would cease to order from the infecting company.

Secondly, notice the speed with which a company self-regulates and goes into damage-control mode when a bad product hits the market. Not too long ago, Peter Pan peanut butter put out a few bad jars of PB and within days, they had recalled and refunded the purchase of every jar of PB within the contamination window.

But, you must remember the most important type of "regulation" of the food industry: consumer sovereignty. It is the quest for the consumer’s dollar that creates the most potent incentives to offer safer, tastier, and healthier food. Acting merely in self-interest and self-preservation, companies already take pain-staking measures to insure the safety of their food, often beyond government dictates.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle has been debunked by most modern scholarship. He spent very little time in a meat packing factory, and his accounts were sheer fantasy - yellow journalism at its finest.

If you want more on Sinclair:
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=xGU-AAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-xGU-AAAAYAAJ&rdot=1

http://www.mackinac.org/4084

I see two prominent forces at work in the passing of any regulations or new rules passed by the government.

1) In The Constitution of Liberty, Friedrich Hayek made the point that one of the keystones of socialism is the denial of individual responsibility. Thus, the crusade for socialism always included attacks on individual responsibility. For if individuals do not have free will, and are not responsible for their actions, then their lives must be controlled somehow—preferably by the state—according to the socialists. They must be regulated, regimented and controlled—for their own good. The U.S. government and its appendages operate in this exact vein. By decreasing the responsibility of the consumer to investigate their purchase choices, the government increases dependency on itself, thus increasing its power overall.

2) The FDA is merely a revolving door between large agribusiness and pharmaceutical companies (http://mises.org/daily/6580/). The goal of all regulation passed by the FDA is putting smaller competitors out of business and granting government-mandated monopolies to politicians' largest contributors. Much like minimum wage legislation finding its biggest advocates among labor unions, food and drug regulation's most ardent supporters (and often drafters) are ex-Monsanto CEOs. It is a classic example of crony-capitalism trying to crowd out all competition in favor of a select few companies.

One more thing to consider: imagine a free-market FDA. A company that's sole purpose was to establish acceptable standards for food and drug production, but operates solely on the free market (much like the Better Business Bureau). This company's stamp of approval on all its endorsed goods would provide consumer confidence in quality. Food and drug companies would pay a fee to the endorser to come and inspect their plants, thus providing it with a source of revenue. The more thorough and fair the company in its inspections, the more business it attracts from producers. The more thorough and safe in its inspections, the more confidence it builds with consumers. If this type of company existed, no more tax dollars could be funneled directly from the tax-payer to Monsanto or any other influential Big Pharma or Big Ag company for that matter.