Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the government didn't inspect food then food companies would make food that kills us.
How exactly will they make a profit if all their customers are dead.
I see no reason in the world why a grocery store can't inspect food instead of the feds.
Hell, you are saying you don't know if a pound of meat is edible when you buy it unless the government tells you it is. lols.
I have a nose and eyes and brain. I can tell if food is edible on my own.
Only a nut or an idiot would not want their food inspected. You do realize that it does necessarily have to kill you to cause you harm...I guess you don't. If they are not intentionally killing you, that does not translate to not providing an inferior product to increase profits. This has to be pointed out to you?
If consumer watch groups did not lobby for removing BPA from plastic baby and childrens products, there would still be that toxic substance present in these products. So much for self-regulation.
While the rack rate of corporate tax is higher in the U.S. than many places, the effective rate makes it competitive.
Want to increase employment in the U.S.?
-Eliminate minimum wage and all benefits.
- Eliminate all safety, health, EPA and employment laws. Whomever is willing to work for the least amount will get hired.
-Increase income taxes to provide a semblance of a social net or heck, eliminate the social net and allow the dog eat dog survive.
- Adopt a model similar to South Africa. Those with money can live behind 15 ' walls and hire private security forces to protect them- maybe.
-Refuse to be policed and resort to mob rule, with guns.
-Substantially reduce the standard of living of most folk.
-Legalize all drugs and allow employers to turn the masses into drug slaves willing to sell their souls for the next hit.
You forgot getting rid of borders and a 35% year over year inflation rate. America would have full employment within a few years of enacting all of those things.
Of course there's a price. That price is learning to accept that you're a measly 315 million people and there's approximately 6.6 billion other people on the planet.
In the end, no matter what you decide, you'll be roughly 4.5 - 5% of the world's population and you'll be using approximately 4.5 - 5% of the world's resources. That's in stark contrast to the 25% of oil resources and 30% of non-oil resources America currently uses.
So you have a choice. End up with massive amounts of debt and using 5% of the world's resources or end up with the lowest debt possible and using up 5% of the world's resources.
You can bet those two choices will not be similar.
In the universe there's always a push towards and equilibrium. I mean if people can't see that occurring before there very eyes these days they're a lost cause. From politically correct movements to sovereign debts owed to creditors to physics to economics to natural law to predators and prey to yin and yang to male to female ratios to markets to wages to blah blah blah...
Last edited by BigJon3475; 03-07-2013 at 04:54 PM..
Yeh, that great job creator IBM is giving thousands of high tech jobs to Mexicans. Very charitable. Maybe they should run for the Mexican parliament as "job creators".
The potential lay offs in Minnestoa are hundreds, not thousands and they are " production" jobs.
Corporations could care less about creating jobs, though they are technically "job creators." If they could help it, corporations would not create any jobs because labor costs money and eats into profits. The whole idea and goal of the corporation is to make money. In fact, if the corporation hires people that it does not need, and the hiring reduces its profits and earnings, then the corporation can get sued by its stockholders. Anyone who thinks that corporations will create jobs if they have more money is delusional. They are as dumb as people who think that "tort reform" will save them money on insurance.
Only a nut or an idiot would not want their food inspected. You do realize that it does necessarily have to kill you to cause you harm...I guess you don't. If they are not intentionally killing you, that does not translate to not providing an inferior product to increase profits. This has to be pointed out to you?
If consumer watch groups did not lobby for removing BPA from plastic baby and childrens products, there would still be that toxic substance present in these products. So much for self-regulation.
I never said food shouldn't be inspected. I said government doen't need to do it.
Just like you said, consumer watchdog groups protects us.
If the government didn't inspect food then food companies would make food that kills us.
How exactly will they make a profit if all their customers are dead.
I see no reason in the world why a grocery store can't inspect food instead of the feds.
Hell, you are saying you don't know if a pound of meat is edible when you buy it unless the government tells you it is. lols.
I have a nose and eyes and brain. I can tell if food is edible on my own.
And that's what life did from the time it was a bacteria all the way till you formed societies of humans.
Life self regulated and Darwin reigned supreme.
Now, you have "progressives" who think they can buy or regulate Darwin out of the equation. It's just so sad that the gene pool is now polluted more than ever and you're quickly running out of resources because the polluters use up massive amounts of resources and provide virtually nothing to society.
It's exactly what would happen if you removed all the predators from the life circle. You'd get a whole bunch of animals that do nothing but consume until they consumed every resource available and large numbers of the "prey" died off from starvation.
If progressives have their way everyone on planet Earth will be like Americans and they'll need a total of 6.6 Earths to supply their everyone wins fantasy world. Needless to say that won't be happening and liberal progressives will be waking up to a very rude awakening.
And you link a story that shows government inspection failed. Good for you. You made my point.
Congratulations though. There are tens of thousands of companies that make food products. You found one that misbehaved. That proves they would all kill us without government intervention.
If you bothered to read it you would see it is a historical account of the private sector monetery system in Western Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is well documented and only deals with fact, not opinion.
When he wrote the book he was a professor at the University of Georgia.
But just dismiss it because you don't like the way he thinks.
Contempt prior to investigation. Hell of a way to go thru life. Sounds like the typical liberal lemming.
He never says a bad thing about the government in the book. But you already know what he thinks. lols.
It's not about whether or not he says something bad about the government or not. The philosophy of Libertarians and the CATO Institute is pure laissez faire, which I disagree with entirely. Unless he's the odd man out at the CATO Institute, that's what he believes, and that's got to be the angle of his book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
