FDA and Tobacco Advertising - Because I don't want the last word.
madurofan
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 6,152
I will give you the OP's original statement was too broad and one that is very similar to one I've made too many times. However, it's a generalization about a certain kind of regulation. There are the regulations that make business fair for all, anti-trust, the ones that enforce business ethics, then there are those other ones. The "special interest" and we can't get the support to kill this all together so we'll make ridiculous regulations that serve no purpose other than to stifle the industry.
Comments
The problem is that we each have our own definition of what's fair and what "the other ones are." I have no problem with the government telling cigarette companies to put pictures of lungs on cigarette packages. Since every cigarette manufacturer would be required to do it, it's not taking away the rights of any manufacturer. Now, if the government outlawed cigarettes entirely, that's a totally different story, and as much as I would love to see them gone, even I wouldn't want to go so far as this.
However, you might think that this does go too far. That's perfectly fine. I don't agree with you, but I agree with your right to have that opinion.
But whether you think these particular regulations are good or bad, they're in no way to trampling on a company's 'rights'. Contrary to what Mitt Romney said, the Declaration of Independence never stated that the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to companies. In fact, after the Constitution was passed, Thomas Jefferson, the most famous Founding Father libertarian, wanted to prohibit banks entirely and wanted to control the activities of "northern merchants" whom he felt were in the pockets of the British (which they were).
Through our history there's always been tension between the "rights' of business vs. the 'rights' of ordinary citizens. Throughout most of our history, the rights of business won every single time. It wasn't until the 20th century when the rise of organized labor, Teddy Roosevelt and the growth of populism (the 'libertarian' south was one of the fiercest proponents of stronger regulation of businesses) began to spur the government to star putting checks on unrestricted exploitation of human and environmental resources.
All of the regulations in some way 'restricted' companies' 'rights' to make a buck however they wanted to. If you're a libertarian, you should be against this period, and have no problem with oil companies setting up derricks three feet beyond your property line. But I would think that most people approve of most of the government's regulations on abuse by corporations (starting with those who get paid minimum wage) and that many are glad the government requires a deeper level of disclosures and quality from the companies that produce the things we consume, play with, drive and live in.
The gov't mandating exaggerated pics of what any kind of tobacco purportedly does to longs takes away the marketer's and co.'s right to market and advertise how they wish (while remaining honest and transparent about ab things like ingredients and reasonable warnings).
Forget companies. If I have a product, why should I not be able to packadge it how I see fit, so long that it truthful advertising and labeling? Why should I be forced to not differentiate my product from others on the shelves.
Companies may not be people, but people run them, and should not be overly burdened with reg's like how your product should look.
We have the right to liberty. The government telling us not to do something because it is not healthy is not liberty, it is exactly the opposite of that. Placing a vulgar picture on a legal product is a scare tactic used because they do not have the necessary support to ban it. Providing factual information is far different than using scare tactics and intentionally destroying the marketing value of a legal product because they don't not like the product. Tylenol causes liver failure even when taken as directed. Are we putting pictures of people with Liver Failure on Tylenol? Or of their destroyed liver. Where does this end? Are cars to be painted with pictures of accident victims? It's not about providing information at that point, its scare tactics.
In a previous post you stated you've proven your point. No personal attack intended here but you've proven nothing. I've given specific examples backing up my points, you've stated general ideas and opinion. I'm hardly arguing that my statements are facts but that my opinions are backed by actual instances. Saying that history has proven over and over and over that business will act unethically without regulation is not a fact. Same will some will not. The regulations should protect the opportunity of the ethical company to compete by punishing the unethical, be it environmental, social, human health etc. The regulations are supposed to level the playing field, define the rules of the game as Gray said. They are NOT supposed to pick and chose which industries they like or do not like, nor subsidize products(High End electric cars, Fisker and Tesla) or industries(E-85, solar power) that the consumer is not supporting. It is up to business to provide a competitive product NOT the government to force products they feel are better by enacting regulation and subsidizing them.
Now all that said if your argument is against the free market, then we have no debate. I will not argue against the economic structure of our country. Show me one country without a free-market that has prospered as we have. China is in it's biggest boom since Communism because of the introduction of free market principals.
I can sympathize with many of Raisndots sentiments, especially regarding putting the rights of individuals above the rights of corporations, which should only be important if and when the corporations are trampling individuals rights. That said, Raisin, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Libertarianism, but then, so do many who call themselves Libertarians.
Madurofan and Graylines have handled most of my opinion better than I could have stated it myself.
Very interesting discussion, well done!
To wrap this post up, I thank God we are Americans and the rule of law still applies. Government regulations tend to strangle the market (rather than help anyone but the biggest companies with the best lobbyists) and it is good to see someone out the still pays attention to our freedoms.
Does putting lungs on cigarettes strangle the market? Yes, the OP's argument stays. No, say I. We've had 30 years of warning labels on cigarettes, and while smoking has dropped everywhere, the labels themselves have had little to do it with it--it probably has more to do with the cost ($70 for a carton up here!) and the fact that so many public workplaces and restaurants no longer allow smoking.
Does requiring liquor companies putting alcohol content on bottles strangle the market? Yes, says the OP. No, says me. Beer and liquor sales haven't fallen because of these labels.
Does requiring food manufacturers to put ingredient and fat content info on food products strangle the market? Yes, says the OP. No, says me. Putting this info on products helps consumers determine how eating cheez doodles could affect your health (then again, if you're eating cheez doodles you're probably not going to read the label anyway).
Does putting warning labels on alcohol products stating the dangers to pregnant women strangle the market? Yes, says the OP. No, says I. There are no laws prohibiting the sale of beer to pregnant women who are stupid enough to drink in pregnancy.
Does burdening fund companies and brokers with numerous regulations and disclosure requirements strangle the market? Yes, says the OP. Possibly, says I, if these regulations prevent brokers from acting Bernie Madoff on investors and funds from ripping off investors by promising future returns based on past results.
Does requiring car manufacturers do achieve certain MPG standards stifle the marketplace? Yes, says the OP. Not really, unless your company is only able to create 4 MPG SUVs. In this situation, I'm all far mandating what car manufacturers should do in terms of mileage. This is good for America.
It's certainly a valid argument to say that requiring skulls label on cigs represents the government's desire to impose its own viewpoint on consumers--I won't argue with you there. I'll also agree that this does infringe on the cig copany's right to advertise it death products anyway it wants to. But you won't convince me at all that doing so strangles the market for cigarettes. And to be honest, I don't think the government does ENOUGH in terms of requiring "truth in advertising" of products. And, BTW, Tylenol does carry warning labels about side effects, as do most OTC drugs--things that the government requires. Does this impinge on the company's right to market and advertise Tylenol however it wants? You betcha! And, frankly, I don't care.
Yes, you have stated (with the Microsoft example, that sometimes government regulations aimed at specific companies or industries can stifle their ability to profit IF they can't adapt to the new regulations. But the government does far more to stifle competition and the market by giving over $100 billion in corporate welfare (in the form of tax breaks) to oil companies, big agricultural, and other companies who own most members of Congress. Giving these companies--most larger multinationals--our tax dollars stifles the market more than any government labels do because it ends up favoring larger companies over smaller companies. If you want to vent your anger about government intervention in the marketplace, write your Congressmen and tell them to end corporate welfare once and for all.
First you keep going back to the OP's comment that was not mine and I started in the very beginning saying that I understood it to be an exaggeration. Regulation is necessary. Frivolous regulation is not.
You are looking at it as only affecting the company. You are obviously anti-corporation, we can have an entirely different debate about the naiveté of this but I'll refrain. Yes, there is an affect on the companies mostly in the cost of new packaging not so much in their ability to sell the product.
But what about the affect on the consumer:
1)I have to look at vulgar images every time I purchase a legal product. Don't think this is for cigarettes only. The FDA wants them on cigar boxes as well. They are infringing on my Liberty which I have a right to. Do I think it is unconstitutional, No, but it's getting closer than I like.
2)Regulation is not free some of the burden falls on the companies that are producing the product, which is immediately reflected in the price which is passed onto the consumer. What the companies do not pay for the government pays for. The government does not earn money, period, they take it from the tax payer. This new regulation now either diverts funds from another cause that is already under funded or results in a new tax. And please, don't say that they will tax the product they are regulating to pay for the cost of the regulation. That's not how it works, tobacco taxes now go to S-CHIP. The original hike in taxes against tobacco decades ago was supposed to in part setup a fund to aid with tobacco related diseases, not a penny ever went there.
And on the note of S-CHIP, when Obamacare goes into effect next year S-CHIP dies. Are they going to give us the $.40 per cigar back? HA
So for every regulation you add you're increasing the cost to every one. Sure it's minute, but keeping adding them up. It is not the Federal government's job to protect people from killing themselves on MY DOLLAR. It is their job to protect companies from killing them unknowingly. Anyone that smokes cigarettes in America today knows what it is doing to them.
This statement shows your complete lack of understanding of basic economics and politics. Let me start by saying that I agree our tax system and loopholes, breaks, etc are a joke and desperately need to be streamlined. However:
1)BUSINESS DON'T PAY TAXES. If taxes go up on a corporation by 1% the cost of their good will increase accordingly ( and usually they go up by more than the increase in tax) and remember that sales taxes are paid on a percentage of the sale. So the company and the government are now pocketing more money and you the consumer or paying more. Who actually paid that new tax? Oh, you say don't allow them to raise their price to pay the new tax. First that is no longer a Free Market but lets play with it. Well then one of two things happen:
a) they cheapen their product to make more money on it. Now the consumer is getting inferior product for the same price. Bad for consumer once again.
b)They leave or close their doors and you've lost all that tax income. Meaning the government has to go find it some where else. Again Bad for the consumer.
2)This kind of builds on b from above. Those "subsidies" and tax breaks are necessary to keep the corporations here. Or in some cases were given to lure the company here or back here. It's not corporate welfare. The banks and auto industry bailouts were corporate welfare and I still whole heartedly disagree with those. GM especially should have failed and failed miserably. We could have paid the pensions and health care for all their retirees for less than the GM bailout is going to cost the American people. Don't believe GM's BS that they've paid every penny back. You know how they paid it back, they refinanced the loan with the government, still backed by our dollar. They actually owe us more now.
The tax breaks given to these corporations serves either of one(or both) of 2 purposes:
a) keeps the cost of the good down. I personally completely disagree with this as I am 100% free market. Corn industry is a big example of this.
b)it keeps the company here. In this case there isn't enough support (sounds familiar eh?) to change the tax code so the create a loop hole to keep a company here. Would you rather have 2% of a billion dollars a year or 0% and let some other country collect that 2%. Oh, I'm sure we can just tax their good on import now right? Sure but you've still lost the jobs and the tax base. Now you have to tariff their good, more regulation, more government money being spent, less net.
You're not caring about how Tylenol is affected by new regulation is exactly the problem. I'm not going to say you because I don't know you but many people of your mindset want companies to be regulated in everything they do and then are angry at said company for raising prices.
I'm personally ok with paying a little more to ensure that a company is safe, environmentally sound, and ethical. I am not ok with paying even more for that company to be forced to display a vulgar image on a legal product because some member of congress ran on how tough they are on the product.
And before you say that a picture on a label on a product they don't even use won't cost the taxpayer more money ... there are people whose job it is to measure the size of a warning label on goods. Who's paying for that??
For clarification, I know I'm not going to change your mind. My goal in a good debate is never to change the mind of the individual I'm debating. You are firmly planted in you beliefs or you would not be debating them. But the audience will at least learn something from what I've said maybe it will sway their opinion, maybe it will give them the facts they need to debate another. Or maybe it will start them on a mini-quest to learn more about this topic and will bring another intelligent, informed mind to the conversation.
Anyway, I could spend all day refuting every one of your points. For example:
Corporations DO pay taxes--or at least are supposed to. If they didn't, why are they looking or tax breaks? (And receiving them). It doesn't matter if they're passing the costs on to consumers. And not all companies do. They might decided to pay for the taxes by lowering production costs or cutting salaries. And, if their prices can't compete, they're not passing them to consumer. It doesn't matter how the corporation gets the money back--they ARE SUPPOSED TO PAY TAXES. And, for the record, nowhere have I EVER said that companies shouldn't raise prices to comply with regulations. If companies raise their prices or cheapen quality because of regulations, consumers may decide not to buy the product. Then the company may choose to lay off workers (the usual case), or reduce their own overinflated executive salaries (HAHAHAHHAhAHA!).
In terms of the argument that giving tax breaks for corporation keeps them in America, that's just wrong. GE hasn't paid US taxes in years because it has used tax loopholes to avoid them. Still, they have managed to ship thousands and thousands of jobs oversees. GE will not relocate their headquarters to another country, nor will any major company. Proof of this? The fact that 90% of all corporations who can't take advantage of these loopholes (including my own small business) DO pay taxes and somehow haven't moved outside the U.S. Now, states are a different story--those who give out tax breaks and welfare to businesses are often able to lure them there. Two great examples of success: Kurt Schilling's game company moving from MA to RI after RI offered them great tax breaks and a $75 million dollar loan. A year late, Schilling's company is bankrupt and RI taxpayers are holding the bag. Another example: Fidelity Investments in MA lobbied for YEARS to get huge tax breaks to keep jobs in MA. They were given these tax breaks. Within five years, they had moved nearly 50% of their MA workforce to other states that had given them big tax breaks. And, in those other states they then moved jobs to OTHER states that gave them tax breaks. Yet, they're still getting the tax break. Great incentive there.
In any case, I feel that giving corporations MY tax money to KEEP them here infringes upon MY rights. I don't want to give Big Ag tax breaks to stay in America. Why should I have to pay for it? Let big ag go to hell and let the small family farm come back to being the backbone of America. I don't want to give oil companies big tax breaks to be headquartered here. Let them go away and then let smaller companies take over. Heck, as much as I like alternative energy, I don't even want the US to fund alternative energy companies (something started in the Bush adminstration, not the Obama administration.
Adding death labels to cigarettes may drive up the price of cigs (highly debatable and unlikely) and be something you don't want to see (fair enough), but so does adding ingredient labels to foods. But you're okay with that. But what if I don't want to see that info? What if I don't like warnings on my beer? What if I don't want lists of side effects on my OTC drugs? Then I'm essentially making the same argument that you are. What is seems to boil down to is that YOU don't want to see certain kinds of government mandated labels on packages--and that's an ABSOLUTELY legitimate complaint. But, please, recognize this for what it is--your own PERSONAL hated of CERTAIN kinds of regulations. I realize you've already said that you're okay with certain kinds of regulations. But some of the other gentlemen on this forum disagree even with that--they want a completely laissez-faire, free-market driven market environment where business does whatever it wants, and by doing so it will regulate itself for the common good. I recognize this as a perfectly legitimate point of view, even though I vehemently disagree with it and have already offered numerous examples of why this isn't so.
As to your point about the banks--was it the one about federal regulations allowing interstate banks? Well, there's an example of a federal regulation that ENCOURAGED the free market, didn't it? That kind of goes against the OP's argument that federal regulations stifle markets. But once the government let the genie out of the bag, it was only a matter of time before most of the regionals got sucked up into the majors. I worked for One of These Big Banks, and while I was there it sucked up five different regional banks, and its greedy regional managers made it a point of pride that certain small towns that once had five or more different bank brands to choose from consumers now had 2--either big bank (mine), or little po-drunk George Bailey savings and loan, with no ATMs, no online access, higher fees, and not as competitive lending and deposit rates. This is what happens when the free market runs unabated.
Anyway, I've spent far too much time on this excellent ideological debate that I should be spending generating new business, so go ahead and have the last word on this--I don't have the capacity to continue this one anymore.
when things cost more, sales go down. econ 101.
there are already warnings on every product you listed. we are all ok with those. what is being discussed here is singling out a luxury product that everyone already knows is bad for you and already carries a warning on them (like many other products) simply because a few in the government feel that they dont like that product. this is the government deciding what they dont like and punishing them. where is the freedom there?
the government is also attempting to protect the people from themselves. what is interesting about this is that it is impossible to do that.
on the superficial level, people will do what they want no matter what the government says. the war on drugs is a great example of this.
on the deeper level, it is impossible to violate your own rights. since we all know that cigarettes are bad and they already have a warning label people are making decisions to purchase them anyway. what they do to their own body is their own business. it is ONLY their own business. i own my body.
this is a common misconception. (or maybe im reading this incorrectly, forgive me if i am) many people want a free market. a free market is only free if there are rules that uphold the rights of the individual as well as rights for the businesses. we have long passed those laws and we are now into regulations that strangle business.
when the government decides what it likes and doesnt like and regulates accordingly then we are no longer free. when it comes to cigarettes, the government has done its job on informing people that they are bad for you. there are warnings all over them. at some point it comes to personal responsibility. you, as an individual must make decisions for yourself on if you want purchase or not. the proposed cigarette regulation is pointless and needless. it is a waste of time and money for everyone involved, the government, the businesses being regulated and the taxpayers.
A free market is simply where 2 parties can come together voluntarily and trade anything they want.
Let's look at a no-reg's scenario that's been mentioned: environment.
Say there are no rules, and a company sets up shop, starts producing, and dumps pollution in a river. It may be selling it's goods in a free market (for products), BUT what about those who live downstream? did they voluntarily decide, "Yeah I want a polluted river!" No, they did not... a COST of the company is borne by those who did NOT voluntarily enter into the market for it. This is a market breakdown and is called a "negative externality." This is not a free market, as all parties did not participate voluntarily!
So, there do need to be rules of the game to support a functioning free market.
Back to the cigarette/tobacco topic... These morbid warning pictures go far beyond truthfulness and full disclosure... it is absolutely nothing like tylenol saying "don't take with alcohol...may cause liver damage." If anything these warnings are more lies than legitimate, truthful information! And the idea that the government can force a company to put lies about it own product on the packaging is truly sick!
Now let's smoke a stogie, bros
If someone wants to break the law or step on rights... then they will.
I also can see your point. Take internet sales for example; there are still legitimate discussions on how to properly tax online sales (or verify age, etc...) and there will always be new and novel areas where markets are created, where some regulation may be necessary to protect everyones rights.
First, it is a question of information availability: does the buyer know that crack is addictive? Most probably do, and accept this consequence and may choose to enter the market, and then use, anyway. That is voluntary.
But let‘s assume they didn't know or are already hooked...Does an addiction overwhelm any voluntary action to not enter or resist entering the market? I cant answer that really...I am not addicted to anything, but I'd argue that the answer is no... Druggies who have been addicted for years may reach a point and say, enough is enough, and quit. They make the voluntary choice to not buy or use. If they can make this choice, then it means that they arguably coud have at any point.
Does an addiction make it harder for one to not participate in the market? Possibly. Does it take away any and all agency and volition from the addicted person? No, I think not. Involuntarily "entering" the market means you are stuck with one or more outcomes of the trade, but did not enter the trade, or you are pinned with externalities of someone else's trade. Addiction doesn‘t seem to satisfy those.
If that wasn't your point, then someone else may still have an answer.
I probably would have stopped typing there.
ps.... I'm not trying to be overly critical of you or judge you. Just pointing out where I disagree with you.
free market noun an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
No where in any definition of a free market that I've ever seen, or been taught, does it say that restriction on what products or practices are legal constitutes whether an economy is free market or not. It is strictly about monetary side of trade.
I don't believe that by you definition, this defines a free market either.
My above bolded definition is a very fundamental, basic definition which can apply to a "market" for anything. It, however, is not a definition of a "free market economic system." I think we may have confused the two.
As Maduro pointed out, you can have a free market system, even if some specific markets are illegal.
Free market forces are still allowed to act in the markets of our economy. The free market purist might argue that the overall system is "less free" because some specific product markets are banned or regulated, but even people like Milton Friedman (a chicago economist) agreed that the government's job is to maintain the "rules of the game."
Drugs being illegal (or having any consumer/product laws at all) does not in itself undermine the free market basis of our economy.