I hope it doesn't get that critical, just be super careful with your diet ?

Interesting perspective

You are equating 22+ days to a year.

Save what people? There is no national security crisis. Trump is just an idiot who couldn’t remember the phrase “border security” so his advisors told him to just say wall because it’s a simple word. And now he’s fixated on it like a maniac. Republicans had full control for the past two years, and it’s only a major issue now that democrats took the house? That’s not a coincidence.

If there is a listeria outbreak without the inspections, it’ll be way worse than just 6 people this time.

@Flexymorals, @jlynn37 I agree.

@Flexymorals

You presume that these companies have some sort of interest in poisoning their customers and govt checks every head of lettuce.

Neither is true. It won't be worse. Govt is not your savior any more than Jesus or Allah.

@BryanLV I’m not presuming anything. I never said the government is a savior. I’d rather have random inspections than none at all. I still wash all my produce. As I mentioned in another comment, I’m immunocomprimised due to a transplant. I don’t simply rely on others to protect me, but I like that those systems are in place.

@Flexymorals
It seems you did make at least one presumption by stating that another break out will be worse.

I am sorry for your condition. I am all for checks and safety. I simply feel that is the job of the individual, or immediate community. Not of a behemoth federal govt or bureaucratic agency that have been shown to be repeated failures at everything.

@BryanLV outbreaks are limited by FDA recalls. Without the FDA, we’re relying on individuals companies to do voluntary recalls. It’s a safe bet to say that without the FDA, outbreaks would have a larger reach. Yeah, people should take responsibility for themselves, but they don’t.

@Flexymorals

I don't agree that this is a safe bet. You're basically claiming that companies; whose objective is to make a profit, have an incentive to poison their customers. Which makes no sense at all. If a company found that they sent out a defective, toxic product, and knew it before the FDA found out, they would just continue to send out that product. It seems like a ridiculous claim to me, considering reputation is important to businesses.

Further, without a behemoth bureaucracy and agency like the FDA that people would just eat poisoned food until we all died. It's like saying without a government fire dept, everyone would just let their homes burn down if they caught fire, and that all of a sudden homes would just burst into flames! Okay. It makes a lot more sense that free market companies would fill this void and provide the same oversight, and i'm betting superior quality, at a fraction of the cost of the monstrosity forced on us through taxes, that does nothing but sell out to the highest corporate bidder to allow things that are basically untested onto the market. They also infringe on all sorts of freedoms to benefit those corporations that pay the most.

It's incredibly linear thinking that because you haven't thought up how safe food would be produced, that it would not happen. But hey, that's why we can't have nice things.

@BryanLV right, because life was so great before regulations. ? You’re putting way too much faith in corporations to do the right thing out the the goodness of their hearts. As if companies never push an unsafe product to make a profit.

@BryanLV we clearly don’t see eye to eye on this, so I’m gonna change the topic slightly. Our national parks are being destroyed by the shutdown. People are cutting down Joshua trees to go off-roaring. I have friends up working in Yellowstone who can’t work. Many of them don’t have cars to go anywhere. Actually, right now even if they drove up there, the only way in and out of old faithful is by snow shuttle. So we’re just gonna leave the parks shut down?

@Flexymorals

I think youre putting too much faith in government, considering that the private sector does everything better than government, at a fraction of the cost anyhow. Im putting faith in people to not be poisoned, and the market to dictate what services and products are necessary and then to open their wallets and pay for them.

As if everything government does is for the greater good and that government is not made up of the very same people you claim don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Profit and reputation are greater incentives than a bureaucracy that just takes your money and then delivers whatever it feels like it and you have no choice.

@Flexymorals Youve obviously put your faith in government. You tell me. How are they doing right now? How do they always perform? The free market and competition are always better. If your friends cared about those parks, or if people they would do those jobs for free. Now if people owned those parks, they would not allow anyone to do those things. Just like you wouldnt allow people to come trash your house. If there was no police force, you would pay for protection services to protect your land for you.

Choice is always better. Relying on government is always a failed proposition because government doesnt care about you. Those are just good jobs for people who only care about themselves. If prison guards, tsa agents and they rest of them cared, why would they stop doing their jobs?

@BryanLV "The people", in the sense of "The People of the United States", DO own the parks. On the other hand, if individuals owned the lands which are currently the National Parks, we know damn well what would happen; those lands would not be open to The People, period. They would be used for private grazing and hunting, they would be used for logging, private resorts would be built on them, they would be covered with fences and No Trespassing signs. The highest bidders would own that land (which is what many Republicans and libertarians of all stripes have been advocating for decades now).

"The free market and competition are always better... If there was no police force, you would pay for protection services to protect your land for you." And those who can't pay are at the mercy of criminals. If a fire starts, they burn (because I assume you don't feel public fire departments are necessary either?). Safety would be only for those who could afford it. You're basically advocating a return to the Dark Ages.

"If prison guards, tsa agents and they rest of them cared, why would they stop doing their jobs?" Number one: they haven't. The border patrol, TSA, air traffic controllers, and many other vital employees are working unpaid. Second: is this a serious question? Why would someone not do their job for free? Would you?

The private sector doesn't care about you, beyond caring how much you will pay for a product above what it costs to make (how much they can profit on your transaction). It doesn't even care about its own employees, beyond how much work they will do for how little compensation. A CEO's pay is based on maximizing profits and minimizing expenses, not on caring about customers or employees.

Companies are much more worried about news of their tainted foods or drugs or defective products getting out than they are about who gets hurt. They go to great lengths to deny and cover up. All you have to do is research the last 50 years. There is a more than adequate history of companies passing off shoddy and downright dangerous goods to show that the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the FDA are required.

@Paul4747 Nope! Not even going to bother reading your long-winded worship of the state.

Next time keep it more succinct.

Good luck worshipping your god, government.

@BryanLV why would anyone work for free? My friends work for the resort up there. They’re bartenders and housekeepers and waiters. They’re not going to work for free. They went out there expecting to get paid. They’re not directly impacted by the shutdown, but many work for tips and the shutdown impacts tourism. So far the resort has been paying to keep everything running in Yellowstone. But that may not last forever. They’re not set up to keep doing that. And I never said I put my faith in government. I agree that private companies should hold responsibility. For the food debate, I think both private and government inspections are necessary. And maybe privatization could work. But you can’t just shut down programs that people rely on and expect the hole to be filled immediately. Programs need to be phased out.

@BryanLV Fine: Succinctly, you're not interested in an honest debate. You're assuming anyone who challenges your unlimited faith in the private sector is "worshiping" government.

Government exists as a necessary check on unbridled free enterprise. It also exists to ensure the common defense and prosperity. Or am I to assume you want to turn the national defense over to private armies, paid for by whoever can afford them, to go after whomever they choose?

@Flexymorals

Great points. If you eliminate the belief that government does anything better than the private sector (except kill people), we see eye to eye.

Thank you for being reasonable with your retort.

@Paul4747

Nah, youre just not saying a single thing that is original. Ive stated my position. Your positions, what I did skim through, are a literal regurgitation of the points I already rebutted.

You may make whatever assumptions you like, Paul. Im sure we will have plenty of time to pick up this debate in the future. I love a good spirited debate on the merits. At least you didnt immediately weight in with ad hominem. I at least respect that. I do believe in the free market. I do not believe in the benevolence of any government, because the government is made up of the same people that make up the market and its actors. They simply have shown themselves to be failures and violent tyrants repeatedly, and im not drinking the koolaid. They are not super, smarter or more enlightened people. They are the same humans. There are no just leaders or rulers. The state simply claims a monopoly on aggressive force against peaceful people that is immoral and unjust. I don't care what parchment its scribbled on.

Have a good one, though.

@Paul4747 actually yes I can have it both ways. Are you even thinking this stuff through before you type it? People in the free market have to compete for your dollars and attention. Govt does not. The people in govt tend to be drunk on power and nonaccountability. They regulate themselves monopolies and for their buddies who lobby them.

Businesses cannot force you to buy their goods and services. They have to earn your business. If a private sector business works its way into a monopoly position, its becsuse they are bringing an unmatched and unrivaled quality to the market.

Same humans, different incentives.

As far as govt workers. I did answer. You simply rejected the answer. I don't expect or want them working at all. I want their "jobs" eliminated completely and to have the free market and free people to compete to bring those goods and services to the market. If the free market does not pay for those goods and services, then the free market does not value it and will not pay. With govt we are forced to pay for all measures of useless goods and services because of bureaucracy and lobby.

@BryanLV I don't know what your background is, but I can tell it's not history or economics.

"If a private sector business works its way into a monopoly position, its becsuse they are bringing an unmatched and unrivaled quality to the market." Ridiculous.

If a business has a monopoly, in general it's by owning the supply chain and buying up or driving any competitors out of business (see the history of Standard Oil). Also popular is driving small competitors out by undercutting them (economy of scale), since a big company can afford to take losses that a small one cannot (witness the way big box retailers have driven mom & pop stores out of business, then how Wal Mart has driven other big boxes out- surely you don't seriously think Wal Mart has "unrivaled quality"?).

"The people in govt tend to be drunk on power and nonaccountability"- unlike the people in the Wall Street brokerage houses, who stole billions from small investors by lying about stock forecasts and manipulating investments? With more oversight from the SEC, millions of ordinary people might still have their pensions.

Different people, different incentives. Private industry is motivated by money; government is not. That's the good thing about it.

@Paul4747 Actually, my background is in economics and I can tell that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I can also tell youve never run a business, which makes you completely unqualified to have a full discussion on business incentives, since youve never run one.

Standard oil brought unparralleled value and innovation to the market and to the people. By breaking up the monopoly of Standard Oil, the price of those goods and services rose and it actually hurt the consumer and the economy. This is why the force of govt is bad. Market monopolies are GOOD. Govt monopolies are BAD. You should know this, but of course you do not.

Govt is not incentived by money; which is also bad. Thats why they can prop up failed banks, with your money. Failed companies (solyndra/ford/Chrysler), with your money and there is endless waste and bloat in govt like 21 trillion in debt and gold toilet seats. Govt is a business that does not have to adhere to the truths that are basic economics. They just take your money, print more money and regulate themselves fewer rules that violate economic truth. Govt loses money, but its yours so they don't care and don't have to fix it, ever. Because people such as yourself pretend rulers are needed and make excuses for their bufoonery.

@BryanLV I hesitate to throw the bullshit flag on anyone, but, bullshit. Your whole response.

Standard Oil lowered prices wherever there was competition, in order to undercut its competitors. Once its competition was gone, or in areas where there was no competition to begin with, the prices went up. There was no "unparalleled value", there was no value at all. Monopolies are great for the people who own them, rotten for everyone else. How you can claim to know anything about economics and the virtues of competition, while extolling monopolists at the same time, is beyond me.

GM was loaned money, which they paid back with interest.

The gold toilet seats you're talking about are on Trump's yacht and in his hotels. How you equate that with government spending is a mystery to me.

I see no further use in this discussion, since you clearly have no grounding in either economics or history. Toodles.

@Paul4747

Here is an article from THE ECONOMIST, that says everything I said about standard oil, and nothing that you said. Youd do well to read up. My field was in microecononics, in which I owned a business for 15 years. I studied the Austrian school of economics on my own, because it is true.

[google.com]

Again, market monopolies good, govt monopolies bad! I already explained why and how. Its not very hard.

The pentagon spent $14000 (not even gold plated, inept) on a toilet seat and $7622 on a coffee maker. They also failed their first ever audit recently. So yeah, no waste there. And thats just one agency of waste among many.

Funny how you only mention gm. The bottom line is that all of those companies should have been allowed to fail, and been bought out or broken up. You, the taxpayer lost over 11 billion dollars on that LOAN and still own the gm stock that isnt worth what was paid for it (only govt makes bad loans like that where they lose money because the money they waste is not earned). Also, gm paid back the Loan PORTION, but spent and wasted the taarp money. Its crazy talk that you would even try to defend these things. This is clearly Stockholm syndrome.

You are being educated by someone you claim does not know anything. Theres a reason you also are not bringing up your credentials as well. You just claim I don't know anything when I clearly know more than you.

You're welcome

You're welcome