U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border

[mRx 16]

Monetary inflation clouds judgment and distorts the whole entire market. Those ratings were accurate at the time given the direction of mortgage lending fueled and excited by the Federal Reserve. The private sector is always the scapegoat during economic trouble; I guess it helps mask the monumental failure of our monetary policies.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd have more faith if there weren't a cartload of examples of profit proving more attractive than producing a safe product. Regulation came about because of all the failures, not because someone suddenly thought 'oh I know, let's invent something to screw up the economy. How about an agency to screw the drug industry for starters? Yeah, let's start with them, I mean, they are doing such a good job, they don't produce any drugs that have dangerous side effects, but if we regulate, you know what, they just might start?"

However, in this utopian view of the free market, I guess it's possible that good will run parallel with profitable, and pigs might even fly.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Those ratings were accurate at the time ...

No.... they weren't. Ratings are supposed to be indicators of the credit-worthiness of the underlying components of the security. We now know - know - that the ratings agencies weren't even aware of the underlying components.

[mRx 16]

Those ratings were accurate at the time ...

No.... they weren't. Ratings are supposed to be indicators of the credit-worthiness of the underlying components of the security. We now know - know - that the ratings agencies weren't even aware of the underlying components.

FNMA and FHLMC completely restructured the lending market and the definition of "credit-worthiness".

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't see how guarding the border will help cities like Phoenix?? From straw buyers of firearms in Phoenix to a 3 hour distance to the Mexican border, it doesn't look like this "Overspill" problem can be won by merely guarding the border areas of Bisbee and Nogales.

With enough guards, achieving saturation?

On the bright side that would likely offer illegals new job opportunities by outsourcing. Or... even the more serious VJ Minutemen could also work side by side them as well.

[Amy&Aldo 2]

Ugh...I should never have read this article. My fiance just landed in Cuidad Juarez for his interview at the embassy. I was already worried about his safety before. Now I feel sick to my stomach.

[mRx 16]

I'd have more faith if there weren't a cartload of examples of profit proving more attractive than producing a safe product. Regulation came about because of all the failures, not because someone suddenly thought 'oh I know, let's invent something to screw up the economy. How about an agency to screw the drug industry for starters? Yeah, let's start with them, I mean, they are doing such a good job, they don't produce any drugs that have dangerous side effects, but if we regulate, you know what, they just might start?"

However, in this utopian view of the free market, I guess it's possible that good will run parallel with profitable, and pigs might even fly.

Sigh. That same 'ole tired argument against profits. Profits are derived from fullfilling the wishes and demands of the consumers. They are earning no more, and no less than we the consumers decide. Suggesting that profits play any other role reveals a deep misunderstanding of a market economy.

If you wish to believe all the drivel on the FDA homepage, then may the farce be with you. The FDA is in bed with the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. They are the catalyst that allows the Rx industry to operate in a vacuumed-monopoly through controlling what is sold, lengthy "testing", and silly patent laws.

Look at the money. The Pharmaceutical industry contributed over 28 million in campaign contributions this year alone. Does that not strike you as odd? Or are they just a Democracy-lovin' industry?

Now, as I've said, and maybe you've missed it, but the free-market is perfectly capable of regulating itself. Medical professionals, Pharmocology PhDs, and reputable medical scientists are perfectly capable of testing products for safety. Rest assured if they made a mistake, the market would punish them. This is no utopian idea either. It's common sense. If Drug Review Company A certifies a drug to be safe, and it later kills 100 people, then I sure would never trust their approvals. The best would eventually rise to the top, and their sound and accurate safety measurements would reward them with profits.

The same could not be said about the FDA. When they screw up, they either cover it up, toss the blame elsewhere, or recieve additional funding. The utopian free market company that makes a mistake would be given a nice bankruptcy.

[slim 1,525]

Oh great. Here we go. Now they're going to try to ban hand grenades.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Easiest way to put every drug cartel and drug gang out of business is to decriminalize drugs.

No, you would have to legalize and create a legal drug industry

Can't wait for the NASCAR Crystal Meth 500 LOL

bound to be plenty of crashes in that one

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Plus what A.J said. There simply have to be some standards or finding out about products just becomes too hazardous for one's health.

I don't see how guarding the border will help cities like Phoenix?? From straw buyers of firearms in Phoenix to a 3 hour distance to the Mexican border, it doesn't look like this "Overspill" problem can be won by merely guarding the border areas of Bisbee and Nogales.

With enough guards, achieving saturation?

Who's paying?

The taxpayer. Especially wealthy ones, like you

Oh, and Charles too

i thought i was to help arm them?

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd have more faith if there weren't a cartload of examples of profit proving more attractive than producing a safe product. Regulation came about because of all the failures, not because someone suddenly thought 'oh I know, let's invent something to screw up the economy. How about an agency to screw the drug industry for starters? Yeah, let's start with them, I mean, they are doing such a good job, they don't produce any drugs that have dangerous side effects, but if we regulate, you know what, they just might start?"

However, in this utopian view of the free market, I guess it's possible that good will run parallel with profitable, and pigs might even fly.

Sigh. That same 'ole tired argument against profits. Profits are derived from fullfilling the wishes and demands of the consumers. They are earning no more, and no less than we the consumers decide. Suggesting that profits play any other role reveals a deep misunderstanding of a market economy.

If you wish to believe all the drivel on the FDA homepage, then may the farce be with you. The FDA is in bed with the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. They are the catalyst that allows the Rx industry to operate in a vacuumed-monopoly through controlling what is sold, lengthy "testing", and silly patent laws.

Look at the money. The Pharmaceutical industry contributed over 28 million in campaign contributions this year alone. Does that not strike you as odd? Or are they just a Democracy-lovin' industry?

Now, as I've said, and maybe you've missed it, but the free-market is perfectly capable of regulating itself. Medical professionals, Pharmocology PhDs, and reputable medical scientists are perfectly capable of testing products for safety. Rest assured if they made a mistake, the market would punish them. This is no utopian idea either. It's common sense. If Drug Review Company A certifies a drug to be safe, and it later kills 100 people, then I sure would never trust their approvals. The best would eventually rise to the top, and their sound and accurate safety measurements would reward them with profits.

The same could not be said about the FDA. When they screw up, they either cover it up, toss the blame elsewhere, or recieve additional funding. The utopian free market company that makes a mistake would be given a nice bankruptcy.

I am not against profits, perhaps you misread. What I said was that profits and producing something benefitial to humans do not run hand in hand, no matter how many times you argue that somehow that is inevitable. Your common sense argument simply doesn't hold up to what happened before regulation and it certainly would not hold up should anyone decide to run with your theory of free markets - not that that is every going to happen.

It is perfectly possible that the FDA and other agencies are not as good as they should be. It is perfectly possible that as in every other organisation people have positioned themselves in there for other reasons than the aims of the organization and it is perfectly possible that the government should revamp these and other regulatory organizations. What is nor perfectly possible, judging from what happened historically, is that the market would regulate itself to the benefit of humans.

I know what you think would happen, that anytime a company produced something harmful or even something that didn't work that the fact that it was harmful or didn't work would inevitably and swiftly lead to the business failure but that is a utopian view, whether you like that idea or not because there is nothing to suggest that this would be the case. With drugs for example, who would bother with extensive and expensive testing prior to marketing? They didn't and they wouldn't. They would 'test' their product on the public and even if you suggested that these drugs were 'experimental' (which I somwhow doubt would be a good marketing ploy) the damage that would be caused to people who saw themselves as being in no position to wait to find out if something was helpful or not would be spectacular. Even if you are suggesting that these drugs are prescription only, I am not quite sure how Dr's in their practices set about evaluating every new drug to decide if it might be worth using or not. However, perhaps you can enlighten me about that.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You need only apply the argument to things like building standards (or electrical standards) to see how ludicrous it is. I can only imagine what a pickle we'd be in if anyone who wanted to throw up a building didn't have to conform to a single established standards for laying foundations, what sort of materials should be used in supporting walls or holding up the ceiling.

These things have to be managed by centralised agencies which are non-profit and free of any overt agenda. Commercial interests are an (obvious) agenda - and the reason why, if they had their way - the drug companies behind those "sunny day" TV commercials encouraging people to self-medicate wouldn't be obligated to notify consumers of the risks associated with using their product.

[Peikko 1,575]

Only rich people would have houses that didn't fall down - and even then...

[mRx 16]

What I said was that profits and producing something benefitial to humans do not run hand in hand, no matter how many times you argue that somehow that is inevitable.

You are missing a very fundamental point that in order to have a profit (gain), a person must lose something that is valued by the other party more than what they are losing, and gain something in voluntary trade. Both parties must value what they are willing to give up as a loss less than what they are going to gain. This is an economic axiom. Therefore profits (gains) is something that both sides of the transaction experience.

What is nor perfectly possible, judging from what happened historically, is that the market would regulate itself to the benefit of humans.

How wouldn't it? Can you name a time that we had no regulation, and individual's best interests weren't fullfilled?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I said was that profits and producing something benefitial to humans do not run hand in hand, no matter how many times you argue that somehow that is inevitable.

You are missing a very fundamental point that in order to have a profit (gain), a person must lose something that is valued by the other party more than what they are losing, and gain something in voluntary trade. Both parties must value what they are willing to give up as a loss less than what they are going to gain. This is an economic axiom. Therefore profits (gains) is something that both sides of the transaction experience.

About that... I've got some magic beans to sell you, if you don't mind parting with your prized dairy cow...