(09-06-2018, 09:27 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 09:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: What I'm saying is that, if you take the FDA away, there will still be name brand Advil and you'll be able to count on it having exactly 200 mg of pure ibuprofen that will be potent up to the expiration date, etc., but new drugs will enter the market that won't be as reliable and it will be hard for consumers to tell the difference.  It's possible that the makers of Advil and other trustworthy drugs would create a private cartel to check on each other and make sure that standards and scientific rigor is maintained, but I don't think it would be likely, and even if it happened, I think it would break down pretty quickly.

The FDA tightly regulates the amount of Gluten that can be part of a product and still be labeled GLUTEN FREE.  There are rigorous tests, ratios, formulas and so on.  I can only imagine the number of people it employs or the time it takes.  Still, the best indicator (wife with Celiac Disease) is what independent consumer advocates and fellow consumers themselves recommend.  So the webpage or the blog is more accurate than the tens of millions of dollars the FDA spends on its OVERSIGHT.  

Now, I may not say that it is a necessity that the entirety of the FDA be removed.  What I am saying is that in the absence of a big regulatory nanny state or a cartel of private producers that in a free market with plentiful alternatives that the consumer benefits.   

I'm not interested in debating the history of the Federal Reserve with you.  We know that the Great Depression and the Great Recession both happened, but I don't think we can prove that either was caused or made worse by any one thing; both are too complicated.  The Fed was never in charge of welfare policies or unemployment insurance.  Its mandate changed in 1977.  There is also the question of, if a bad decision was made, is that the fault of the entire institution, or, just the fault of the people at the institution at the time.  For instance, if Bill Clinton made a bad decision, does that mean that we need to get rid of the whole institution of US President, or does it just mean we need to pick a better President next time?

I am interested to know, if the Federal Reserve is so bad, what you think would be better and why.

There is no debate.  They were established to centrally mange risk through interest rates and the supply of money through quantative easing and so on.  Their mismanagement of monetary policy caused the great depression (which was subsequently worsened by the kind of fiscal interventions that you talk about.)  They also lead to the great recession.  When housing prices were rising at 20% with stagnant wage growth it doesn't take a team of Harvard PHD's to know that you have inflation in the system caused by cheap money.  That's the whole "purpose" of having a central regulation of interest rates.  And at the most critical time it failed.  We won't even get into the Government Sponsored Entities and their charge for "Affordable housing."

At every turn, we create these institutions to make us feel better because this or that area of the economy is "too important" to be left to the free Market.  When faced with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that these "institutions" have NEVER allocated resources as efficiently AS the Market the common refrain from my interventionist colleagues is always "well whose to say, who knows, nd its too complicated." And that's the best instance, the truly worst instances is when a policy wholly undertaken by the state to achieve social and not actuarial aims BLOWS UP IN THE FACE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE you have a young good looking senator from Illinois get up in front of a collection of press and Decry that the current Government Crisis is to be blamed on the FREE MARKET!