Drip Drip Drip

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Obama can't do squat about it when the right has put it in place and blocks anything he tries to do...

True. When he had the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof Senate, he couldn't do anything. I mean, hopefully the GOP will stop blocking health care financing reform so Obama care can be passed.

Quote

Do try to think back to when all three branches of goverment were controlled by the GOP

Yes. I remember that. I even remember when Carter was in office. And back when Clinton had both houses of Congress Democratic.

And gee - Clinton managed to get plenty accomplished despite partisan warfare shutting down the government on two occasions.

Excuses excuses...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As I see it BOTH parties voted on Nafta, it was started by Bush 1, signed by Clinton, and about a 55/45 vote in congress( rep's the majority). both parties had their hand in it. The epa regulations were to be followed by all involved but like everything else the feds forgot to enforce that.

Clinton advocated quite forcefully for NAFTA and was key in its passage, so it does seem difficult to blame this on the right alone. Perot was the greatest opponent, but his influence was mitigated by the fact that he was a nutcase.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you can anwser that yourself... WHO is holding the strings.. and WHO Benefits the most???? Follow the money. And no.. Obama can't do squat about it when the right has put it in place and blocks anything he tries to do... Do try to think back to when all three branches of goverment were controlled by the GOP... and do a bit of hitsorical reading... and it becomes very very clear just how Patriotic some "Americans" ..... ACT..... completely contray to what they told YOU to get elected.

As I see it BOTH parties voted on Nafta, it was started by Bush 1, signed by Clinton, and about a 55/45 vote in congress( rep's the majority). both parties had their hand in it. The epa regulations were to be followed by all involved but like everything else the feds forgot to enforce that.
What I don't understand is why the left (the party of everything green) would not stand up and enforce the EPA clause in the treaty? or why nobody enforces that? The WTO doesn't have many epa regulations nor do they enforce them, why would the left or right here alow that when it concerns imports here to the US? The left is all about green but they align themselves with world groups that don't do "green" why?

Just because someone (or some other nation) is an asshole doesn't mean we all have to be assholes.

All the regulations you don't like (OSHA, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc.) came about because of some abuse by greedy capitalists.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of regulations, 21st Century capitalists would be any different from 19th Century abusers like Collis Huntington, Charlie Crocker, Ralston's Ring, the food industry documented by Upton Sinclair, or 20th Century abusers like Hooker Chemical and the nice folks responsible for the attached photo.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you can anwser that yourself... WHO is holding the strings.. and WHO Benefits the most???? Follow the money. And no.. Obama can't do squat about it when the right has put it in place and blocks anything he tries to do... Do try to think back to when all three branches of goverment were controlled by the GOP... and do a bit of hitsorical reading... and it becomes very very clear just how Patriotic some "Americans" ..... ACT..... completely contray to what they told YOU to get elected.

As I see it BOTH parties voted on Nafta, it was started by Bush 1, signed by Clinton, and about a 55/45 vote in congress( rep's the majority). both parties had their hand in it. The epa regulations were to be followed by all involved but like everything else the feds forgot to enforce that.
What I don't understand is why the left (the party of everything green) would not stand up and enforce the EPA clause in the treaty? or why nobody enforces that? The WTO doesn't have many epa regulations nor do they enforce them, why would the left or right here alow that when it concerns imports here to the US? The left is all about green but they align themselves with world groups that don't do "green" why?

Just because someone (or some other nation) is an asshole doesn't mean we all have to be assholes.

All the regulations you don't like (OSHA, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc.) came about because of some abuse by greedy capitalists.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of regulations, 21st Century capitalists would be any different from 19th Century abusers like Collis Huntington, Charlie Crocker, Ralston's Ring, the food industry documented by Upton Sinclair, or 20th Century abusers like Hooker Chemical and the nice folks responsible for the attached photo.

I agree with you that some of the regulations are very good for us, but if you are going to put this financial burden on companies you need to protect them from those that do not have these financial burdens. This is what is missing. The government can creat all the epa regulations they want as long as no products made without following these regulations are allowed into the US. The feds are only doing half the job and our unemployment rate and trade deficit are showing how poorly the feds are doing there jobs.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you can anwser that yourself... WHO is holding the strings.. and WHO Benefits the most???? Follow the money. And no.. Obama can't do squat about it when the right has put it in place and blocks anything he tries to do... Do try to think back to when all three branches of goverment were controlled by the GOP... and do a bit of hitsorical reading... and it becomes very very clear just how Patriotic some "Americans" ..... ACT..... completely contray to what they told YOU to get elected.

As I see it BOTH parties voted on Nafta, it was started by Bush 1, signed by Clinton, and about a 55/45 vote in congress( rep's the majority). both parties had their hand in it. The epa regulations were to be followed by all involved but like everything else the feds forgot to enforce that.
What I don't understand is why the left (the party of everything green) would not stand up and enforce the EPA clause in the treaty? or why nobody enforces that? The WTO doesn't have many epa regulations nor do they enforce them, why would the left or right here alow that when it concerns imports here to the US? The left is all about green but they align themselves with world groups that don't do "green" why?

Just because someone (or some other nation) is an asshole doesn't mean we all have to be assholes.

All the regulations you don't like (OSHA, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc.) came about because of some abuse by greedy capitalists.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of regulations, 21st Century capitalists would be any different from 19th Century abusers like Collis Huntington, Charlie Crocker, Ralston's Ring, the food industry documented by Upton Sinclair, or 20th Century abusers like Hooker Chemical and the nice folks responsible for the attached photo.

How about its no longer the 19th century and morals evolve. Children aren't tolerated in the workplace not because of the law but because parents wouldnt stand for it. You honestly think children would be in coal mines today if the law was lifted? also, nor would anyone in todays world work in the fictional meat processing plants Sinclair wrote of. The factory would be shut down not by laws but because it couldnt profit in a modern world without employees. I personally would collect unemployment before i risk my limbs in a factory.

Who uses the term capitalist? Your still in school arent you? you need to not take everything your college prof tells you so serious. graduate, get a job and then come back and let me know what you think of evil capitalist.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you can anwser that yourself... WHO is holding the strings.. and WHO Benefits the most???? Follow the money. And no.. Obama can't do squat about it when the right has put it in place and blocks anything he tries to do... Do try to think back to when all three branches of goverment were controlled by the GOP... and do a bit of hitsorical reading... and it becomes very very clear just how Patriotic some "Americans" ..... ACT..... completely contray to what they told YOU to get elected.

As I see it BOTH parties voted on Nafta, it was started by Bush 1, signed by Clinton, and about a 55/45 vote in congress( rep's the majority). both parties had their hand in it. The epa regulations were to be followed by all involved but like everything else the feds forgot to enforce that.
What I don't understand is why the left (the party of everything green) would not stand up and enforce the EPA clause in the treaty? or why nobody enforces that? The WTO doesn't have many epa regulations nor do they enforce them, why would the left or right here alow that when it concerns imports here to the US? The left is all about green but they align themselves with world groups that don't do "green" why?

Just because someone (or some other nation) is an asshole doesn't mean we all have to be assholes.

All the regulations you don't like (OSHA, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc.) came about because of some abuse by greedy capitalists.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of regulations, 21st Century capitalists would be any different from 19th Century abusers like Collis Huntington, Charlie Crocker, Ralston's Ring, the food industry documented by Upton Sinclair, or 20th Century abusers like Hooker Chemical and the nice folks responsible for the attached photo.

How about its no longer the 19th century and morals evolve. Children aren't tolerated in the workplace not because of the law but because parents wouldnt stand for it. You honestly think children would be in coal mines today if the law was lifted? also, nor would anyone in todays world work in the fictional meat processing plants Sinclair wrote of. The factory would be shut down not by laws but because it couldnt profit in a modern world without employees. I personally would collect unemployment before i risk my limbs in a factory.

Who uses the term capitalist? Your still in school arent you? you need to not take everything your college prof tells you so serious. graduate, get a job and then come back and let me know what you think of evil capitalist.

Not even close.

I notice that in other threads you argue against regulating those nice capitalists who walked off with $billions as a result of plunging the world into a recession.

Leopards don't change their spots. Those, like you, who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

I dont argue against all regulation. You comment is unfair. The SEC and Finra have very important jobs. many dishonest people exist and you need people who are willing to dedicate themselves to protecting others. I have the utmost respect for our nations regulators. Unlike yourself, i personally know many. My comments on the financial industry are not based on an academic exercise but real world experience.

I do not support alot of regulation because it isnt effective and hurts the financial markets which are essential to the prosperity of this nation. Like i said, graduate and get a job. You tune will change too.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

How about its no longer the 19th century and morals evolve. Children aren't tolerated in the workplace not because of the law but because parents wouldnt stand for it. You honestly think children would be in coal mines today if the law was lifted? also, nor would anyone in todays world work in the fictional meat processing plants Sinclair wrote of. The factory would be shut down not by laws but because it couldnt profit in a modern world without employees. I personally would collect unemployment before i risk my limbs in a factory.

You might prefer to collect unemployment but there are a lot of people who work in poultry processing plants today that take significant risks because it is all they can get (partially because many of them are illegal). I live in an area w/ major poultry processing industry and have met any number of people who have worked in the poultry plants. Would they revert back to Sinclair times w/out regulations? Very unlikely, but they are not exactly paragons of safe workplaces today. They are also not exactly paragons of safe food handling practices either. That is with regulations in place, although only sporadically enforced (again because most of the workers are illegal here).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

How about its no longer the 19th century and morals evolve. Children aren't tolerated in the workplace not because of the law but because parents wouldnt stand for it. You honestly think children would be in coal mines today if the law was lifted? also, nor would anyone in todays world work in the fictional meat processing plants Sinclair wrote of. The factory would be shut down not by laws but because it couldnt profit in a modern world without employees. I personally would collect unemployment before i risk my limbs in a factory.

You might prefer to collect unemployment but there are a lot of people who work in poultry processing plants today that take significant risks because it is all they can get (partially because many of them are illegal). I live in an area w/ major poultry processing industry and have met any number of people who have worked in the poultry plants. Would they revert back to Sinclair times w/out regulations? Very unlikely, but they are not exactly paragons of safe workplaces today. They are also not exactly paragons of safe food handling practices either. That is with regulations in place, although only sporadically enforced (again because most of the workers are illegal here).

i'm glad you agree that they wouldnt revert back to the fictional world of Sinclair's novel.

We have the safest food supply in the history of mankind. Could it improve? sure but even without inspections, which i agree we should have, it would remain high. People would not tolerate getting sick and grocers who sold tainted food would go out of business. So would the processors.

to be clear. im not against regulations. i undertand there are dishonest people. I just also understand that in this modern world the free market provides us plenty of protections. How many people refuse to eat dirty water dogs? Does any reasonable adult think that the only reason we get safe food is because the regulators demand it? no, its alos because the free markets demand it.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

i'm glad you agree that they wouldnt revert back to the fictional world of Sinclair's novel.

Sinclair's fiction resulted in a "secret" presidential investigation that despite being leaked in advance to the meat packing industry basically confirmed the abuses. That report led to the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Bureau of Chemistry that would become the Food and Drug Administration in 1930.

Leopards don't change their spots. The free market existed in 1890.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Like i said, graduate and get a job. You tune will change too.

Ha ha. I've been working longer than you have been out of diapers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Like i said, graduate and get a job. You tune will change too.

Ha ha. I've been working longer than you have been out of diapers.

Well you certainly are not a young person, since i'm middle aged.

Your comments sounded so much like my college age nephews and neices that i assumed you were some idealistic young college kid.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

i'm glad you agree that they wouldnt revert back to the fictional world of Sinclair's novel.

Sinclair's fiction resulted in a "secret" presidential investigation that despite being leaked in advance to the meat packing industry basically confirmed the abuses. That report led to the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Bureau of Chemistry that would become the Food and Drug Administration in 1930.

Leopards don't change their spots. The free market existed in 1890.

its not 1890. morals have changed. current society would not tolerate the abuses of that period. regulations are not the only thing keeping us from living in the Jungle.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Your comments sounded so much like my college age nephews and neices that i assumed you were some idealistic young college kid.

We will forgive you if you do not know much about Kallend. No Kallend definitely is not some young idealistic college kid. But he indoctrinates them every day. LOL ... he is a college professor. Okay I have no proof that Kallend actually indoctrinates his students since I have never set foot in his classroom. But it is no secret that many of his peers do indoctrinate young impressionable minds. So guilt through association?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Your comments sounded so much like my college age nephews and neices that i assumed you were some idealistic young college kid.

+1 if you didn't know that he was a Prof. THIS is classic.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Okay I have no proof that Kallend actually indoctrinates his students since I have never set foot in his classroom. But it is no secret that many of his peers do indoctrinate young impressionable minds. So guilt through association?

I indoctrinate them in how to be good engineers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

\

its not 1890. morals have changed. current society would not tolerate the abuses of that period. regulations are not the only thing keeping us from living in the Jungle.

we still see rather egregious actions, like that samonella problem with peanut butter manufacturing 2 years ago killed at least 8. That plant was shipping out product that tested positive, absolutely no regard for safety.

As the food inspection process has become more of a spot check and an after the fact investigation, we're seeing exactly what we get from free market versus regulation.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

\

its not 1890. morals have changed. current society would not tolerate the abuses of that period. regulations are not the only thing keeping us from living in the Jungle.

we still see rather egregious actions, like that samonella problem with peanut butter manufacturing 2 years ago killed at least 8. That plant was shipping out product that tested positive, absolutely no regard for safety.

As the food inspection process has become more of a spot check and an after the fact investigation, we're seeing exactly what we get from free market versus regulation.

to quote myself, "to be clear. im not against regulations. i undertand there are dishonest people. I just also understand that in this modern world the free market provides us plenty of protections. How many people refuse to eat dirty water dogs? Does any reasonable adult think that the only reason we get safe food is because the regulators demand it? no, its alos because the free markets demand it."

Hopefully after ready that you will see i do not believe in regulation vs free market. You need a combination. However unlike others, I do not believe, even without regulation, we would return to the 19th century. Modern society would not tolerate those abuses.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[billvon 3,080]

>You honestly think children would be in coal mines today if the law was lifted?

There would be some. There are some very bad parents out there. Look at any paper; you'll see people beating their children to death, starving them etc. Making them work in a mine would be more acceptable to most than outright child abuse, which (sadly) happens with great regularity.

And of course the mine would promise up and down that the mine would be 100% safe and that the children would only perform the most mundane of activities, like delivering food to the miners on the surface and running errands. Until the cave-in happened, of course, and camera crews arrived. And then people would wring their hands and say "why o why did this happen? How could that mean CEO have been so evil?"

>also, nor would anyone in todays world work in the fictional meat processing plants
>Sinclair wrote of.

==========================
Extreme Acts of Animal Cruelty
The Humane Society investigator who spurred the biggest beef recall
in U.S. history speaks to Salon about his alarming undercover video.
By Katharine Mieszkowski
Feb. 22, 2008

In October 2007, John Wrangler, not his real name, took a job as a livestock handler at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. in Chino, Calif., for a salary of $8 an hour. Working from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., six days a week, Wrangler herded cattle, many of them milked-out dairy cows, off trucks, and hustled them from pens towards the "kill box" to be slaughtered. All in all, he helped the plant turn about 500 cows per day into meat, with much of the beef going to supply the National School Lunch Program.
In the course of the six weeks that Wrangler worked at the Southern California slaughterhouse, he witnessed extreme acts of animal cruelty and gross violations of federal food safety standards. On his first day on the job, he watched a skinny and weak cow collapse while going up the narrow chute that leads to the kill box where animals' throats are cut. A worker pulled the animal's tail, hoping to get it to stand up. When that failed, the worker applied a "hot shot" cattle prod to jolt the cow to its feet. When the cow still didn't stand, another worker jumped into the chute and shot the cow in the head with a captive bolt gun, designed to stun the animal into unconsciousness. With the cow lying in the chute out cold, the worker put a chain around its neck and attached it to a mechanical hoist, which dragged the unconscious animal to the kill box to be slaughtered and processed into meat.
. . .
More than two weeks after Wrangler's video caused a sensation online, the USDA issued the largest beef recall in the history of the United States: 143 million pounds of beef products, most of which has already been consumed. About 40 percent of that meat went to the National School Lunch Program and other federal nutrition programs. Amazingly, all of the abuses occurred with USDA inspectors on the premises. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said he was "dismayed at the inhumane handling of cattle" at the plant.
===============================
Abuse of Intellectually Disabled Workers at Iowa Meatpacking Plant

By s.e. smith on 17 May, 2010

Note: There are a number of links to news stories in this post. All of them have problematic language.

A horrifying story out of Iowa has been getting some press attention over the last few days, if you know where to look. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) report detailed the abuse of workers with intellectual disabilities in a meat packing plant and it looks like the labour contractor responsible, Henry’s Turkey Service, is going to be brought up on charges. I can find stories on this dating back to early 2009; the uptick in interest appears to be the result of news that more federal charges are going to be filed.

The labour contractor, based in Texas, provides crews that go all over the country and has done so since the 1970s. This particular group of 21 men was sent to a plant in Iowa, West Liberty Foods. They were kept in a bunkhouse with boarded up windows and space heaters for heat; Iowa gets mighty cold in the winter and space heaters are unlikely to cut it. These men were getting up at three in the morning seven days a week to work in a meatpacking plant, and some of them were ‘employed‘ for decades.
===================================

Now just imagine what it would be like _without_ regulation. It has definitely gotten better since Sinclair's day - but do not kid yourself it's because we are all more moral or something like that. It's better because people get caught breaking the rules and fined or imprisoned.

>I personally would collect unemployment before i risk my limbs in a factory.

Check out "A Walk Across America." It was written just before 1980. It was a story of a man who walked across the US, getting jobs where he could. At one point he worked for a steel mill, and worked with dozens of men, almost all of whom were missing fingers, eyes, limbs etc. It was the culture of the place; everyone knew you were eventually going to lose something. They accepted it.

You (fortunately) live in a world where that's unacceptable, and you would choose to not risk your limbs. Not everyone has that worldview, and not everyone has the ability to refuse jobs that put them at risk. Fortunately, nowadays we have OSHA and organizations like that who protect even the most at-risk populations.

>get a job and then come back and let me know what you think of evil capitalist.

Capitalists aren't evil. They make decisions that make sense from a capitalist perspective. Is it "right" to put 10,000 americans out of work and move their jobs to China? Perhaps not - but if it saves the company, it is justifiable in a capitalist system. Pay people the absolute minimum you can? Again, it may not be right - but it makes the company competitive.

One of the roles regulation plays is to prevent the worst excesses of capitalism, and regulation works because it penalizes everyone, not just the company that does the right thing. If you are the only company that refuses to hire child labor you will go out of business, because other companies will out-compete you. But if no one can hire child labor, then no one has a competitive advantage from doing so.

The cost of that is, of course, higher prices to consumers. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[weekender 0]

Billvon- your story of the media exposing abuses is exactly what i'm talking about. right there in the story its mentioned that regulators were present and did nothing. It was only stopped when private citizens refused to accept the practice.

Please read my response to kelpdiver and the rest of my posts. you will understand that i understand the need for regulation. I am just of the opinion we are not being protected from living in the Jungle solely by gov't regulators. Free markets and our modern moral system affords us plenty of protections.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

to quote myself, "to be clear. im not against regulations. i undertand there are dishonest people. I just also understand that in this modern world the free market provides us plenty of protections. How many people refuse to eat dirty water dogs? Does any reasonable adult think that the only reason we get safe food is because the regulators demand it? no, its alos because the free markets demand it."

Right now it seems like the free market is demanding ground beef for the lowest price possible. How else to explain the use of the reprocessed "leavings" put into most fast food burgers? It only saves 3 or 4%, but at what cost to quality/safety? All to maintain the 99c hamburger.

No, Americans have long shown to be extremely price conscience, and large vendors like McDonald's, Walmart, and the big grocery chains are making the meat industry find ways to deliver, just as Home Depot did with cheaper (and less durable) tools.

Food, Inc. is perhaps the best documentary showing the problems with the food industry now. It also feels to me like the frequency of outbreaks of food illness is increasing, though that's always subject to selective memory problems.

I'm paying my way out of the problem. And you would suggest that is the free market in action. The problem is that aside from needing the money, there just isn't enough supply from more reliable means. The vast majority will have to continue to get their food from these suspect sources.

[billvon 3,080]

>Free markets and our modern moral system affords us plenty of protections.

I think that one of the reasons we HAVE a modern moral system is that some things are now illegal. We have grown up in an age without child labor so we look upon that as outrageous - and the reason we don't have labor laws is that there are laws against it.

That's progress, but it wouldn't have happened without law.

One of the problems with capitalism is that it rewards the company that makes the most profit, period. It doesn't reward companies that "do the right thing" or "are good people." Heck, going back to the coal mine example - if you found out that a coal mining company was using child labor, and was somehow doing so legally - what would you do? Would you refuse to buy coal from them? I bet you don't buy coal anyway. Would you refuse to buy electricity? Unlikely. Would you petition your utility to not use their coal? They'd tell you "we don't buy coal, we buy wholesale power from generators." Would you petition the generators to not use that mine? They'd send you a nice form letter saying "thank you now go away."

You could imagine a scenario where you researched which utility used which generators, and which generators used which mine, and then either switch utilities or develop a complex petition to cause some change in that arrangement. But that is unlikely to do a thing.

So we rely on laws passed by our representatives to make that happen. Free markets and morals do not protect us against child labor; such laws do.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

to quote myself, "to be clear. im not against regulations. i undertand there are dishonest people. I just also understand that in this modern world the free market provides us plenty of protections. How many people refuse to eat dirty water dogs? Does any reasonable adult think that the only reason we get safe food is because the regulators demand it? no, its alos because the free markets demand it."

Right now it seems like the free market is demanding ground beef for the lowest price possible. How else to explain the use of the reprocessed "leavings" put into most fast food burgers? It only saves 3 or 4%, but at what cost to quality/safety? All to maintain the 99c hamburger.

No, Americans have long shown to be extremely price conscience, and large vendors like McDonald's, Walmart, and the big grocery chains are making the meat industry find ways to deliver, just as Home Depot did with cheaper (and less durable) tools.

Food, Inc. is perhaps the best documentary showing the problems with the food industry now. It also feels to me like the frequency of outbreaks of food illness is increasing, though that's always subject to selective memory problems.

I'm paying my way out of the problem. And you would suggest that is the free market in action. The problem is that aside from needing the money, there just isn't enough supply from more reliable means. The vast majority will have to continue to get their food from these suspect sources.

I understand your point. its pretty clear and reasonable.

Here is where you and i will never agree. You feel the food supply is not very safe. i feel its the safest in the history of mankind. As i stated before, it can improve but i'm very comfortable with it.

Before people make assumptions. I'm not completely inexperienced in the industry. My family was in farming and my father was in food processing. I've seen the inside alot of processing factories as a child. (no, my dad did not have me working a machine, hah). Ive seen it and still feel quite safe. maybe because being raised by farmers i understand how important food prep is. Or im a evil ignorant capitalist. Probably a bit of both.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

billvon, "I think that one of the reasons we HAVE a modern moral system is that some things are now illegal. We have grown up in an age without child labor so we look upon that as outrageous - and the reason we don't have labor laws is that there are laws against it. "

I think your point shown above could very well be true. However, i dont really care why. My point is that TODAY it would be considered outrageous and not tolerated. Even without regulation we would not live in The Jungle. Our quality of life would erode, for certain but not back to the 19th century. Not in my opinion.

"
So we rely on laws passed by our representatives to make that happen. Free markets and morals do not protect us against child labor; such laws do. "

You and i will have to disagree on your last sentence. i do believe that free markets and modern morals afford us some protections. The regulations are NOT the only reason people do the right thing. IMO, of course

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[billvon 3,080]

>Even without regulation we would not live in The Jungle. Our quality of life would
>erode, for certain but not back to the 19th century. Not in my opinion.

It would take quite a while for it to do so, but capitalism drives us in that direction. There's a reason those abuses happened in the first place.

>i do believe that free markets and modern morals afford us some protections.
>The regulations are NOT the only reason people do the right thing. IMO, of
>course

I agree, people often do the right things in society. Unfortunately, others don't, and at best are lazy, and at worst are criminals.

Large scale capitalism has that spread of people as well, but does not have the feedback that occurs from living in a society. Managers are insulated from the human effects of their decisions, and are rewarded (or penalized) on how much money they make for the company. There are very few exceptions to this.