Rudolph the Cadmium-Nosed Reindeer

theodp writes "Barred from using lead in children's jewelry because of its toxicity, some Chinese manufacturers have been substituting the more dangerous heavy metal cadmium in sparkling charm bracelets and shiny pendants being sold throughout the US, an AP investigation shows. Charms from 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' bracelets were measured at between 82 and 91 percent cadmium, and leached so much cadmium that they would have to be specially handled and disposed of under US environmental law if they were waste from manufacturing. Cadmium, a known carcinogen, can hinder brain development in the very young. 'There's nothing positive that you can say about this metal. It's a poison,' said the CDC's Bruce Fowler. On the CDC's priority list of 275 most hazardous substances in the environment, cadmium ranks No. 7. Jewelry industry veterans in China say cadmium has been used in domestic products there for years. Hey, at least it doesn't metabolize into GHB when the little tykes ingest it."

Comments

REGULATORS!

[LostCluster]

Let's put these things together.... from TFA:

Cadmium is a known carcinogen. Like lead, it can hinder brain development in the very young, according to recent research.

and...

Some of the most troubling test results were for bracelet charms sold at Walmart, at the jewelry chain Claire's and at a dollar store.

So we've got a substance dangerous to kids in just the kind of jewelry they can afford on their allowance.

This stuff is absolutely something that needs regulation to control it. Sometimes "letting the market decide" just rolls off the bowling lane and into the gutter. No, knocking down pins in somebody else's lane doesn't count. That's why they put the gutter in.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Simple-Simmian]

Maybe if imports were actually inspected at the Border of the USA this crap would not happen. Very little of what is imported is inspected or even properly taxed.

Re:REGULATORS!

[timmarhy]

wtf has this got to do with "letting the market decide"? your talking about kids braclets, they are hardly in a position to decide anything. I would suggest once the market knows these bracklets are made with a dangerous heavy metal, it will decide. fail.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxed? Inspected? Let's talk about fines. And since many of these Chinese companies don't care, let's fine China. If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

Re:REGULATORS!

[Dog-Cow]

I have no numbers on the amount of goods shipped into the US on a daily basis, but I suspect that it would take a large percentage of the population to check it all in a timely manner.

It would be better to simply fine Walmart several hundred billion dollars for poisoning US citizens. Walmart forces suppliers to lower prices, and this is exactly what we get. It is Walmart's fault.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

People making these bracelets with toxic metals in them are banking on that it would take months if not years for people to find this out. In this time, a company who makes it can net a lot of money.

Re:REGULATORS!

[timmarhy]

you do realise the idea of free markets is not anarchy, right? it's about allowing businesses to run themselves, not do "what ever they want", there's a subtle difference some people seem to have a mental block with.

Re:REGULATORS!

[LostCluster]

Kids don't know enough about science to know these things are bad for them. Neither do their parents. That's why we need to get these things out of stores so something safer can take their place.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that whomever is in charge gets big money from lobbyists. The lobbyists are from companies who make BIG quarterly profits by ensuring that American jobs fly offshore, but Americans are still demanded to buy the products. This is why there isn't any taxation on Chinese imports or offshoring, but there is taxation for American companies making their stuff in house. Same reason why there are large tax incentives for businesses to move staffing overseas, while domestic companies have to pay payroll taxes.

Don't expect cadmium-laced toys for our kids to be the end of this. Hydrogen sulfate in drywall, melamine in baby food and pet products, lead and other toxic metals in toys, chips with remote destruct or monitoring abilities, and so on.

What is needed is to stop relying on another country that does not like us, but makes stuff for our kids. This won't come from popular support. It won't come from companies because they are addicted to the race to the bottom. So the pressure has to be done at the political level. Come election year, if a candidate doesn't get laws passed dealing with this, chuck them out and have someone who is able to provide minimal safety in products put in office, regardless of "D" or "R" by their names.

We need trade barriers protecting our nation and workforce. China has them in place for their own interests. Want a company in China? Their local interests have to own 51% of all ventures, and a foreigner cannot own land there. Don't forget the tariffs, so we can get revenue from somewhere other than the FED's printing press and level the playing field.

Re:REGULATORS!

[RoFLKOPTr]

If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

Because it's cheap.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realise the idea of free markets is not anarchy, right? it's about allowing businesses to run themselves, not do "what ever they want", there's a subtle difference some people seem to have a mental block with.

Yeah. And those people usually call themselves "libertarians".

Re:REGULATORS!

[MindlessAutomata]

This stuff is absolutely something that needs regulation to control it.

Half the time people cry out for more regulation, there already is regulation in place. The problem is the very entity you want to enact regulations, is inept, certainly fallible, and usually only reacts after bad news like this gets out to the consumers--who by then (presumably) would already be scared of buying this stuff.

Since rules are already in place for this sort of thing, you can't cry out "regulate it!" because it already is regulated. The best, and really only short of a miracle, is informing consumers. And consumers, foolishly believing themselves protected by the government, do not inform themselves much and thus are put at risk. A large part of me thinks that these sorts of regulations are actually *bad* ideas because people assume that god (another word for "government") with his all-knowing wisdom will make sure everything is OK. But that's not the reality, and consumers always have to try to keep themselves informed. And skeptical. There's something wrong with a market, IMO, if people walk into a BestBuy and actually trusts one of the salespeople there.

Anyway, it's not really that government itself *needs* to oversee and regulate this stuff as *someone* has to. That's a very different claim, and private organizations could easily certify products as safe as an alternative. Not certified, don't buy. Wouldn't the world be so much better if consumers informed themselves about the products they buy (and at what costs to them, financially speaking) instead of just mindlessly consuming? We'd have actual competition in the medical sector (people do to the doctor and do not even agree to a price beforehand and just pay whatever is charged...!), BestBuy would go out of business overnight once people discovered the internet, and apple would sell less Ipods due to more people buying other personal media players, so on and so forth. People might even realize that there is an alternative to Windows!

In the end the onus is on you to keep yourself informed.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because China could tank our currency very easily and 'owns' A LOT of real assets in the United States.

Plus, It's the most common blunder - never get into a land war with china

(followed closely there after: never mess with a Sicilian when death is on the line)

Re:REGULATORS!

[saaaammmmm]

Charging China a paltry fee of 12,335,273,000,149 would do the trick.

Re:REGULATORS!

[bfree]

Come election year, if a candidate doesn't get laws passed dealing with this, chuck them out and have someone who is able to provide minimal safety in products put in office, regardless of "D" or "R" by their names.

If you only choose from the "D" or "R" options then would you really expect anything to change? I think it would be far more effective to vote for anyone else other then a "D" or "R" even if that candidate doesn't get elected as if any significant percentage of people did so it would not only scare the duopoly (and those lobbying them so effectively) but would encourage others in the future to try and provide a real alternative.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The TSA]

The TSA is aware of this issue and is working on finding a solution.

Note to self: add to no-fly list: cadmium, Chinese toys and toymakers.
And everyone with a glowing nose.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jhol13]

Just for fun, can you point out the "subtle" difference as I have never ever seen it.

AFAIK libertarian free market is all about letting businesses do whatever they think they can get away with, which is identical to "whatever they want to".

Re:REGULATORS!

[YrWrstNtmr]

My view is this:
Whoever is in that seat today, you're out come election time. I don't care if its D, R, L, C, or X after your name. You're out, because you are demonstrably doing a shitty job.

If you are in that seat today, get the fuck out. Let someone else try it for a while, because you suck.

Re:REGULATORS!

[theshowmecanuck]

Not so loud. Maybe we can convince them to put cadmium in spandex and baseball hats. That would kill off most of Walmarts customers, and stop all the Chinese imports when they go out of business. We can get America working again, one set of spandex on a fat woman's ass at a time.

Re:REGULATORS!

[debrain]

wtf has this got to do with "letting the market decide"? your talking about kids braclets, they are hardly in a position to decide anything. I would suggest once the market knows these bracklets are made with a dangerous heavy metal, it will decide. fail.

Sir —

The market's invisible hand rewards those selling cadmium bracelets because they are cheaper than other kinds; people buy them in the belief that they are essentially equivalent in every way but price (and, interestingly, looks). However, as per the article, these bracelets are not equivalent in their health effects - the cadmium bracelets present an enormous health hazard. I agree that if people knew the presence of cadmium and its effects, they would not buy cadmium laden bracelets. However people do not know, they have any way of knowing such a thing, and as most people would presume that such a toxin would never be in children's bracelets there is unlikely to be inquiry by most purchasers (many are also likely aware that the salesperson knows as much about the heavy metal content of the bracelet as they would know about ... virtually anything, hence there is no source of information that can be accessed with reasonable levels of effort).

With enough money one can ensure the market never "knows". A well funded company that has purchased all its competitors and has inroads into multiple marketing vectors can present whatever image they feel appropriate. Your rebuttal would seem to be premised on a society made up predominantly of informed, conscientious consumers. That is not the society we now live in. Consumers today are at best uninformed, indifferent, and short-sighted. On average they are self-indulgent, misinformed, and impulsive.

For example, look at the food production and distribution system in the United States. People who eat meat at fast food joints are consuming (albeit in small portions) sterilized faeces and ground up other humans. Heck, Monsanto's still around, and doing rather well, in spite of well known criticism.

Alas, I would disagree with the assertion that the market can self-correct in all cases (the formula is rather simple - if the profit minus the cost of mitigation is greater than the cost of continuing to sell a bad product - continue to sell). Perhaps if the culture changes and people become conscious of their consumables we will see a change in the type of market. But for now, if the market were left to decide, and the avenues of information were paid to ameliorate criticism, there could continue to be a healthy market for cadmium laden bracelets that are cheaper than alternatives and purchased in the absence of education, awareness and forethought.

Re:REGULATORS!

[LostCluster]

Could you speed up the process by diverting funding from the body scanners? No security improvement, but it'll help you with your problems with the public.

Re:REGULATORS!

[TOGSolid]

In before "Government conspiracy to kill off low/middle class families."

C'mon, I know someone here was seriously thinking it.

Re:REGULATORS!

[bertoelcon]

I WAS thinking of a Chinese Government Conspiracy, does that count?

Re:REGULATORS!

[ibsteve2u]

No, because it is highly profitable - and while that may seem like semantic quibbling, it is all the difference in the world.

Beyond that, those who profit here have two layers of insulation: First, it was made in China ("Oh, those bad, bad Chinese!", the media cooperatively wails). And secondly, since the corporation is a de facto "person" under U.S. law the individuals who make the decisions here are rarely found to be culpable/responsible; instead, the corporation picks up the tab out of small change.

Contradictorily - and presumably only because they are new to the game of capitalism - the Chinese have yet to learn that the search for profits justifies all, so when they catch a business executive pulling a stunt that harms their people, they gift said executive with that uniquely Chinese jewelry: A bullet behind the ear.

Or perhaps their government is just less corrupt than ours is.

Re:REGULATORS!

[anagama]

I was tempted to just mod you up, but I want to reiterate your point. Our debt is the greatest national security issue we face. Take for example how the US, as a creditor to Great Britain after WWII, forced GB to follow the will of the US:

The United States also put financial pressure on Great Britain to end the invasion. Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. ...

Britain's then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold Macmillan, advised his Prime Minister Anthony Eden that the United States was fully prepared to carry out this threat. He also warned his Prime Minister that Britain's foreign exchange reserves simply could not sustain a devaluation of the pound that would come after the United States' actions; and that within weeks of such a move, the country would be unable to import the food and energy supplies needed simply to sustain the population on the islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

Why do you think there is nothing serious done about human rights violations or trade unfairness? It is because China could simply end the US economy. Debtors are slaves.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Xtravar]

Sometimes I wonder if the food and drug companies policed themselves, rather than the FDA, if they'd be more pro-active and careful. It's one thing for a company to pull a quick one past the government, but it's another if the company's peers' brand name depends on it.

Although it's always nice to have a reliable scapegoat. I think that's what we're paying for in many instances with our tax dollars.

Re:REGULATORS!

[anagama]

Oh that'd work real well. Maybe as a big thank you to the government Walmart would decide to shut down and put more than a million people out of work.

That retail wouldn't go away and those workers would then likely get better paying jobs at the local businesses WM originally put out of business, which then spring back up. It really annoys me that people are too cheap to pay an extra percent or two to support local businesses where not only the workers spend their earnings in the local community, but the owners do as well. Shopping at WM simply supports the concentration of retail profit into the hands of fewer and fewer people, impoverishing far more people than it ever helps. It gets very disgusting when state and local governments lend a hand to the WalMarts of the world by offering them tax breaks, which just helps accelerate destruction of the local economy and speeds the transit of wealth out of the community -- all so people can save a dime on a box of eggs. Sick.

Re:REGULATORS!

[justindarc]

If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

Who else would supply Wal-Mart with all their crap?

Re:REGULATORS!

[RoFLKOPTr]

Or perhaps their government is just less corrupt than ours is.

I lol'd heartily.

Re:REGULATORS!

[sustik]

Actually, it seems a perfectly good idea to create those jobs to inspect the goods.
Since WM brings it in WM pays for it. Those people who lost their jobs because of WM
may get it back in the inspection sector.

Of course this will raise the WM prices, which is the right thing to do; today they
can offer the low price because they are not bound buy the same safety regulations.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

Half the time people cry out for more regulation, there already is regulation in place. The problem is the very entity you want to enact regulations, is inept, certainly fallible

"Inept" isn't the word I'd use: instead, I'd say the regulators have been captured by powerful industry lobbies. They're certainly fallible too, in the sense that we're all human and all corruptible.

This debacle does not constitute evidence that regulation doesn't work. On the contrary, it's evidence that our regulatory system has been co-opted by the industry it was meant to regulate, and deep down, that's due to our extreme inequity of wealth in this country distorting our political process.

End campaign contributions. Institute reasonable top-end incoming taxes, like 90% above $5 million. Break up huge corporations.

Having done that, our regulatory problems will disappear on their own, because government will again work for the people.

Re:REGULATORS!

[cayenne8]

"I WAS thinking of a Chinese Government Conspiracy, does that count?"

Yeah....between this and the chinese drywall problems, I do think they're trying to kill us.

Hell, they're even after out pets!! Remember the pet food scare about a year ago?

How about we just stop buying shit from China? How about a great marketing campaign for US companies. "Sure it costs a little more, but it won't kill ya"!

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

People like you voted for Nader and inflicted Bush the Younger on yourselves, our country, and the world. As the first decade of the 21st century has tragically demonstrated, the parties aren't the same.

Voting for a third party does nothing with out simple first-past-the-post voting scheme. Any scenario other than a two party system is unstable, and will eventually decay to that. Every new political party in the United States has been a rebranding of one of the previous two.

I'd love to switch to an alternative scheme. Most other democracies are parliamentary, and we probably made the wrong decision back in the 18th century. But changing isn't very likely, so we're stuck with our current system.

That means that the only way to effect change is to subvert one of the political parties. The Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck/tea party people have been eating through the Republicans like a chestburster from Aliens. We need to do the same to the Democratic party to make it more progressive, and various people have been trying.

But you see, that involves work. It's much easier to decry the system than to fix our country.

Re:REGULATORS!

[gandhi_2]

India. Then all we have to worry about is curry powder on everything.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

It's impossible to fix the system from the inside. The self-protections prevent it. No one who has any quibble with the party line makes it anywhere near the top. Effectively, attempting to fix the system and decrying it come out to exactly the same result, nothing changes.

But hey, keep dreaming. Particularly that being "progressive" will fix anything.

Re:REGULATORS!

[drsmithy]

In before "Government conspiracy to kill off low/middle class families."

Who needs that ? You'd never want to kill off the lower class (you need labour), and the middle class has been happily committing economic suicide for nearly a decade.

Re:REGULATORS!

[tnk1]

Do regulate it. However, fine the retailers who sell those products in the US.

I'd prefer to fine the Chinese, but good luck with that. The retailers in the US are who is buying this stuff from the Chinese. Hold them responsible for dealing with a country that has shitty enforcement of regulations... or none at all.

Honestly, the Chinese will care if they are no longer able to sell to US retailers because the fines make it too expensive to deal with China. Maybe that "advantage" that China has will be blunted a little as well, considering that most of that advantage is the fact that China has few or no standards at all for labor or safety. When people's lives are cheap, it's pretty easy to have the lowest price going.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

Here's the funny thing, this story is actually a pretty good anecdote about the follies of regulation. You see, imports and exports are HIGHLY regulated already. Very far from a hypothetical strawman free market. In this case, however, the specific uses of cadmium in jewelry and certain types of toys are not specifically regulated, so they pass through.

I suppose the alternative to this inevitable situation is a reversal of the rules: everything not specifically allowed is prohibited. The variety of problems that introduces I leave as an exercise for interested parties.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Gizzmonic]

Sometimes I wonder if the food and drug companies policed themselves, rather than the FDA, if they'd be more pro-active and careful. It's one thing for a company to pull a quick one past the government, but it's another if the company's peers' brand name depends on it.

That didn't work too well in the 19th and early 20th century. If you want melamine-tainted food to be the rule rather than the exception, then, by all means, let's go back to unregulated days.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

I prepared a response about the follies of corruption and then realized you proposed a 90% (!!!) tax. Holy punishment for success, that's awesome. Anything I say to you would be more or less equivalent to attempting headbutt destruction of a skyscraper, so instead, I say cheers.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jamesh]

People who eat meat at fast food joints are consuming (albeit in small portions) sterilized faeces and ground up other humans.

citation needed!

Re:REGULATORS!

[phantomfive]

The situation with China is not as bad......China has less than a trillion dollars in US treasury bonds, so even if they dumped them all on the market, it would have a smaller inflationary effect than what the Fed has done in the last year.

The US produces more food than it consumes, so we would be ok on the essentials, although we might have trouble getting Mexican mangos for a while. Furthermore, because most other world currencies depend somewhat on the dollar, any such inflation would likely spread throughout the world monetary system.

I'm not trying to say we shouldn't close the deficit, of course we should, but let's be rational about it. I'm tired of oversensationalized disaster scenarios.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

I prepared a response about the follies of corruption and then realized you proposed a 90% (!!!) tax. Holy punishment for success, that's awesome.

You're arguing that a reward of $5 million per year isn't enough? What on earth would someone be motivated to do at $6 million per year that he won't do at $5 million?

Please, punish me with a paltry salary of $5 million per year!

(By the way: I'm talking about people (the natural kind) here. Obviously, corporations and LLCs can have higher revenue.)

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

After your proposal, the reward would actually be $500,000. Certainly plenty of money, to be sure, and nothing I'd turn down.

But allow me to ask the reverse question - what did the government do to deserve the 4.5 million?

Re:REGULATORS!

[Handover Phist]

The subtle difference would be the law. Businessfolk have to go through inspection for compliance right from the get go. That's hardly letting them do whatever they want, which is shoving an electrolux into your wallet and sucking out your soul.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jhol13]

Excuse, me, but there is no "law" in the libertarian free market. Bloody hell, there is nobody to make the inspection.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

You clearly have no idea how a graduated income tax even works. Do you even pay taxes?

Let's suppose we have a three-tier system: 10% on income of $0-$50,000, 40% on income from $50,000 - $5 million, and 90% above $5 million.

Now let's say you're a banker who's paid $6 million per year.

10% on the first $50,000 = $5,000
40% on $50,000 through $5 million = $198,000
90% on $5 million through $6 million = $900,000

Total tax burden: $2,885,000, or 48%
Take-home income: $3,115,000

That's enough for anyone.

Of course, in the real world, we have more taxation tiers (or "brackets") with finer graduations, but you get the point.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jhol13]

Actually I think the toys are regulated: they may not contain dangerous substances. But I might be wrong, I do not know the law in USA that well.

I am not claiming the investigators/regulators did not do their job (although it is very possible) as it is as likely the importers did their best to hide the fact (that they are likely dangerous).

No need to go to the "alternative".

Re:REGULATORS!

[PaladinAlpha]

How many people know that cadmium is a poison? Do you think that the jewelry in question had a warning label on it that said something to the effect of "this product is toxic and will cause brain damage"? Do you even think there was an acknowledgment that the products contained cadmium at all? Of course not. No one is going out and "buying cadmium based products." That's ridiculous. You're trying to excuse what is either criminal fraud or criminal negligence.

Re:REGULATORS!

[PaladinAlpha]

I've seen a lot of pro- and anti- Wal-Mart nonsense in this section of the comments, and I almost just breezed by, but now I'm glad I didn't; yours is actually the best idea I've heard in a while.

Re:REGULATORS!

[tftp]

Please, punish me with a paltry salary of $5 million per year!

You conveniently forget one common case. An entrepreneur creates a company, works for 10 or 15 years to build it up, lives on minimal salary himself ... and finally he finds a buyer for his business. Now you propose to steal 90% of the money that he earned, but not cashed, in last 10 to 15 years. In your world no sane man would open a business if any large transaction is confiscatory.

Re:REGULATORS!

[feepness]

It really annoys me that people are too cheap to pay an extra percent or two to support local businesses where not only the workers spend their earnings in the local community, but the owners do as well.

It's not just that. While WMT has pushing their low prices has been a factor, there is also the ease of going to one place for several things rather than going to the local hardware store, the local toy store, the local cosmetics store, the local electronics store, and the local grocery. It's more a time thing than anything else.

Re:REGULATORS!

[that this is not und]

That didn't work too well in the 19th and early 20th century.

We aren't living in the 19th or early 20th century any longer. The patent medicine salesman can't wheel his wagon into town and sell snake oil to the gullible townspeople.

There is a lot better communication now.

It is always laughable that people defending the archaic FDA bureaucrats have to reach back so far.

Re:REGULATORS!

[feepness]

People like you voted for Nader and inflicted Bush the Younger on yourselves, our country, and the world. As the first decade of the 21st century has tragically demonstrated, the parties aren't the same.

This is short sited. While I agree first past the post politics creates duopolies, isn't supporting the system that originally created GWB just as damning as voting for some other candidate?

Look at it this way. The Ds and Rs have been in power for going on two centuries now. The result of this was GWB. Not once, but twice. Even after everyone got all brokenhearted about voting for Nader in 2000.

It's clear that it won't fix itself. Don't blame someone for trying something different once in a couple hundred years.

Re:REGULATORS!

[interkin3tic]

they gift said executive with that uniquely Chinese jewelry: A bullet behind the ear.

But that's a terrible gift! Haven't they read TFS? There's lead in bullets and lead in jewelry is unsafe!!!

I guess it's better than a cadmium earring though, that might kill the wearer.

Re:REGULATORS!

[feepness]

Free market is a concept where the parties are equally informed and there is no force or fraud.

Obviously this has no real world counterpart so we use laws as best we can to create a free market.

Some Libertarians and most non-Libertarians do not understand this.

Re:REGULATORS!

[MindlessAutomata]

Well, it's not his money, is it? It's always easier to say someone richer than you has more than he needs. Of course, I'm sure he goes to the movies and buys hamburgers with excess cash like everyone else, instead of using it to help poor African children. But it's always easier to be morally righteous when you're the one that stands to benefit the most out of that sort of "transaction."

It's really no different than how some people try to justify shoplifting or such.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

isn't supporting the system that originally created GWB just as damning as voting for some other candidate?

No.

Re:REGULATORS!

[MindlessAutomata]

You still haven't answered: what justifies the government taking it all away? If you don't think someone "deserves" all the money they make, then don't fucking give it to them.

Re:REGULATORS!

[interkin3tic]

Why do you think there is nothing serious done about human rights violations or trade unfairness? It is because China could simply end the US economy. Debtors are slaves.

I was going to say because our powers that be don't actually care about human rights violations or trade unfairness. The trade imbalance is something that can be profitable to them in the short to medium term, global economy and all, low to middle level job loss isn't something that's so important. They have too much to gain by continued trading with China to put sanctions, which is one of two ways we could possibly get china to listen to us about what they should do with their own people or whether they should start buying more of our stuff. The other way, war, is something they might be considering had they been better at threat construction (and thereby gotten the public on board), had 9/11 not happened, or had they not recently learned that holding even militarily weak countries is difficult.

Then again, I've been accused of being paranoid and not having enough faith in free trade or corporate/military interests.

Re:REGULATORS!

[feepness]

No.

Yes.

Re:REGULATORS!

[timmarhy]

the difference between a free market and "do what ever you want", is that in a free market consumers have a choice. under "do what you want" it's acceptable for business to lie, cheat and force the consumer into buying their product. free market means equal opportunity.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DigiShaman]

*sigh* Time to dredge up The Dinner Lesson story again (and again, and again.....)

The Dinner Lesson

With the income filing date fast approching I though it would be interesting to relate this story.

This is a story that I heard on the radio about 10 men who had dinner and paid for it in the same manner as you would pay your income tax. A Professor of Economics from the University of Georgia created this to help explain the Income Tax and how cutting taxes works.

It seemed that 10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be, $10.00, each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay. Using an agreed upon formula the following payment arraignment was worked out based upon income.

Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.

Man 5 paid $ 1.00

Man 6 paid $ 3.00

Man 7 paid $ 7.00

Man 8 paid $12.00

Man 9 paid $18.00

Man 10 paid $59.00

After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their delimina was how to divide up the, $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.

Original Payment New Payment $ Amount Saved % Saved

Men 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 0%

Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $1.00 100%

Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $1.00 33%

Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $2.00 28%

Man 8 paid $12.00 $ 9.00 $3.00 25%

Man 9 paid $18.00 $14.00 $4.00 22%

Man 10 paid $59.00 $50.00 $9.00 15%

Once out side the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him. The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.

In this story we see a simplified version of the Federal Income Tax. According to an article in the "New York Times" 80% of the taxes are paid by 20% of the people highest income people. Any time you have a tax cut the people who pay taxes are going to get the money. The next time you hear of a tax cut and the media tells you that the wealthy are getting all the money, remember they are paying the taxes.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

Oh, it's right in the article. Nothing specifically prohibited cadmium used in this manner. Probably working from the foolish assumption that nobody would be this stupid, I suppose.

Re:REGULATORS!

[u38cg]

You still don't explain why the government would spend the balance of that 6 million better than I would, or indeed why the government would be better run if it had it. Actual experience of trying out tax rates like that suggests that it is a seriously bad idea - just ask any successful Briton form the 1970s, or any Argentinian farmer today.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

Capital flight isn't actually a problem.

1. Our taxes, while too low, aren't the lowest in the world. Why do so many people still live here, especially in higher-tax states like New York, then? According to your theory, the rich should have already left.
2. We can enact laws, as other countries have, to restrict cross-border movement of capital.
3. Even if the wealthy do leave, their capital goods must remain behind, where they can be used by others. That is, in my book, they can go ahead and leave. If Steve Jobs were to move to the island of Jersey, let's say, Apple would still be here.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

At what point did you detail this scheme? I just saw 90% over 5 million. Since that's way out of band with how our current system works, I saw no real point in assuming it all carried over. I see now my fault - my psychic powers haven't caught up to where I need them to be.

So how's about my question - why does the government deserve that money? And who gets to set these income limits, incidentally? And where does all this boon money go?

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

You still don't explain why the government would spend the balance of that 6 million better than I would, or indeed why the government would be better run if it had it.

Good question. It's because the rich spend the money on luxury goods that are inferior (from a utilitarian perspective, because they benefit only a few people) to social benefits (which are very useful to everyone). Furthermore, luxury goods have a lower multiplier effect, which means the money spent on them recirculates less, and causes less economic activity.

And that's money that's actually "spent". Most of it isn't, and is instead invested, usually in the kind of bubble we've seen lately. That money is written off when these bubble pop, thus making sure the economic value of that money never made it into the real economy. Yes, investment can be a good thing, but when there are too many dollars chasing too few assets, bubbles result, and bubbles always pop. It's like flaring off otherwise-useful natural gas: it's both wasteful and harmful.

Actual experience of trying out tax rates like that suggests that it is a seriously bad idea - just ask any successful Briton form the 1970s, or any Argentinian farmer today.

We had tax rates that high in the 1960s and 1970s, yet we didn't suffer. Argentina's economic problems had more to do with a flawed industrial policy, an ossified political structure, and punishing tariffs on imports from other first-world nations.

Furthermore, there are plenty of success stories. A whole continent full of them, in fact:

Strange to say, however, what everyone knows isn't true. Europe has its economic troubles; who doesn't? But the story you hear all the time -- of a stagnant economy in which high taxes and generous social benefits have undermined incentives, stalling growth and innovation -- bears little resemblance to the surprisingly positive facts. The real lesson from Europe is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

I'll note this - I'm not exactly against you. I have a serious problem with the current way things work. Executive compensation is obviously out of control in a number of scenarios, and the growing poverty class is getting stuck in a cycle that frightens me.

Punitive taxation still seems like beating the cow and expecting more milk to me. I'm not certain I have any workable answers myself, so think of this as more of a fake Socratic dialogue to try and extract your thinking more than me opposing you.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DigiShaman]

Capital flight isn't actually a problem

Yes Sir, it's a big problem!!!

1. Our taxes, while too low, aren't the lowest in the world. Why do so many people still live here, especially in higher-tax states like New York, then? According to your theory, the rich should have already left.

Oh, they may be staying in the US (for now), but they are fleeing in droves from NY and CA to states like Fl and TX where there is no state income tax. It's good for them and their bank account.

2. We can enact laws, as other countries have, to restrict cross-border movement of capital.

Given our HUGE national debt, we are in no position to be engaging in trade wars with other nations. Besides, were not N. Korea and we don't practice Juche. Isolationism is a very dangerous idea when the rest of the worlds economy is GLOBAL.

3. Even if the wealthy do leave, their capital goods must remain behind, where they can be used by others

There is much more to an economy that just material goods. You seem to be forgetting the service industry and other forms of intellectual work such as software programming, law, and medicine. You are also forgetting that these people need to be paid for their time. That, takes capital. The less capital there is, the weaker your economy is.

Oh ya, you also need human labor to access, process, and deliver natural resources in the form of a product. Leaving them to nature doesn't do us a damn bit of good despite your idea of "leaving them behind".

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd still buy the cheaper one.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

You're looking at the problem the wrong way. Instead of asking why the government deserves the money, why not ask why the rich do?

What makes any tax morally defensible? Taxation is part of the social contract that lies at the heart of every civilized democracy. It takes from the many for the collective benefit of the many. If you dispute the fundamental justifiability of taxation, than we have no argument.

You don't? Okay, then we agree: taxation is justifiable.

Now, it's only fair that the tax burden be fair. Otherwise, it wouldn't be justifiable for one person to experience all the pain while others didn't have to do anything. Spreading the tax burden approximately equally is important for giving a system legitimacy, and we'd be right to oppose a system that didn't.

The fallacy here is to assume that the "pain" of paying taxes is a linear function of income. That's not true. To someone who's very poor and struggling to eat, paying any amount at all would be a hardship. So we don't ask these people to pay any taxes, because anything at all would be too much pain.

Then we have other, normal people, who go to work. Here, the "pain" is paying taxes has a lot to do with how much they make. But as they make more and more money, they find it easier to pay a strictly proportional tax. That is, as incomes increase, the "pain" of paying taxes diminishes. It hurts less because you have more money in the first place, even after taxes.

But that's not fair. Remember, a legitimate system has to spread the "pain" equally. The solution is to increase the percentage of tax paid as a taxpayer becomes wealthier. We call it "progressive taxation".

Now, I might have lost you here. If you reject the fundamental idea of progressive taxation, there's no reaching you. All I can say is that it's worked very well for a long time, and that it's fundamentally and socially fair.

If you're still reading, you agree with me (and civilization) in that a progressive income tax is a good thing. Now let's talk about the very wealthy. They have so much money that you can increase the tax rate a lot before they feel any pain. They'll laugh at your thousands while looking at their millions.

So the solution is to do exactly that: increase their tax rate enough for their lifestyle to be burdened by taxation to the same degree everyone else's is, that is, to feel the same amount of pain. Thus, at the high end of the income scale, progressive taxation should be very high, and asymptotically approach 100%.

That's why high progressive taxation is fundamentally fair. For the rich to not pay these taxes is shirking their part of the social contract.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

See my comment here.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

Oh, they may be staying in the US (for now), but they are fleeing in droves from NY and CA to states like Fl and TX where there is no state income tax. It's good for them and their bank account.

If taxation were the sole criterion for the movement of people, wealthy or not, you'd expect to see a migration to Mississippi and Alabama. Because we don't, and reality disagrees with the predictions made by your theory, it is your theory, reality, that is flawed.

The sun-belt migration is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be. It's not just the rich: everyone is moving. Consider New England, or the rust belt (where I live): these areas have been shedding people for years. And they're moving to the sun belt, because that's where the jobs and money are. And to some extent, the jobs and money are there because the jobs and money are there. It's a positive feedback cycle.

But the cycle had to start for some reason: regions within a country experience the same macroeconomic effects that sovereign nations do. They "import" and "export". The difference is that regions within a country can't compensate to changes in demand for exports by letting their currencies appreciate or depreciate: they all use the same currency.

If currency can't respond to pressure, then jobs must. Regions within a country that specialize in goods that decline in demand lose jobs and people until a new equilibrium is reached. The same dynamic affects the Eurozone: people move from Buffalo to Charlotte for the same reason they move from Madrid to Frankfurt.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

Well-said. Thank you.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DigiShaman]

Good question. It's because the rich spend the money on luxury goods that are inferior (from a utilitarian perspective, because they benefit only a few people) to social benefits (which are very useful to everyone). Furthermore, luxury goods have a lower multiplier effect, which means the money spent on them recirculates less, and causes less economic activity.

Were did you ever get that idea, and why??! 0_o

Take for example exotic sport cars, yachts, mansions, and private jets. Every one of those products requires massive R&D and manufacturing costs. As such, it requires a -huge- labor force (physical and mental). This translates into Jobs!!! And believe me, everyone wants to be employed regardless of who or how that capitol drives the labor to produce the aforementioned products.

Those employees can now spend the money how they see fit. Someone might even purchase a simple $15,000 Honda. But guess what, that capitol just went back into the economy to pay the workers that designed and built that car. The system is *not* a zero sum game. It's important to remember that. Growth is always promoted when people have purchasing freedoms (within reason such as this Cadmium health issue).

Re:REGULATORS!

[Fred_A]

How many people know that cadmium is a poison? Do you think that the jewelry in question had a warning label on it that said something to the effect of "this product is toxic and will cause brain damage"?

It did have a label. It said :

"New ! Now with cadmium for your likeness ! Rodulf will make happy happy red noose ! Many like ! Wishes for new chrisass ! (not to be et. made in China)"

Re:REGULATORS!

[MrMr]

I guess it would probably cost less than the current passenger scans at US airports, and save more lives.

Re:REGULATORS!

[cberger]

It can be inspected. The real problem is : it looks like it is legal (!) Form the article : "If the products were painted toys, they would face a recall. If they were industrial garbage, they could qualify as hazardous waste. But since there are no cadmium restrictions on jewelry, such items are sold legally."

Re:REGULATORS!

[umghhh]

If it is good for chinese kids it is also good for any other one. Stop complaining and invest in cadmiun ore mines!

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

Supply side economics doesn't work.

Yes, there's some multiplier effect even for luxury goods. But you get more bang for your buck with ordinary goods, as both experience and honest theorizing.

Re:REGULATORS!

[1u3hr]

Taxed? Inspected? Let's talk about fines. And since many of these Chinese companies don't care, let's fine China. If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

"China" does not make toys for "America". An American company specifies exactly what they want, and pays a Chinese company to make it and send it to them. How it it the Chinese government's responsibilty to test these goods that are not intended for sale in China?

The retailers and importers are responsible, morally and legally I would think.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DigiShaman]

If taxation were the sole criterion for the movement of people, wealthy or not, you'd expect to see a migration to Mississippi and Alabama. Because we don't, and reality disagrees with the predictions made by your theory, it is your theory, reality, that is flawed.

Well, it's not as though people say to themselves "high taxes?! I'm moving the heck out of here" though businesses might if it's to their benefit. And there in lies the problem. If businesses and people are taxed disproportionately, the economy will more often that not slow down and suffer. It's only when people and businesses alike become desperate that they sever ties, cut there loss, and move out of state for greener pastures. Raising taxes in a recession *without question* accelerates this process.

The key word here is economic momentum. And the act of Taxation plays a huge role in changing it.

BTW, looks like Mississippi lost people, but Alabama gained. Ok, so you were not right, but not wrong either regarding those two states. However, you might find it interesting to view TX and FL at the following website.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/

Re:REGULATORS!

[AK Marc]

In your world no sane man would open a business if any large transaction is confiscatory.

In places like that, people still do open businesses, so everyone must be insane. Because it couldn't be possible that you are wrong.

Now you propose to steal 90% of the money that he earned, but not cashed, in last 10 to 15 years.

I haven't seen anything about capital gains in there, and that's separate from salary now. So you are asserting that they are the same, which isn't the case now, and that it would also be at the highest tax rate, which it isn't now. That seems to be assuming everything you can to bash him, rather than figuring out if that's what he meant.

Not to mention, it wouldn't matter. Don't sell the company. Have them pay a trust, and have the trust pay out. In most cases, a trust (especially one associated with a large legitimate company, as is in this case) operates as a separate entity. Have the trust pay him out slowly, rather than a lump sum. It's not hard to minimize taxes. And no, there's no moral duty to make your taxes as high as possible and pay them out. Good tax structure isn't tax evasion.

Re:REGULATORS!

[QuoteMstr]

That link is interesting. Thanks.

Re:REGULATORS!

[thygrrr]

This is an illusion! Don't believe it; it doesn't get one particular fact right: the rich do not pay taxes proportionally to their income as the lower middle class does.

MOST of a country's tax revenue comes from the broad masses; in fact, there are many millionaires paying *fewer* dollars TOTAL in taxes than most middle class citizens.

Tax tricks and loopholes tend to get more useful the more assets you have to calculate against each other.

Re:REGULATORS!

[10101001 10101001]

There is a lot better communication now.

Great. So, we'll find out about the tainted product. And all those people who died, became very sick, or became addicted (what better way to hook people onto your product)? Well, they had it coming, as clearly it's the responsibility of the buyer to ask questions about every possible contingency. And even then if the peddler of the product lies and you buy it? Well, at least you can get them on fraud charges.

I might be under no delusion that regulation is working, but this idea that communication will magically solve the snake oil problems is clearly false. Look no further than the current financial crisis, bonded in an independent, private credit rating agency which overrated what were toxic assets. Regulation didn't help and short-sighted businesses were perfectly willing to create a bubble that would obviously cripple or crush them in the long-term.

To me, a major question is more, why is it that libertarians so often treat fraud and force as separate when long-term fraud can have the effect of force (poisoning, economic-induced starvation, etc)? At some level, turning a blind eye to the willful negligence of others is a cripple part of the libertarian ethos. The free market might solve the problem, but clearly the libertarian free market is a fantasy where fraud doesn't occur; once you step outside that fantasy and try to work out how to practically implement a free market-like environment, it becomes very clear that negligence can be as devastating as fraud or force if enough actors are negligent. After all, isn't that the basic complaint against big government (they all do at most what policy demands* but are negligent about anything not specifically assigned; ie, they're rigidity to a doctrine too small to encompass the real world causes gap where bad things happen).

*Yea, they fail here as well, and that's one reason why nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance in government should be actively punished with impeachment or jail terms, as appropriate; but, then, for that to actually work would require a population more interested in punishing based upon the letter of the law and not upon the current popular whim and a strong willingness to change the law, even quite radically, quite regularly.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DigiShaman]

If supply side economics don't work, than what does?

One things for sure however, Keynesian economics is not the answer as that theory is being exercised heavily by this administration and congress. Their taking a problem sparked by the housing bubble and market correction and making it far far worse than it should have been. We as a nation, are spending ourselves into ruin. And what do we have to show for it so far with regards to new jobs and employment?

I think we both can agree that we are in some serious shit right now. Blame Bush, blame Obama. One thing is for sure, we are way overdue for some fiscal responsibility. Waging wars and handing out entitlements must be countered with sound economic practices.

Re:REGULATORS!

[amilo100]

And since many of these Chinese companies don't care, let's fine China.

USA companies kills a lot more people in foreign countries than Chinese companies. A good example is the Bhopal incident - which was a US company killing Indians.

Re:REGULATORS!

[zmollusc]

There seems no end of funding available to search passengers at airports, why can't retail goods be searched?

Minion: Sir! Some guy put a firework in his socks and tried to board an aircraft!
Gov: OMFGBBQ!!! Strip-search all passengers! Build new xray machines and put them in airports! Flood the airports with rent-a-cops! Rescind all human rights! Detain anyone who uses any word on our secret naughty word list! Build dna databases of everyone except me!

Minion: Sir! Also Walmart are selling kids toys that are made of toxins!
Gov: Meh! So what?

Re:REGULATORS!

[dov_0]

Because they fund half of the USA?

Re:REGULATORS!

[Pinky's Brain]

Britain's debt wasn't denominated in it's own fiat currency unlike the US.

Re:REGULATORS!

[will_die]

You are right on requiring citiation for requiring it on meat. While the FDA does have requirments on the amount of feces, bugs, etc in food meat is one of the most strict and because of the way it is processed one of the least infected.
You are going to get some sewage, feces, hair and skin from human they are the same as you get from breathing in the air since slaughter house and butcher house are not sterile environments with people working in bunny suits.
If you really want to be sick look that amounts of feces, rats and bugs allow in vegetable products and orginic products are usally higher. Since it is harder to filter out that type of vegetables and fruits the amounts allowed are higher. Also if a gaint batch of organic peanut butter is found to have to much rat in it they don't toss it out they mix in enough of a batch with lower amounts so they fall under the allowed amounts.

Re:REGULATORS!

[xaxa]

People like you voted for Nader and inflicted Bush the Younger on yourselves, our country, and the world. As the first decade of the 21st century has tragically demonstrated, the parties aren't the same.

Voting for a third party does nothing with out simple first-past-the-post voting scheme. Any scenario other than a two party system is unstable, and will eventually decay to that.

In the UK, which also uses the awful first-past-the-post system, when enough people vote for a minor party the major parties take notice and might change their policies.

Most recently, this has caused a focus on immigration issues from the Labour party, after an embarrassing number of people voted ("protest vote") for the British National Party (nationalist, racist, fascist party).
The Green Party is also credited with changing the main parties stances on things, even though they've hardly ever (if ever?) actually had an MP.

Re:REGULATORS!

[pedestrian crossing]

I agree that if people knew the presence of cadmium and its effects, they would not buy cadmium laden bracelets. However people do not know, they have any way of knowing such a thing, and as most people would presume that such a toxin would never be in children's bracelets there is unlikely to be inquiry by most purchasers (many are also likely aware that the salesperson knows as much about the heavy metal content of the bracelet as they would know about ... virtually anything, hence there is no source of information that can be accessed with reasonable levels of effort).

With enough money one can ensure the market never "knows". A well funded company that has purchased all its competitors and has inroads into multiple marketing vectors can present whatever image they feel appropriate. Your rebuttal would seem to be premised on a society made up predominantly of informed, conscientious consumers. That is not the society we now live in. Consumers today are at best uninformed, indifferent, and short-sighted. On average they are self-indulgent, misinformed, and impulsive.

One of the assumptions of an ideal/perfect market is that there is no information disparity. Everyone has access to the same information. For many reasons, this is not the case in a real market. It's not just that the consumers are indifferent. As you pointed out, the information disparity can come from other places, and the problem under discussion is the result of information disparity.

The people who tout the free market as the perfect solution based on the ideal of the perfect market are no different than the people who tout Communism based on the ideal of Communism. The ideal is predicated on assumptions that can't exist in the real world.

Re:REGULATORS!

[pedestrian crossing]

free market means equal opportunity.

No, free market assumes equal opportunity. If any party in the market has access to information that anyone else in the market doesn't have access to, the ideal breaks down and the market is neither efficient or free. The situation described in TFA is a case in point.

Re:REGULATORS!

[gtall]

There are two other problems the Chinese face with dumping dollars. The increase in inflationary pressure makes the dollar cheaper and hence U.S. exports more competitive with their Chinese crap. And with those inflated dollars, since Americans won't be earning any more of them than before, Americans won't have as much money to buy the Chinese crap.

There is also a third problem but not directly related to the dollar, the Chinese economy is addicted to hypergrowth. With hypergrowth comes inefficiencies and graft. If the Chinese economy slows, it runs the risk of imploding as investment heads for the exits. It is a growing problem for them because the rest of the world has Chinese goods coming out their various orifices. The only way to soak them up in the future will be for the Chinese to increase domestic consumption. That's when the Chinese will be forced to use the crap they've been pawning off on the rest of the world. Their legal system won't be able to sort out the mess, the government is already sclerotic and gets the heebie-jeebies when the Falon Gong start doing exercises in the street.

What will be a problem for the U.S. is when the Chinese get tired of buying U.S. debt. Congress-critters won't be able to kick the can down the road any further and the budget will be forced into a better alignment with revenues. Congress-critters will only make changes when they have no other option. The Obama administration is all hat and no cattle so they will be mere by-standers.

Re:REGULATORS!

[gtall]

Why can't retail goods be searched? Scale, my friend, learn to get a sense of proportion (hint: do some math)

Re:REGULATORS!

[DarkOx]

China has more than a trillion in bonds; some estimate it is probably closer to two and half trillion. They could easily have more short term impact than the FED. Also keep in mind that when the FED and Treasury went about dumping money into the economy they spent it in a selective manor. They put it in what were and in most cases besides banking still are highly deflationary micro economies. That selective application also limited the macro inflationary impact.

China could do much similarly use the money to manipulate prices in certain sectors to cause maximum harm. Imagine if they decided to plow all that money into buying up oil reserves and food stuffs; that would have a highly inflationary effect there and probably ripple into many other sectors. Its also true that the rate at which we are rolling over old debt and acquiring new debt has greatly increased due to the policies at the Fed, the Administration, and Congress. If China at the same time stopped making new financing available we would be bouncing checks, pretty much period end of story. Don't underestimate how bad China could make things for us if they wanted to do so.

The US Comptroller from the Clinton administration was on NPR just yesterday morning talking about how the booking keeping in Washington is pretty much a shell game and things are much much worse in his opinion than what the GAO and the Treasury department are publishing. It interesting because he is in a position to know and has no obvious anyway need to toe some line. Still we can't really know what his politics and motivations are so its at best one more reason to think that we are being lied too by those in power.

The good news here is we don't have to pay off the debt. This is a democracy and the wonderful about that is all those T-bills can be worthless with the strokes of a few pens and a few hundred shouts of yea. If we balance or budget and plan on operating without foreign credit in the future there really is nothing to stop us for saying "we aint paying, tough" and its not like we don't have enough nukes to ensure nobody would be dumb enough to come try and collect.

Re:REGULATORS!

[u38cg]

Dude, if what goes into a McBurger bothers you, I seriously suggest you go and spend some time working in food production. You're in for a surprise. As for Monsanto, they sell seeds. Dont want 'em? Don't buy 'em. Sheesh, how evil.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jamesh]

Since when did taking what someone said on the internet, especially a vague broad sweeping statement (eg what you said) and asking for a reference to back it up become ignorance?

I'd be reluctant to believe the word of someone who provides no evidence to back up their 'facts', and then dismisses anyone who asks for a reference as ignorant. Reminds me of arguments I've had with religious nuts.

snopes.com has a bunch of articles on the 'bits of people in food' subject... but they don't exactly back up your opinions. On the face of it, I think you've been listening to one too many urban legends.

Re:REGULATORS!

[orzetto]

... Yet you present no citation. Seems it's the usual urban myth then.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Aero]

It really annoys me that people are too cheap to pay an extra percent or two to support local businesses where not only the workers spend their earnings in the local community, but the owners do as well.

It's not just that. While WMT has pushing their low prices has been a factor, there is also the ease of going to one place for several things rather than going to the local hardware store, the local toy store, the local cosmetics store, the local electronics store, and the local grocery. It's more a time thing than anything else.

And aren't we also being told to consolidate trips and minimize our local travel to save gas and cut vehicle emissions? What's better for the environment, a single 10-mile round trip to Wally World, or making an 18-20 mile aggregate circuit of town to hit all of the local businesses, assuming that your town still has everything you need in places that aren't big-box retailers?

I'm all for supporting local businesses, but nothing in this world comes without a tradeoff.

Re:REGULATORS!

[dkleinsc]

That means that the only way to effect change is to subvert one of the political parties. The Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck/tea party people have been eating through the Republicans like a chestburster from Aliens. We need to do the same to the Democratic party to make it more progressive, and various people have been trying.

But you see, that involves work. It's much easier to decry the system than to fix our country.

That's one possible strategy. Another possible strategy is that you keep working to make the Republicans so idiotic that they're irrelevant, and then encourage the liberal Democrats (Franken, Kucinich et al) to split off from the corporate-owned Democrats (Nelson, Dodd, et al) and form their own party. This sort of thing did happen twice before in American history, which is why we're now mostly voting for Democrats and Republicans rather than Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, or Whigs.

Another strategy is to go after the conservative loonies on their own turf, and try to take over the Republican Party. That's happened over issues of race relations several times.

Re:REGULATORS!

[TOGSolid]

Which is why you should always buy American!

Oh wait...we don't make anything anymore.

Re:REGULATORS!

[bsDaemon]

"De facto" means 'in practice', so I think you're looking for 'de jure' meaning 'in law'. Something is something de facto just because of its nature, whereas de jure means that they passed a law making the corporation a legal entity (which is necessary so that they can own property such as buildings, manufacturing equipment, etc). just sayin'.

but seriously, i'm sick of all this Chinese crap and I'm sick of people buying the cheapest thing even if its not nearly the best, or even "pretty good" just because its the cheapest. I had a conversation one time with Thad McCotter, a Republican member of Congress, and he told me that economic libertarians were responsible for propping up the Communists by allowing free trade with people who use prison labour to reduce their costs. Poisoned childrens' toys are the result of this.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Bartab]

Now, it's only fair that the tax burden be fair. Otherwise, it wouldn't be justifiable for one person to experience all the pain while others didn't have to do anything. Spreading the tax burden approximately equally is important for giving a system legitimacy, and we'd be right to oppose a system that didn't.

Epic leap, and thus epic fail.

You jump from "it's only fair to be fair" to "fair means equal pain". When in reality you mean, "fair means, I take more from thee than from he."

I say, fair means taking exactly the same from each person and only by doing so does the system have legitimacy.

Now, you may have all sorts of legitimate reasons that the gov't uses its monopoly on initiation of force to forcibly take money from its citizenry in an unfair manner. Just don't try to hand wave and call it fair. Or legitimate.

Re:REGULATORS!

[MindlessAutomata]

What's more is that you ask why the rich deserve all that money... well, here's a pretty good answer--people like you or I (and in cases that shouldn't happen, the government) give them that money, for services rendered. Your proposal, especially of a 90% tax, is basically enforcing a type of discount, a large one, on everything you purchase from the rich. You basically say, "Yes, I will purchase that product at that price from you" and then say "Oh, by the way, you have to give me a great portion of that back to an entity that makes war and sticks people in jail for inhaling the wrong type of chemicals, among other stuff, on my behalf" afterwards.

In an ideal case, the person "deserves" every dollar they have because [i]they earned it[/i]. It blows my mind that people think they don't deserve the property that they fairly earned.

If you don't want the rich living a luxurious lifestyle and taking cruises on yachts then you probably shouldn't be enabling them in the first place. Donate your money to charity instead of going to the theater. After all, people aren't really due the excess fruits of their labor, nothing beyond healthy survival and a few simple pleasures, right?

Re:REGULATORS!

[smchris]

Guess it depends on whether you are driving your SUV 10 miles or bicycling 20 miles. Think of the environmental impact of the parking lot alone sized for a Wally World.

Seriously, the damage is done. Many of the main streets of rural America are already gone so the question is moot. Unfortunately, I suspect it is now often more like a 30-40 mile one-way average drive to the nearest Wally World instead of 20 around what once was the nearest main street. And I suspect the death of rural main streets killed more than local business.

Re:REGULATORS!

[james.m.henderson]

Your use of insults does nothing to add to your credibility.

Asking for a citation is asking to be educated. Most people are not going to bother going to a meat plant (which may or may not be in their area and may or may not be open to the public). It really is up to the poster of the information to back up claims like that which cannot be verified without further research, and it is not unfair to ask for such evidence.

I am not the same user as jamesh; it is just a coincidence.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an ex-owner of a local business that Walmart bankrupted, I can assure you that nothing "springs up" after they sweep through town. The entrepreneurs? They've been destroyed. Bankruptcy destroyed their credit, and seeing their so-called loyal customers abandon them for 4 cents off each can of coke has opened their eyes. Yes, there will be growth to fill the void (should it ever appear) but it won't happen overnight. It'll take a new generation of suckers to open up their own businesses, not the ones who already got burned hard.

re:regulators!

[ed.han]

hold on just a minute.

i used to work in a business where china-based production is very common--apparel. sure, the china-side manufacturers made the products--but remember that these guys are filling orders placed by US-side customers. if the US-side customer isn't inspecting the material composition at an independent, third party lab, that's their failure for accepting it.

there are 2 reasons why a customer should always confirm the material composition in this way: 1) to make sure the manufacturer isn't substituting substandard (read: less expensive) components, and 2) to prevent legal liability.

this clearly wasn't done in several cases, and by some fairly big customers: wal-mart and disney. it's a fairly elementary part of any outsourced production.

so however this happened, consumer ire should land squarely on the customers. at the end of the day, they're the ones who paid to import those goods. being angry at the chinese manufacturers is rather a lot like being ticked off at the mob enforcer, not the capo.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Gizzmonic]

We aren't living in the 19th or early 20th century any longer. The patent medicine salesman can't wheel his wagon into town and sell snake oil to the gullible townspeople.

It wasn't the patent medicine people that did the most damage-they were mostly selling water. It was large meat-packing plants selling tainted meats, and large dairies selling tainted pork. Many people died as a result-why do you think they passed the Pure Food and Drug Act? Is there any doubt that this could happen now? Oh wait, it is happening, and on a bigger scale than ever, thanks to China and its total lack of regulation. Of course you fail to connect the dots on this one.

It is always laughable that people defending the archaic FDA bureaucrats have to reach back so far.

I'm reaching far back because the problem has been solved for so long in first-world countries. That I have to go back over a hundred years shows how completely atavistic your argument is. If you were advocating a return to monarchy in the US, I'd reach back to the 18th century to tell you why it was a bad idea.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jbengt]

Insightful?
Inspections won't matter until there are regulations restricting cadmium in jewelry, which to the best of my knowledge, and the assertions of one of the sellers in TFA ,there aren't.

Re:REGULATORS!

[theshowmecanuck]

We thought it would make them love democracy. We were wrong.

Well enough of the concepts to allow a market economy... where they came to love capitalism instead. And these kinds of practices show they are very good at it. It also shows what capitalism without enough oversight can bring.

Ah yes, "...the love of money..." Personally I like money. A lot. Not enough to kill someone else for it, or bankrupt them, or prevent them from having access to affordable health care for all. But in the case of others, I guess it means America and China are now neck and neck in the capitalism race.

Re:REGULATORS!

[statusbar]

But... But.. If I stop buying stuff from china, what laptop, cell phone, or motherboard can I buy?

--jeffk++

Re:REGULATORS!

[Nexus7]

www.RadioFlyer.com

Re:REGULATORS!

[GreatBunzinni]

You still haven't answered: what justifies the government taking it all away? If you don't think someone "deserves" all the money they make, then don't fucking give it to them.

First of all, your extensive use of loaded words when referring to taxes conveys the idea that you don't have a very open mind regarding this subject and are determined to denigrate it as hard as you can. If that is not the case then please refrain from using them. It leads you nowhere.

Having said that, you must bear in mind that your taxes are used to fund society; they are used to buy civilization. Your roads are paid off by taxes, your police force, your schools, your fire department, your legal system and even your public sanitation service is paid with your taxes. Being this slashdot, the internet was developed from a tax-funded government research institution.

The thing is, you may earn a hefty paycheck and you may even believe that every penny in it was earned exclusively due to your own awesomeness. Yet, the truth is that you don't live in a bubble and, if we think about it, every aspect of your life you benefit from is, directly or indirectly, funded by taxes. If it wasn't by the infrastructure and equipments built by the state your society would simply not work, at least remotely near the efficiency it now works. So you may not notice it but if it wasn't for taxes your life (along with everyone else's life) would be a never ending strife.

As taxes buy you civilization, it's pretty reasonable to demand that each individual should invest in society. Moreover, similar to what happens when you buy stock in some company, it is only fair that an investment pays dividends which are directly proportionate to the investment. That principle, which boils down to fairness, should also apply to your investment in society and the benefits you get from it. As a consequence, if you profit greatly from the social structure that was build, paid for and maintained through taxes then it is only fair that the amount you must invest should be proportional to the benefits you get. That means that if you are fortunate enough to enjoy a life of luxury then, as that is only possible due to all the state infrastructure and services that are purchased and maintained with taxes, then it is only fair that you contribute a proportional amount of your earnings in taxes. You still be rich (and richer than others) and you will still have plenty of disposable income to throw around as you see fit.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Anonymusing]

your talking about kids braclets, they are hardly in a position to decide anything.

Children have a surprisingly strong effect on their parents' disposable income. Why do you think advertisers spend so much money advertising to kids?

Re:REGULATORS!

[selven]

You misunderstand the parent's point completely. Under the "90% above 5 million" system, a man with a steady income of $1 million per year will pay, say, 40% of his income. An enterpreneur who makes $50000 per year for 9 years and $9.55 million on the tenth year (the same money) will pay around 65-70%. All tiered tax systems have this problem, and and extreme one makes the problem more extreme. This discourages enterpreneurism and encourages not taking risks (the good kind of risks, not the "let's run a trillion-dollar bank with 1% of what we owe in cash reserves" kind of risks) and collecting a steady income, something which is very bad for the market and the economy.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jollyreaper]

People like you voted for Nader and inflicted Bush the Younger on yourselves, our country, and the world. As the first decade of the 21st century has tragically demonstrated, the parties aren't the same.

Voting for a third party does nothing with out simple first-past-the-post voting scheme. Any scenario other than a two party system is unstable, and will eventually decay to that [wikipedia.org]. Every new political party in the United States has been a rebranding of one of the previous two.

I hear you. I thought Gore would win in 2000 and voted Nader as protest to see if we could get some viable third-party action. I live in Florida and helped swing it to Bush. I could vomit. I was proud to vote Kerry and proud to vote Obama. Only now he's in and the motherfucking dems are selling us out every bit as bad as the motherfucking republicans. The republicans sold out to wall street and the war lobby. Now that the dems are in, they're selling out to wall street and the war party. Honestly, what's changed? I want to believe. All of Obama's accomplishments so far have been piddle stuff but the huge, major important stuff is still getting fucked. He's continuing Bush's power grabs with wiretapping. He's trending towards the corporate position on net neutrality. Health care reform is turning into a windfall for the insurance industry. The banks are taking our money and running. There is no regulation, no law enforcement, no consequences for criminal behavior.

And I know this wish is a little less likely but I want the Bush cabal doing jail time. We let Nixon and his cronies get a pass and they came right back for the Bush admin along with a younger generation of evil bastards. I don't care if it's politically difficult, there should have been war crime trials for those motherfuckers who lied us into those wars. Bush should be in jail. Cheney should be in jail. Rove should be in jail. And those are just the top dogs.

Exactly what has voting changed? I grant you that Gidget and Geezer getting elected might have been more embarrassing than Bush but I'm trying to see where Obama has made clear improvements over Bush. Obama gives a mighty fine speech but I want to see action. But I think he's already compromised. He took a ton of money from the small change donors but he also got a lot from the FIRE sector of the economy -- finance, insurance, real estate. And it looks like he's going to be an honest politician, the kind who once bought stays bought. Disappointed.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

allowing free trade with people who use prison labour to reduce their costs.

Prison labor exists in the US too, and it's considered a good thing. Inmates learn a trade, make a tiny bit of money, and a company or the state gets cheap labor. If there's something about Chinese labor practices you're objecting to, you're going to have to express it more clearly.

Re:REGULATORS!

[radtea]

Walmart forces suppliers to lower prices, and this is exactly what we get. It is Walmart's fault.

Walmart merely provides customers with what they want: lower prices. Clearly if individuals had the well-being of their children in mind they would not buy goods from China.

So people who buy cheap Chinese goods are clearly to blame. It is there fault and they should all be fined tens of thousands of dollars.

If that sounds stupid, it's because it is stupid, just as blaming an abstraction like "Walmart" is stupid. The only reason why one ought to go after the corporation is ease of administration, not moral culpability, which can only be assigned to actual humans, not legally-constituted virtual persons.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Chris Mattern]

If you are asking for a citation, I am too ignorant (and proud of it) to educate you.

Fixed that for you.

Re:REGULATORS!

[mjwalshe]

its a poor entrepreneur that cant arange a proper exit from his company thats why equity is taxed diferently to income.

Re:REGULATORS!

[TOGSolid]

Good ole Radio Flyers. I know the US does make some things but it really is a shame that we aren't fully leveraging our capabilities. Now it seems like all this country really produces is debt.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jhol13]

Not a single libertarian I have ever met has understood that there cannot be "free market" if not everyone has 1: free entrance to the market (you cannot compete against a steel mill in practice), 2: full information (both the sellers and buyers must have full information, "same" or "identical" is not enough), 3: a lot of buyers and sellers (there always have to be choice and everything must be sellable, "or else"), 4: there is no society, i.e. there is no point in trying to improve "good for all people", 5: environment has no inherent value whatsover. There are more, just the top of my head.

Thank god not all laws are there to "create free market" as it is definitely not something I do want.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Nexus7]

> Now it seems like all this country really produces is debt.

But, boy, do we package it well!

CDO, CDS, CDS on CDOs, mortgage-baced securities, leverage, T-bills and friends...

Re:REGULATORS!

[jbengt]

Since rules are already in place for this sort of thing, you can't cry out "regulate it!" because it already is regulated.

No.
RTFA
There are no regulations for cadmium in jewelry.

Re:REGULATORS!

[d34dluk3]

It really annoys me that people are too cheap to pay an extra percent or two to support local businesses

More like an extra 30-50% in my experience.

And no, I am not willing to consume 30%+ less food/entertainment to get a warm fuzzy feeling from not shopping at Walmart.

Re:REGULATORS!

[d34dluk3]

This is short sited.

Meaning it's built on the shortest site or it's the shortest thing built on the site?

Re:REGULATORS!

[debrain]

People who eat meat at fast food joints are consuming (albeit in small portions) sterilized faeces and ground up other humans.

citation needed!

Sir —

With respect, the publicly available documentation of my assertion is extensive.

Government statistics, e.g.:
* The USDA in a 1996 study found that at meat processing plants, "78.6 percent of the ground beef contained microbes ... spread primarily by fecal material."

Articles, e.g.:
* Fast Food Nation (book review)

Documentaries, e.g.:
* Food, Inc.

Websites, e.g.: SustainableTable.org: Slaughterhouses and Processing

Books, e.g.: Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry (Hardcover)

Google "slaughterhouse fecal matter", and related terms.

I'm surprised anyone would ask for a citation for this; I assumed it would be common knowledge.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

Using Japan and Taiwan as historical examples, it's reasonable to think that Chinese goods will improve in quality and thereby earn a higher price. The Chinese people will become richer as a result of all their production, and be able to buy their own goods, and insist on some level of quality.

The risk, as always, is that China may think that military action is to their advantage. As they get richer, their ability to make war increases, but as their wealth increases, the people in general are less likely to be tolerant of a belligerent government.

With regard to the US, it's going to be difficult to keep Congress from buying votes while impoverishing the populace. I have absolutely no confidence that people like Barney Frank will not lead the country to suicide while claiming moral superiority.

Re:REGULATORS!

[mcgrew]

Heck, Monsanto's still around, and doing rather well, in spite of well known criticism.

Monsanto is an excellent example of a company that was sorely in need of regulation. When I was a kid growing up in Cahokia, you could NOT drive through Sauget past Monsanto with the windows rolled down, even in hundred degree heat, and cars had no air conditioning back then.

Since the Clean Air Act was passed and the EPA established, not only can you breathe, but you seldom smell anything at all bad (a whiff of chlorine once in a while). The vegetation is there greener now than it was when I was a kid... heck, the vegetation was BROWN then.

Re:REGULATORS!

[mcgrew]

Nothing justifies taking it ALL away, but I have to agree with someone here's sig: "I like paying taxes. With it I buy civilization."

Without taxation there can be no government; someone has to pay the cops, the firemen, the street pavers, the sewer builders, even the regulators that force Purina to put doors on their grain elevators so others won't suffer the same fate as my late grandfather, clean air regulations so you can drive through Sauget without holding your breath, so you can go fishing and expect the fish to not be too poisonous.

I don't like a lot of things governments spend money on (Iraq war, grants to IBM, etc) but on the whole it isn't a bad deal. One would have to be pretty damned selfish and greedy to hate ALL taxes.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

The amount by which WalMart is able to undercut local retailers varies a great deal. A local grocery chain (Market Basket) beats WalMart on most items, but boots at WalMart for $20 beat the hell out of $80 at a local retailer. A large part of Walmart's generally better prices is due to pressuring their suppliers to become more efficient. And yes, of course that causes people who were doing unneeded work or who were operating inefficiently to lose their jobs -- they were wasting people's money. Now they can attempt to find employment where their skills are used efectively.

Keep in mind that if WalMart really destroyed the local economy, there'd be no-one able to buy from WalMart, and WalMart would have to close its doors and go out of business. That isn't happening, so WalMart isn't destroying the local economy.

Re:REGULATORS!

[mcgrew]

Half the time people cry out for more regulation, there already is regulation in place.

The answer isn't more regulation, nor deregulation, but better regulation. Elect good leaders who will appoint good regulators and you'll have good regulations.

In the end the onus is on you to keep yourself informed.

Nobody can know everything. There are too many facets of life to be informed about everything. When my pipes spring a leak I call a plumber; no matter how informed I am about plumbing, a professional plumber will know more than me. There is no way for you to inform yourself that the toys are toxic unless it's documented somewhere that you can access the information.

I like regulators because it's their job to be informed of the industries they're regulating.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Xtravar]

Not that this is a completely accurate comparison, but the ESRB does a better job at accountability and ratings than the government would.

When that hot coffee mod came out for GTA:SA, the ESRB took immediate action against the publisher and changed its policies toward 'hidden' content and 'modability' in games.

But the only reason the ESRB is such a success is because of the government's constant threat to take over video game censorship, which nobody wants.

I really do think we're in a different era, with modern communication at our fingertips and a mass media willing to completely destroy a food company over one food poisoning outbreak, not to mention class-action lawsuits are so prevalent. But net neutrality and a competitive mass media is an essential piece to all of this.

Re:REGULATORS!

[AK Marc]

Since when did taking what someone said on the internet, especially a vague broad sweeping statement (eg what you said) and asking for a reference to back it up become ignorance?

Wait, I'm confused. Someone else dressed me down for taking "citation needed" as an attack. But you are saying that demanding a reference as a response to a sweeping statement one doesn't believe is a rhetorical ploy.

I feel so vindicated by my post. Even those responding to me agree with my feelings on this:

"Citation needed" is an ambiguous rhetorical ploy that is at best, a rude request for more information, and at worst a feigned ignorance in order to start an attack that requires the person being attacked do more research and waste time before the true intentions of the attacker are known.

Either way, I'm safe in assuming that anyone using "citation needed" is ignorant, lazy, mean, and not worth a serious reply.

snopes.com has a bunch of articles on the 'bits of people in food' subject... but they don't exactly back up your opinions. On the face of it, I think you've been listening to one too many urban legends.

And, like the "citation needed" reply, you don't include your own statements, you don't define what you are replying to, and I'm left to do your work for you and guess. I took a look at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Sanitation/ucm056174.htm and found that the FDA determines allowed rat feces and such is allowed in certain foods. That greatly substantiates the point so far. Was there something else specific you are objecting to? You didn't say. You just said that I needed a citation, and I provided one. Thus, I've fulfilled the request 100%. That it didn't answer all the questions you have is *your* fault, because "citation needed" didn't specify what part, if any, the poster was wanting more info on, and you didn't say either, only that you think it fake.

Does that make it a little more clear why "citation needed" is counter productive? I've been asked once for a citation, and provided it. It is to the official government site, and answers the majority of the original topic. If that's not the answer you are looking for, then you obviously asked the wrong way, because you (and no one else responding to me or the GP who was the one that had someone respond "citation needed") never asked for anything specific.

"Citation needed" is the cool Internet way of saying "bullshit" and when someone treats it like they said "bullshit" then they get all offended and claim they were nicely asking for references. That, my friend, *is* bullshit.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

Airline security should be the job of each individual airline. They have the incentives to keep their passengers safe (great advertising advantage) and find ways to do so without giving each passenger an enema (also a great advertising advantage).

WalMart should be smart enough to write contracts that insist on safety, and they should send prototypes and production samples to testing labs, or insist that their providers do so. The difficulty is that it's hard for a foreigner to insist on product safety from China, so extra precautions are needed. It would probably cost about $100 to send a bracelet to a lab and instruct them to grind it up and run it through a spectrograph or some other instrument that could identify likely toxins.

Re:REGULATORS!

[KDR_11k]

You only need a certain number of lower class workers though, there's only a limited number of jobs they can do. Any surplus tends to end up unemployed for life and a drain on society.

Re:REGULATORS!

[sorak]

The government already differentiates between income, capital gains, inheritance, and money made from the sale of large items, such as houses or cars. So, trust me, if a politician ever said, with a straight face, that taxes on rich people should exceed 40%, the bill would be worded well enough to avoid this, and most other scenarios.

Re:REGULATORS!

[KDR_11k]

In the US bribery is for the upper class, in really corrupt countries bribery is affordable by anyone and part of the daily life. Do you regularly get stopped by cops with bullshit claims that you have to bribe to get on with your work? Do you need to bribe the clerk in a government building to get your request handled? Can you just bribe the mechanic at a vehicle inspection to pass it no matter how terrible a condition the car is in?

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

The "conservative loonies", as you put it, gave us Goldwater and Reagan. It's the moderates who provided Nixon, Ford, Dole, the Bushes and McCain. The moderates still have control of the Republican party, and that is the problem.

Dodd is a special case, so corrupt that he can't understand the concept. He's more corrupt than his father, and his father stood out by being so corrupt that he was censured!

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

Can you say show trial? Good baby. I knew you could.

On what possible ground could you jail Rove? He was an ADVISOR, he had no legislative or administrative authority.

To use Heinlein's phrase, Obabma is an incompetent whore. Always has been, always will be. Wake up.

Re:REGULATORS!

[KDR_11k]

Starting a war would be stupid these days with nuclear weapons around. Even if China could secure enough military power to win a war with another major country they'd likely get bombarded with nukes at the end of it. Goes both ways of course so China won't be attacked by anyone either but with nukes involved there's just no way to win.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

Any scenario other than a two party system is unstable

Long term (millenia) no system lasts. Over a shorter term, monarchies have had a tendency toward longevity.

Stability is only a worthwhile goal if the system is good. As far as I can tell, all the systems so far are just a variety of degrees of defective.

Re:REGULATORS!

[selven]

As you said, the majority of people would rather not go the enterpreneurial route. So 90% of the people trying to run their own businesses is completely out of the question. This is about 1% trying to start an enterprise (mom-and-pop stores don't count as enterprises IMO, they have no chance to grow into big companies and they're more steady income, so they resemble normal jobs), instead of 0.1% trying to start an enterprise. I think the second scenario is far too low.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Five Bucks!]

Except the food surplus is probably the result of rather large fertilizer imports.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

Cadmium is about 3 times as expensive as aluminum. There's more involved here than just making a quick buck.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Golddess]

Exactly. Maybe sometime in the future when robots do all the manual labor such a conspiracy might be plausible, but at this point in time they'd just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:REGULATORS!

[networkBoy]

Don't forget Huskey tools.
After Craftsman decided to close their US plants and ship their manufacturing to China, Home Depot bought the plant and re-hired the people...
I'll buy American, I don't shop WalMart, etc. I'm desperately trying to vote with my dollars but it feels like spitting in the wind.

We don't need more laws (though I wouldn't mind higher tariffs on .cn goods), what we need is a national awareness campaign about what it means to buy from WallMart and their ilk.
I propose that some of those "bailout BS" dollars be used to hire JibJab to make national pride and awareness shorts, without any government censorship, and to place them on TV in add slots all throughout the day.
-nB

Re:REGULATORS!

[feepness]

there cannot be "free market" if not everyone has ... 4) there is no society, i.e. there is no point in trying to improve "good for all people"

I was with you for 1-3, then you lost me.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

It is next to impossible to have perfectly pure food. Plants grow in dirt (except hydroponics) and excrement is a preferred fertilizer. There's organic waste in the air everywhere, and it can't be avoided. What's important is to identify how much bad stuff is too much. Pointing at fast food joints as you do is deliberately misleading.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DavidTC]

The Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck/tea party people have been eating through the Republicans like a chestburster from Aliens. We need to do the same to the Democratic party to make it more progressive, and various people have been trying.

Although, perhaps, us Democrats could, you know, not have entirely stupid issues and philosophies as we do that, unlike the rather wackadoodle teaparty people, who are out there protesting taxes...as taxes went down for them. ;)

The problem isn't who's elected, it's what issues are talked about.

The media will not talk, under any circumstances, about how removing a huge amount of manufacturing and whatnot and sending it overseas was, perhaps, not that clever an idea. (Even pretending it didn't introduce safety issues like this article is talking about.)

Hell, the second I start talking about it, and how perhaps we should make more in the US, even if it costs more, I get hit with multiple stupid people on my side (The left) saying 'Oh, but then poor people can't afford stuff, etc'.

Of course people can't afford manufactured things when they don't have manufacturing jobs! We've created an economy where we all sell things to each other that some other random people make, so said random people slowly leach all money out of the economy. (By 'random people', I mostly mean 'the rich who are barely paying dirt-poor people in other countries to make things', not the poor people themselves.)

The way the economy works is that you make something, I make something, and another guy runs a store, buys from both of us, and sells to both of us, taking enough money to buy our stuff for himself, too. With the businesses we work for skimming off maybe 10% of the money. The money makes a nice figure-eight between me and you.

The way our current economy (doesn't) work is now more like an H. We all work in the middle, and try to make enough to buy things from ourselves. All the money goes to large companies who buy from out of country, dirt cheap, and keep 75% of the money themselves.

You cannot have an economy where money keeps exiting it. We have one with offshore labor, although confusingly it's not because the money is going offshore...that money usually makes it back anyway. No, the money is exiting because companies are only paying those people fractions of their value to the company, and they only need that much, and spend that much...and the rest of the money just quietly vanishes. (It's not so much that it vanishes, it's that it stops being spent.)

Re:REGULATORS!

[Shotgun]

No, it's social science. How do you manipulate people to make them demand the change?

It is actually much more difficult than rocket science. You can't draw out a path to follow using math.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DavidTC]

Another possible strategy is that you keep working to make the Republicans so idiotic that they're irrelevant, and then encourage the liberal Democrats (Franken, Kucinich et al) to split off from the corporate-owned Democrats (Nelson, Dodd, et al) and form their own party.

Shut up shut up shut up, the Republicans can hear you. They'll learn o...

Um, I mean, that's a crazy idea. The idea that Democrats are running around encouraging the Republican loons, so we can destroy the Republican party, and end up with a right-leaning Democratic party consisting of the DLC-ish Democrats, and another party consisting of the left-leaning Democrats....I mean, I can't even conceive of a way to deny that that would not be blatant lying.

Hey, you teaparty people, keep up the good work. You know, I heard that the Qur'an supports socialized medicine....you guys should make people aware of that. The liberal media certainly won't.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

Take-home income: $3,115,000 That's enough for anyone.

Let's say I own company A, and my take-home pay is $3,115,000. I see company B, which isn't operating very efficiently and produces components that my company uses. I could buy company B, increase my pretax income by $1,000,000, produce more of my product at a lower price, and give all employees a small raise. But my take-home pay increases to only $3,215,000 with a 90% incremental rate. It's not worth my effort, so I won't bother. Everyone loses.

Liberals don't understand or deliberately ignore the concept of INCENTIVE.

Re:REGULATORS!

[DavidTC]

I'm right there with you, although I actually had somewhat lower expectations for the Democrats. I didn't expect actually bringing anyone to justice. I didn't expect them to be this bad, though.

That said, hey, at least we didn't let McCain start a war with Iran.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Shotgun]

Except no libertarian claims that the businesses can do anything they think they can get away with. Libertarians claim that informed parties should be allowed to enter into contracts as they see fit. Libertarians call it freedom.

If there is poisonous toxins present, I don't think most informed parents would purchase the product for their children. The government has a very definite place in these sort of situations. It is to insure that parties aren't allowed to commit fraud by representing their products as safe for children.

Re:regulators!

[ibsteve2u]

I learned two things today:

• There is a third political Party - Economic Libertarians - who are responsible for all of the inequitable free trade laws and treaties, and while I thought said laws and treaties were the project and goal of the Republicans and were achieved with the cooperation of some neoliberal Democrats, I misunderstood the situation (much as I overlooked their Party on the ballot)
• Wal*Mart, Disney, et al have a side of their stores that is marked "Made in the U.S.A." and another side marked "Imported Goods", and the consumers all flock to the "Imported Goods" side which is where their children notice and demand the bright, shiny thing they see on the shelf

Re:REGULATORS!

[jollyreaper]

Can you say show trial? Good baby. I knew you could.

On what possible ground could you jail Rove? He was an ADVISOR, he had no legislative or administrative authority.

We hanged nazis for less.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

We had tax rates that high in the 1960s and 1970s, yet we didn't suffer.

Stagflation. The misery index.

Western Europe has not done well copared to the US over the last two decades. It's the recently freed Eastern Europeans that have made the most progress.

High capital gains taxes tend to exacerbate bubbles, because people sitting on gains don't want to pay taxes on their profits. So they stay in their stocks, and other people seeing the gains buy more. If the early owners could get out without penalty, there'd be less of a tendency for the price to rise too much.

Keep in mind that the "bubble we've seen lately", the housing bubble, was caused entirely by government forcing low loan qualification levels. (Thanks to Barney Frank & Chris Dodd, et. al.) The rising side of the bubble was caused by increasing demand made possible by those loans, and the falling side was caused by the inevitable failure of those loans.

Re:REGULATORS!

[bsDaemon]

There is a difference between the prison labour done by criminals that you hope to rehabilitate in order that they stop stealing and the type done by political prisoners in the Gulags. I'm not saying that they don't have regular criminals in China, Cuba or North Korea -- but we don't lock people up for supporting net neutrality or whatever other thing activists want to be active about. And who is to say which prisoners are made to make the stuff you buy? The Chinese government? Yes, because they're a reliable source when asked whether or not a man is doing 15-20 years for murdering someone or whether it was instead making favorable statements about the Dali Lama.

Re:REGULATORS!

[ChrisMaple]

I'll try to respond to your incoherent post.

Well, it's not his money, is it?

Of course it's his money. The GP said that he was selling the company he made, so it's his money.

It's always easier to say someone richer than you has more than he needs.

You previously attacked the rich person, and now you're supporting him?

Of course, I'm sure he goes to the movies and buys hamburgers with excess cash like everyone else, instead of using it to help poor African children.

The start of this sentence sounds like he's OK for buying hamburger (instead of steak), and then you criticize him for not trying "to help poor African children." There is no moral obligation to help them and there's plenty reason to believe that most charity money that goes to Africa ends up supporting viscious dictatorships or worse.

But it's always easier to be morally righteous when you're the one that stands to benefit the most out of that sort of "transaction."

Yeah, the easiest person to deceive is one's self. Sigh.

It's really no different than how some people try to justify shoplifting or such.

There's a world of difference between justifiying getting paid well for years of intense effort and justifying theft.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Gizzmonic]

I really do think we're in a different era, with modern communication at our fingertips and a mass media willing to completely destroy a food company over one food poisoning outbreak, not to mention class-action lawsuits are so prevalent. But net neutrality and a competitive mass media is an essential piece to all of this.

Ready to destroy a food company? Read about Smithfield Farms. They've taken over the hog industry and they flaunt the law regularly and repeatedly. They've completely befouled a large chunk of North Carolina with the prodigious amounts of waste produced by hogs. They get fined a few million dollars, chump change, and keep on breaking the law. And they're not the only ones, not by far.

The mass media is only interested in scandals momentarily and its power only extends to entities that can actually be harmed by bad publicity. Smithville is beyond that possibility.

Re:REGULATORS!

[TheReaperD]

No, it's actually the consumer's fault because they buy the cheap crap that Walmart sells. If people would research their purchases before they buy instead of going "hey, this is cheap, I'll buy it", this would end tomorrow. Walmart feeds on emotional impulse buying and people trying to live beyond their means.

Re:REGULATORS!

[rusl]

a tasty solution

Re:REGULATORS!

[epine]

As for Monsanto, they sell seeds. Dont want 'em? Don't buy 'em. Sheesh, how evil.

Didn't your mother teach you about path integrals? What to put in your mouth, depends on where it's been? You also seemed to have missed the lesson on how genes move from one organism to the next, sometimes even to places where they aren't desired. And what about the "genie out of the bottle" lesson? That's also an important landmark in proper upbringing. Sheesh, your mother.

Re:REGULATORS!

[0100010001010011]

China: Ok Take the fine off of the trade deficit.

OR

China: Ok. You owe us X, cash it in now.

Re:REGULATORS!

[sjames]

Agreed! The invisible hand only works with a well informed market. That market hasn't existed for some time, and I argue it CANNOT exist today for several reasons.

First, we can't expect every single person out there to have 100% of the education they need to make a fully informed and rational decision. just howe many people out there know even the name of every potentially toxic substance that might turn up in a Chinese product?How are they to learn it? They're much too busy working at their McJob trying to get the rent paid. They might learn that particular brands are a problem, but brands are swapped around so promiscuously these days, they have no idea which name brands are actually brand X with a $20 label stuck on it. By the time you can do enough digging to find out, it's all changed again. Meanwhile the media is packed with industry shills, so you can't simply defer to authority.

Just to compound things, would be whistle blowers get sued out of existance. It's well and good that some states have anti-SLAPP legislation, but you first have to survive the initial legal assault before you can take advantage of that, even if your case is open and shut (it rarely is).

...if the profit minus the cost of mitigation is greater than the cost of continuing to sell a bad product - continue to sell

It's MUCH worse than that. It's profit minus the cost of mitigating the small part that gets internalized*the probability that it will ever get internalized. They happily take an extra 2 million in direct profits and shrug off the extra 100 million in externalities that their customers unknowingly pay.

Re:REGULATORS!

[tftp]

In places like that, people still do open businesses, so everyone must be insane. Because it couldn't be possible that you are wrong.

I used to live in such a society. Rules like that force the economy underground, and all settlements between businessmen are done in hard, cold cash. Feel free to translate with Google if you can't read it.

And once you are on that path, your business contracts are all outside of legal protection. What will protect you? Only this. Do you want to live in such a world? Because that's what happens when laws are way beyond unreasonable.

I haven't seen anything about capital gains in there, and that's separate from salary now.

I do not know what the G*P wanted to tax at 90%. But we know that most people don't earn $5M salaries every year; however companies are bought and sold all the time. If you let the government to take an inch (90% of the ordinary income) it will take a mile (90% of capital gains) and you can't do anything because you opened the door to this development.

Don't sell the company.

And when you have an appendicitis don't go for a surgery. That makes just as much sense as what you proposed. The company that you built may have great technology, but no means to make it into a product. A large company may have means to make products, but no ideas. That's usually when you sell and they buy. It's not like people sell companies on a whim. And there are tons of other reasons to sell too.

Have the trust pay him out slowly, rather than a lump sum

Tons of problems with that. To begin with, you have a good chance of dying from old age before all the money is paid. Or another - you are denied use of the money that is rightfully yours. You can't buy a house, for example. Or another - who knows what will happen with the money in the future (inflation, that's what.)

All of these are just workarounds, dancing around the elephant in the room. And the elephant is the right of the government to take your money. Granted, the government needs to be paid for the services that it provided you to be able to earn your profit; you weren't conquered by New Zealand, you weren't killed by gangs, you didn't die from food poisoning. But that's a much smaller sum than what the government tries to take. The more it takes, the less is there to take.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jlowery]

Great! So you're arguing for a 100% estate tax, then? I would have settled for 90%.

Re:REGULATORS!

[shutdown -p now]

What justifies forcing people to live under a non-agreed upon "social contract?" Contracts must be explicitly agreed to; being born on a tract of land is not agreement, especially when governments claim huge tracts of land and don't even use them.

What justifies forcing people to live under any non-agreed upon law of the land? They didn't explicitly agree to it, and fall under it simply by the virtue of being born in a given country.

My contesting your ideas isn't necessarily that taxation, on its face or in perhaps implemented in some way, isn't a bad idea, it just has nothing to do with morality and in reality the government is no different from any other gang which arbitrarily claims a territory and demands deference and obedience (and property) from those that fall within.

The fundamental difference between a gang such that you describe, and a democratic government, is that everyone takes part in the government (i.e., everyone is the member of the gang), so the demands don't come from the government - they come from the people whom the government represent. This is still prone to tyranny of the majority, of course, but it's already a world of difference.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

Yeah, it's a huge difference - even the most ambitious gang in history couldn't possibly achieve the power of a Democratic government.

However methods, motives, and disposition are all pretty much the same.

Re:REGULATORS!

[Thuktun]

There seems no end of funding available to search passengers at airports, why can't retail goods be searched?

For the same reasons we have rules at airport security checkpoints like limiting all fluids to certain quantities: we can't easily "search" materials for different chemicals. You need a lab, trained personnel, and time, so checking everything is significantly expensive. (With "significantly" written in 72 point bold font and pronounced "prohibitively".)

Lots of things would be solved if we could actually invent a tricorder.

Re:REGULATORS!

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, it's a huge difference - even the most ambitious gang in history couldn't possibly achieve the power of a Democratic government.

Judging by you capitalizing the first letter of the word "Democratic" (which was not the case in my post that you've replied to), you're 1) an American, and 2) totally clueless. Here's the definition of the word for your convenience, complete with some background. Get back to us when you have educated yourself.

As a side note, I find it really sad that the country that did so much to advance such a fundamental concept of the modern western liberal civilization as democracy, today has citizens which have such a knee-jerk partisan reaction to that word. Perhaps it's a hint at the true nature of the problems of your political system.

Re:REGULATORS!

[The End Of Days]

Heh, unwarranted assumptions for the win. I simply made an accidental proper noun of the form, no party intended. Nice of you to run with one little piece of it, and include some insults for good measure. Demonstrates that you are an excellent thinker indeed.

Now that you have my mea culpa, wanna try for a real response?

Re:REGULATORS!

[jwhitener]

Taxes have been has high as 50-60% in the past on the wealthy. We seemed to do just fine.

Re:REGULATORS!

[tftp]

Taxes have been has high as 50-60% in the past on the wealthy. We seemed to do just fine.

What is your control set?

Re:REGULATORS!

[shutdown -p now]

My apologies. If you actually meant "democratic" there as in governed by the people in your response, then you'll have to back it with some references to show that democratic governments are somehow inherently more likely to become powerful than non-democratic ones (at least "Democratic" sounded remotely plausible, heh).

Otherwise I'm just going to raise the case of China as being a fairly recent example of an ambitious gang achieving the power at the very least rivaling that of most democratic governments in existence (I dare say they've actually far exceeded it, because they aren't afraid to use any tools that'll do the job, those pesky "human rights" be damned). An older one would be their big brother, the USSR.

Of course, they had to call themselves a government to do that, and even become one eventually, but that's just how such business is done. And I hope you aren't willing to argue that China is democratic, or that USSR was such?

Re:REGULATORS!

[MindlessAutomata]

Of course it's his money. The GP said that he was selling the company he made, so it's his money.

I was talking about the poster he was responding to, the one claiming taxes should be ridiculously high on the rich--it's not his money, so of course the rich should be taxed to high heaven! He reaps all the reward.

The start of this sentence sounds like he's OK for buying hamburger (instead of steak), and then you criticize him for not trying "to help poor African children." There is no moral obligation to help them and there's plenty reason to believe that most charity money that goes to Africa ends up supporting viscious dictatorships or worse.

You're absolutely correct and I agree with you. My point is that when people see people with vastly more property than others they feel entitled to some of it because they feel that they will benefit from it far more than the person that actually owns it.

There's a world of difference between justifiying getting paid well for years of intense effort and justifying theft.

I agree entirely. You misunderstood my entire post--I was talking about the person he was responding to the entire time and his "gimme" mentality. Him demanding 90% taxes on the wealthy is, and his reasoning, is not too far off from the excuse people use when stealing from a business ("they're rich as hell and I'll benefit from it more anyway!")

Re:REGULATORS!

[MindlessAutomata]

Perhaps it is necessary for convenience, but I do not see a case being made for moral justification, which is what I was asking.

Likewise, I do not see a justification for governments preventing people from breaking away. That is, why can't a commune of hippies simply choose to make their own law on their own land?

Having said that, you must bear in mind that your taxes are used to fund society; they are used to buy civilization. Your roads are paid off by taxes, your police force, your schools, your fire department, your legal system and even your public sanitation service is paid with your taxes. Being this slashdot, the internet was developed from a tax-funded government research institution.

These things are all well and good, but said taxes are also used to pay for meaningless war, government censorship and obscenity trials, prosecution of flag-burners, so on and so forth. While things like law enforcement and fire departments are necessary due to the function they serve, one is required to pay into the scheme of their "masters" and is not allowed to break away, likely with a group of other people, to run things their own way.

Your argument states the obvious and implies that things cannot work differently. But they can, perhaps with small groups of like-minded people, but governments forbid it. I do not for a second believe that there is any hope for broad social change, but my point is mostly that there is no justification for making someone buy into the system at birth--no matter how convenient it makes it.

If you are going to claim that people do not have the right to deny taxation from the government on moral grounds and that people have a duty to obey their government out of "the social contract" then you excuse every tyranny under the soon so long as you can prefix it with the word "democratic." Broke an obscenity law? Social contract!

Re:REGULATORS!

[toddestan]

How about blatantly ignoring subpoenas from Congress? If Rove wants to ignore the law, then he can rot in jail.

Re:REGULATORS!

[RockDoctor]

If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

"Mr President, Iraq is on the phone ; they want to know when you're going to take away the uranium you've dumped in their country."

Re:REGULATORS!

[gtall]

But I don't think Japan and Taiwan are apropos examples. Both had new governments after the war and they didn't have the systemic graft or reach that the Communists in China have. I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that Chinese goods will become better manufactured. Japan and Taiwan had to compete with the U.S. in a different time. Now, with Wally-World ruling the retail market, any crap is fine as long as the price is right. I am also not convinced that the Chinese will demand better products. That would work for them if China would allow better made products in from the outside for competition. I don't see that happening.

I agree with what you say about Chinese military action. I think the probability is high they will do something stupid for two reasons: there is a lot of Chinese men that cannot find wives and the Government must find something to do with them or risk these guys putting their energies to things outside Party control, and the Chinese leadership suffers from penis-envy that they really have no legitimacy as government. In order to show they are not two-bit wonders, I think Taiwan is too juicy a target for them.

Yep, Barney Frank and the rest of his Merry Men suffer from the illusion that if you are rich, someone else must have been made poor as a result. So after they get through sacking the people with investment money, they'll be crying the blues about how Americans are not starting small businesses like they used to.

There's a microcosm of that happening now, business cannot find investment money because Congress fixed the rules to make the real estate bubble possible. It was a necessary condition, the sufficient condition was Americans: they bought houses they couldn't afford, flipped houses, bought second houses, etc. They knew it was musical chairs, they just never figured they'd be the losers.

Re:REGULATORS!

[jseale]

If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

Because it's cheap.

Exactly. Without China, we're broke!

Re:REGULATORS!

[AK Marc]

If you let the government to take an inch (90% of the ordinary income) it will take a mile (90% of capital gains)

And here is where I declared you wrong, and you asserted it again. Our capital gains used to be the same. It isn't now. It's been greatly lowered. The government doesn't run the government (and shouldn't in a democracy, the government should be the middle managers of the government, with the people as the Board of Directors), however, in the US, it is now where the corporations (and the mega-rich that run them) who are the puppeteers. The government had what you say they would go to, and abandoned it. That proves you wrong. Since your premise is wrong, the rest is based on a faulty premise and is likely wrong as well.

I used to live in such a society.

I presume Russia, from the links. But the societies got where they are from two very different paths. As such, I would expect their reactions to the same regulation to be different.

And when you have an appendicitis don't go for a surgery. That makes just as much sense as what you proposed.

You misunderstand. When you sell a car, there is one owner, changed to another. When you sell a company, you can change control without ownership. Or you could change ownership without control. Or sell it off 1% at a time. You are acting like it's a boolean. Either you own your company 100% or 0%, like a surgery. It's impossible to have half a surgery for removing your appendix. But it's not impossible to sell half a company. And the rate of selling it is directly related to the tax rate.

To begin with, you have a good chance of dying from old age before all the money is paid. Or another - you are denied use of the money that is rightfully yours. You can't buy a house, for example. Or another - who knows what will happen with the money in the future (inflation, that's what.)

I think you are working hard to prove me wrong, rather than looking at what I'm saying as if it could be right.

You control the trust. You'll never be denied the money. You want to buy a house? Have the trust buy it, then rent if from the trust (who is you anyway) and it's perfectly legal. There is an MP here that just got in trouble for that. Was it because he was doing it that way? Nope, that was legal. It's that he was using taxpayer funds to pay the bills. Now he is paying into his trust from his personal funds and everyone's happy again.

That you don't know what a trust is and how it can be used doesn't mean I'm wrong. Read my previous post again, assuming I'm right, and you'll find no error. It's only when you work hard to disagree that you find reason to disagree. And at least for the trust, you are 100% wrong. It's done today with great regularity to do exactly what I say. There are entire law practices around making ironclad trusts to do it. Making trusts wouldn't be an industry if they didn't work.

you weren't conquered by New Zealand,

I'm in New Zealand, and I'm wondering who we will be conquering.

All of these are just workarounds, dancing around the elephant in the room. And the elephant is the right of the government to take your money.

100% of modern societies agree that the people have to pay the government money, and that it's the right of the government to use that money for the betterment of the people. If you know of a society that doesn't agree, please let me know.

Given that, it's *never* a question of whether the government should do it, though that's usually brought up by some fringe radical. It's always a question of how much, and for what services. The "they don't have the right" argument seems silly when every society on the planet agrees they do have the right. Feel free to prove me wrong by naming a single country with no taxes (and no government owned businesses that use the natural resources that theoretically belong to the people).

Re:REGULATORS!

[bfree]

Like most people on the planet I'm not American so no I did not vote for Nader or inflict W on anyone. However you and your ilk's blind determination to convince your fellow Americans that a vote for a non D/R candidate is a wasted vote is far more likely to have resulted in W ever being allowed to stand for President representing any party. Had the election before seen even 5% of votes going to a third party candidate perhaps one of your major parties may have found a worthwhile candidate, or maybe even a large percentage of the non-voters would have appeared the next time to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Re:REGULATORS!

[theshowmecanuck]

One book I read said that when the white man first came over, the natives thought they were screwing them over. At least in the north with the fur trade. Hey! these guys are giving us guns and metal implements for fucking fur of all things. Boy are they dumb. Meanwhile they would take the guns and metal arrow heads and kick the shit out of the other tribes who didn't have access to the white man's goods, taking over their land in the process. Making a mockery of the 'we took their land' crowd. Back then, if you thought you had an advantage, then you used it to screw over your rivals. That is why one of the reasons the Hurons allied themselves with the French. It gave them an advantage over the Iroquois.

Re:REGULATORS!

[neurospyder]

"May contain traces of nut. "

Was this sig made in china?

I can think of something positive...

[Anonymous Coward]

...combine it with nickel and you've got yourself a battery. Now that's positive... and negative.

Re:I can think of something positive...

[Angst Badger]

It also makes a wonderful yellow pigment for paints. On canvas, of course, not children's toys -- though it has largely been replaced by safer compounds even in artists' paints.

When life gives you lemons

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Lemons are an interesting fruit. They are incredibly sour to the point of being inedible as-is, this makes it evolutionarily disadvantaged since more tasty fruits would seemingly have an advantage. However, here we are with literally millions of lemon trees. What can we do with these sour fruits? Lemonade!

So when life hands you cadmium, make Ni-Cad batteries!

Re:When life gives you lemons

[LostCluster]

Kids don't get enough nickels in their allowance to make Ni-Cads.

Re:When life gives you lemons

[guppysap13]

I love eating lemons, you insensitive clod!

Re:When life gives you lemons

[santax]

Which is pretty weird considering the lemons themselves can be used as a battery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_battery and http://hetlab.kro.nl/hightech/citroenbatterij.aspx (includes a nice video)

Re:When life gives you lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids don't get enough nickels in their allowance to make Ni-Cads.

You could mow my lawn, seeing as you're already standing on it.

Re:When life gives you lemons

[Jason Levine]

Lemons are inedible by themselves? Try telling that to my six year old son who loves them so much he asks us to buy lemons at the grocery store for him to eat.

In fact, since the latest trend in candy making is sour candies, I keep wondering why lemons can't become the fruit of choice for young folks. Why get a pale imitation when you can eat something truly sour!

Re:When life gives you lemons

[orasio]

Me too.

Could outsource less

[Alcoholist]

Just saying.

Re:Could outsource less

[VoltageX]

But then the jewelery would cost $5.99 instead of $1.99!

Re:Could outsource less

[Inda]

And the USA, the would leaders in Chinese hatemongering, could take some responsibility. I'm getting really fed up with the way the USA wants everything cheap and cheerful without a thought for anyone else. The hate is borderline racism - call them Chinks and sprinkle some sugar on the top.

I work for a German company, in the UK. Our partners are mainly Swiss and French. When we commission the Chinese to work for us, we help them. We fly our people over, we explain why we wont let them machine our metal in an asbestos covered factory, we perform QA on every 200th part, we show them COSHH sheets, we help. The Chinese are more than happy to follow our safety procedures. They honestly like the help we give them. And they obviously love the work and the money and we like the quality produce they produce for us.

Sloppy work is all your fault. Just saying.

Re:Could outsource less

[Pigeon451]

Then pay more for our products ...

Re:Could outsource less

[DavidTC]

It's not 'sloppy' if you just don't care.

We're not providing poor specifications, we're just letting them do whatever the fuck the way during manufacturing, and then selling it.

It's like when mafia bosses ask someone to 'take care of the problem'. Hey, they didn't say 'kill' anyone.

It's called 'plausibility deniability'. It's not a mistake, it is deliberately closing our eyes while Chinese companies make things however, and then the US company acting all shocked when it contains lead of cadmium or poisonous wasps or whatever is next.

This is because, unlike responsible countries (Which Germany and the UK sound like two.), we don't actually require companies to know anything about products they import beyond what is stated to them. It's sorta the same way we let banks make loans to people based on what those people stated to the banks.

And, just like that situations, where banks told people how to 'lie' to them to meet regulatory guidelines, there are US companies telling Chinese companies what those Chinese companies need to tell the US companies to meet regulations. (You said you use what in the paint? Lalalala, I can't hear you. Hopefully, nothing like lead is going to show up on the official ingredients list, or we won't be able to buy it. Lalala, I'll be going now...)

How come...

[mysidia]

Barred from using lead ... Chinese manufacturers have been substituting the more dangerous heavy metal cadmium

They're not barred from using Cadmium? But they're barred from using Lead?

Wouldn't it make more sense to regulate the safety of products using the more harmful material first?

We shouldn't need a 'law' for each material... we should get one law about safety requirements for harmful materials, warning labels, and access by children.

For example, products for use by children must not contain amounts of cadmium or lead that are not protected by a safety measure.

Of course their toy's batteries might contain cadmium or lead, so it shouldn't be banned, but safety requirements at least as strict (such as shielding/containing harmful materials) should be applied to Cadmium as to lead, etc, etc.

Re:How come...

[zippthorne]

You know, this seems to happen so often..

I'm starting to wonder if it's not deliberate.

Re:How come...

[LostCluster]

Kids haven't been exposed to Cadmium much, and there's far too many things to test. Laws are written to blacklist things that are troublesome. We'd be much better off with a whitelist of safe things to use, but that's not how the world works.

Re:How come...

[will_die]

They are banned from using both for products that will be sold in the US.
Part of the problem is that China allows cadmium to be used in local jewerly and it is a common matieral for China manufactures to use it local jewerly.

Re:How come...

[Pigeon451]

Cadmium was never an issue in toys before, now it is. So there was no need for regulation. If lawmakers were to propose regulations on "all" potentially harmful materials, the public would go nuts.

Cadmium Positives

[camperdave]

There's nothing positive that you can say about this metal

It's sulfide makes for a good photoresistor. Combined with nickel, cadmium makes for a good rechargeable battery. It's also used in the heat sensitive trigger in fire suppresion sprinkler systems. In short, cadmium has probably saved more lives than it's taken.

Re:Cadmium Positives

[wxjones]

It's also a great neutron absorber.

Re:Cadmium Positives

[the_other_one]

That doesn't mean we should put it in toys outside the battery.

Re:Cadmium Positives

[theheadlessrabbit]

There's nothing positive that you can say about this metal

It's sulfide makes for a good photoresistor. Combined with nickel, cadmium makes for a good rechargeable battery. It's also used in the heat sensitive trigger in fire suppresion sprinkler systems. In short, cadmium has probably saved more lives than it's taken.

It also makes a very, very nice red pigment.

As an artist, I use tons of cadmium red because it has properties that no other red pigment can match. it's got great intensity, great opacity, and unlike 90% of the other reds used in paint, cadmium is actually permanent. It doesn't fade after a few months exposure to sunlight. Unlike every other red pigment out there, when you mix cadmium red with white, you don't get pink, you get light red. When mixed with other colours, it gives you very natural tones.
Classical portraiture and landscapes would be impossible without it. Ever noticed how when high school kids paint portraits, it often looks like the men are wearing pink lipstick? it's cause the kids aren't using cadmium. The synthetic pigments just don't mix right.

The thing that surprised me about this story: cadmium pigment is bloody expensive compared to all the other reds. ($75/tube vs $20/tube) why the hell aren't they using one of the much cheaper, safer reds?

Re:Cadmium Positives

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

In short, cadmium has probably saved more lives than it's taken...

...mainly because it wasn't used in childrens' toys.

Re:Cadmium Positives

[Mal-2]

> That doesn't mean we should put it in toys outside the battery.

Why not, if those parts are treated with the same care as batteries? Oh wait, people are just SO good with recycling those, and they KNOW they should. If it's as well sealed as a battery, and there is a mechanism for recycling those parts, fine. If they can just go into the existing battery stream, fine. But of course, people will be too stupid/fat/lazy/whatever.

Requiring this kind of protection with jewelry would make the whole thing pointless. If you have to coat it in $10 worth of actual sealed, nonporous plastic, (as Plasti-Dip is cheap but pretty nasty), it doesn't make sense to save $5 on the metal. At that point, silver-plated brass starts to make sense again because it's cheaper to use safer metal than to try to isolate dangerous metal. It will do no good unless somebody is watching, though.

Mal-2

Re:Cadmium Positives

[feepness]

($75/tube vs $20/tube) why the hell aren't they using one of the much cheaper, safer reds?

It's probably more expensive as a pigment because the people manufacturing the pigment are smart enough to try to not poison themselves making it.

Re:Cadmium Positives

[M4DP4RROT]

It doesn't fade after a few months exposure to sunlight....The thing that surprised me about this story: cadmium pigment is bloody expensive compared to all the other reds. ($75/tube vs $20/tube) why the hell aren't they using one of the much cheaper, safer reds?

You've answered your own question- From the article:

Much of the increase found by the Michigan-based HealthyStuff.org came in toys with polyvinyl chloride plastic, according to Jeff Gearhart, the group's research director. Both lead and cadmium can be used to fortify PVC against the sun's rays.

Re:Cadmium Positives

[uslurper]

random comments regarding red paint:

-artists usually dont stuff paint in their mouth like kids do.

-high quality artists paints are often made in england, germany, USA, and Japan. Things like decent wages, healthcare, environmental protection, etc make artist colors more expensive. Heres some info about cadmium red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_pigments

"The synthetic pigments just don't mix right."
-Some colors just cant be produced by mixing other colors. Thats why artist sets have a variety of colors. My local artist shop has a neat exhibit about artist colors, and how the good stuff is made with certain mineral ores, crushed beetles, etc.

And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[Ritchie70]

This sort of shit is why you don't want to buy Chinese products if you can help, and never, ever, buy Chinese food products.

When buying gifts for very young children (preschool age and down) I do my best to buy toys made in Europe or the US.

I've accepted that I can't avoid Chinese merchandise in general, but I try to be selective - not for people who don't know not to eat their stuff, and not for things I plan to eat.

I read somewhere that Chinese industry is currently at a safety level - both for their workers and their products - roughly comparable to Victorian England or America. That isn't a world I want to live in if I can avoid it.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a problem. I was reading somewhere (sorry, don't recall where... it was a news article months ago) about how the majority of all US peanut butter brands are filled with peanuts from China. Apparently they control the majority of the market.

Just imagine the things leaching into their soil over there...

ugh.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[wvmarle]

Good luck with at least 80% of the worlds toys made in Shantou, China alone! Unless you make your own toys there is not much choice left...

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[TheWizardTim]

This is the problem with our Trade Agreements. We enforce IP laws to no end, but other issues? Workers rights and safety issues never seem to come up.

The Libertarian view does not work here. Sure, we can sue Walmart for importing these toys. We can sue the maker, somehow. The problem is that if one kid dies or becomes permanently sick because of these toys, it's too late. We need regulation. We need trade agreements that not only enforce IP, but make sure that the companies are not using methods or materials banned in the US.

The same applies to any company operating in the US. Self regulation only goes so far. We had the Sego mine disaster in 2006. Who was the head of US mine safety? A mine owner. So in Europe when the same thing happened, the workers had a bunker with food, water and air to retreat too. To save money, the US did not have any regulations requiring bunkers. The workers here died.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[Again]

What I would like to know is which Chinese manufacturers are doing this. If an American manufacturer put hazardous materials in children's products, you'd bet that we would all know which manufacturers were doing this. By making the names of the companies that are doing this well known, it would give the other ones a chance to stand apart from the "OMG Chinese manufacturer..." stereotype you are painting them all with.

Just so you know, China is a big place with a lot of people. I'm pretty sure that to lump them all into the same category is unfair to at least some of them.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[dbIII]

There's always been people that want to import substandard and dangerous goods to make a profit. In the past it was difficult for them to do so. Now it is very easy. That is what has changed.
It really has nothing to do with the quality and safety of Chinese goods because in general both have improved dramaticly and the really bad quality stuff doesn't get exported. We're just letting things in we wouldn't allow to be sold if they were made domesticly.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[Colonel Korn]

That's a problem. I was reading somewhere (sorry, don't recall where... it was a news article months ago) about how the majority of all US peanut butter brands are filled with peanuts from China. Apparently they control the majority of the market.

Just imagine the things leaching into their soil over there...

ugh.

Buy this peanut butter instead. The nuts come from Virginia and the only other ingredient is salt. Compare to the weird sludge called peanut butter in most supermarkets (Jif, etc.). Better yet, buy a jar of each and do a taste test. You won't ever go back.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[santax]

And it's cheap too, 12 jars for only $67.88! (I'm a Dutchie, I can send you 12 jars of very good peanut-butter (pindakaas as we call it) for a whole lot less! And trust me, it's good stuff! Now just for me to grind on (and very offtopic - sorry), what does a 'normal' jar of peanut butter costs in the US? Cause unless they put it in golden jars, I find 6.50 for a handful of peanuts, a bit of salt and a jar to put it all in a but overpriced.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[MadUndergrad]

Does it matter? Are you going to be able to find out who made your 25c toy? Hell, these days I can't even figure out what country most products are made in, much less the company. The whole Chinese manufacturing thing seems incredibly opaque, and I have a feeling that's how they like it.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[jamesh]

This is the problem with our Trade Agreements. We enforce IP laws to no end, but other issues? Workers rights and safety issues never seem to come up.

Yes... the developed world thinks they got rid of slavery centuries ago, but really we just outsourced it.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[that this is not und]

I can buy 'all natural' peanut butter in a local grocery store for a little over $2 a jar.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[feepness]

The problem is that if one kid dies or becomes permanently sick because of these toys, it's too late.

I note the Republicans (well, and I guess the Democrats now) saying the same thing about terrorism.

We cannot protect everyone from everything. Well, we could, but I'm not sure that would be a world anyone would want to live in.

But here's the question... has cadmium actually made anyone sick yet? Isn't the alarm being raised before that happened already? Do you expect our politicians to somehow spot have spotted this ahead of everyone else?

I would be perfectly happy to see cadmium regulated, but it's not as if people are dying in the streets right now because of it.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[Jason Levine]

No we can't protect everyone from everything, but some common sense things should be regulated. No putting toxic components into kids toys, for example. This isn't like a company selling kids "Bag O' Glass Shards" where the parent could simply look and see that the toy was dangerous. The jewelry looks perfectly harmless. It's cheap so kids can buy it with their pocket money. Then they stick it in their mouths (as kids often do) and they're harmed. The market wouldn't solve this by themselves. Left to their own devices, they'd wait until a few kids died. Then they'd deny it. Then they'd wait until some more kids died. Then they'd "look into it." When some more kids died, they might recall a small batch declaring the problem solved. When even more kids died, they might finally do a wider recall and might actually switch chemicals. (Going from Harmful Chemical A to Not Quite As Harmful But Still Not Safe Chemical B.) They might even pay some hush money to the families affected. In the end, they'd still wind up ahead in profits with nothing stopping them from repeating the pattern again.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[selven]

Thank you for saying this. I, for one, fully support workers' rights to work for 12 hours a day 7 days a week in an American factory instead of subsistence farming 16 hours a day 7 days a week in the hot sun, with the yearly risk of starvation at the environment's whim.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[TheWizardTim]

Yes, why make clothes in the US by adults, when you can have kids do it in other countries. Why have an 8 hour work day and allow for sick leave, when you can work people 12 to 14 hours a day and fire them for being pregnant? Why make products with safe, but more expensive chemicals, when you can get away with anything in other locations, and ship it back in to the US? I am not saying that we need to convert the rest of the world in to the US, but having some basic human rights in our trade agreements would go along way.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[bill_mcgonigle]

We need regulation. We need trade agreements that not only enforce IP, but make sure that the companies are not using methods or materials banned in the US.

And yet despite nearly a century of this kind of thought, Wal*Mart is selling bracelets with cadmium.

Just how much more evidence do you need that government regulation doesn't work? Just one more law or ruling will finally get it right? No, that's been the prevailing attitude among socialists for the past half century, and their arrogance is killing our children.

Only independent validation and consumer regulation can work, precisely because it leverages economies of scale governments can never bring to bear.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[TheWizardTim]

Government regulation works, when we want it to work. The problem is that since the 80s we had people in charge of government that hate government. Look at the last administration. We had a horse trader in charge of FIMA. We had a mine owner in charge of mine safety. Today we have a big banker in charge of policing the banks.

If you are able to source all of your own food, and products you buy, good for you. The rest of have to have some group that checks on companies and products to make sure they are following the rules.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you are able to source all of your own food, and products you buy, good for you. The rest of have to have some group that checks on companies and products to make sure they are following the rules.

Right, and the government has failed at that. Without taking a position on your reasoning for why that is, if it's true then they government cannot be trusted to do so because its operations are subject to political whims.

Compare your favorite government regulator with Underwriters Labs, for instance. The "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" used to carry similar weight for consumer goods, though most now think it's a for-sale joke. Consumer Reports, Edmunds, CSPI - there are several examples of independent evaluators that work well, and member organizations like UL, Chambers of Commerce, BBB, etc. They operate on ever-present market pressures, not fickle politicians and bureaucrats.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[u38cg]

Because you get cheaper clothes, because Americans don't want to work at that pay rate (and rightly so), and because - again, because you seem to have missed it - because those people *want* to work in those conditions. And lastly, because doing it this way is the fastest way to bring these countries up to a decent standard of living. How many people would be employed in Chinese factories if they had to eb paid American minimum wages with American working conditions? A big fat zero, because there would be no point siting a factory out there. I'm sure they'd really appreciate knowing that if they could get a job, it would be great.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[shutdown -p now]

... never, ever, buy Chinese food products.

Nor cars.

Re:And this is why not to buy Chinese....

[Ritchie70]

No. I'm not a parent. You're right. Wish I was, but I'm not.

I have a lot of kids I buy presents for, though. Nephew, cousin's kids, friends of the family.

As I said, for the LITTLE kids - the ones who stick everything in their mouth - I do my BEST to not buy Chinese. I don't always manage it, but if you go to the right stores, there's a lot of stuff made in Europe or the Americas for preschoolers.

If I ever am a parent, well, until they're 5 or 6 (or until they're out of the "it goes in my mouth" phase, whenever that is) they can probably live without plastic Mutant Turtles, Transformers and Spider Man.

I totally agree with you, by the way - whoever decided to substitute cadmium for lead absolutely knew what they were doing.

Re:Domestic use

[MyLongNickName]

Wow. You are a total and complete ass. You don't like the Chinese government, so some poor two year old should get poisoned?

Fucktard.

Rudolph...

[girlintraining]

...substituting the more dangerous heavy metal cadmium

Everybody knows a proper Rudolph is made from tritium, not cadmium. Damn imitation radioactive children's toys... buy american: We use 100% Tritium in our glow in the dark toys!

Re:Rudolph...

[21mhz]

I was thinking along these lines, too: now it'd be only logical for them to switch to radium, to give Rudolph's nose a warm glow. You know, the way Mme Curie did it and early pilot chronographs actually had it.

Re:Domestic use

[NemoinSpace]

More likely, They are charging us to ship us our hazardous cadmium waste under the guise of "cheap disposal" and then using it as raw material to sell product back to us by the boatload.

Much to my chagrin, in my travels, I have met a disproportionate number of criminally stupid Americans compared to criminally stupid Chinese. (Or maybe I've become hopelessly disenfranchised).

Rudolph the Cadmium-Nosed Reindeer

[omar.sahal]

With stories like this, and also how a whole city had been built (so some city official can say his cities economy grew at 8 percent this year) despite almost no one having moved in, questions have to be asked of trade with china.
If their government is so slack to allow the above (not to mention the melamine in milk to whiten it) and not be able to put a stop to it with out it affecting their International trade, all children goods, consumables and any other goods possibly effecting public health should be banned from China.
This probably would never happen, one of our sins is putting money before people.

Re:Rudolph the Cadmium-Nosed Reindeer

[compro01]

not to mention the melamine in milk to whiten it

Melamine isn't to whiten, it's for tricking nutritional tests. It makes the milk appear to have more protein.

Re:Domestic use

[ddxexex]

The Chinese children are completely innocent, if there was justice in the world, it'd be the pathetic people, who care about making a few bucks at the cost of someone elses life, who should be getting posoined.

Scaremongering

[wiredlogic]

It is a little annoying when people trot out these scary stories without completely understanding the true threats involved. Cadmium is only considered to be carcinogenic when inhaled as a vapor. You can safely touch it without any adverse effects. While not commonplace today, there was a time when tools were frequently cadmium plated. These are safe to use provided you don't do anything to remove the plating or try to polish it up.

Re:Scaremongering

[Nemyst]

And you've never seen a little child putting stuff into his/her mouth and happily chewing?

Re:Scaremongering

[dbIII]

True, ingestion is listed as a problem:
http://www.espi-metals.com/msds's/cadmium.htm
Putting punctuation in a URL however is somewhat weird and should be stamped out. A script to use "wget" would choke and die on it.

Re:Scaremongering

[hey!]

Ingestion is a serious danger with cadmium. There was a case of mass Cd poisonings in Japan in the first half of the 20th century, caused by contaminated rice irrigated with water downstream from mines. Any application where Cd comes into contact with the hands -- especially children's hands -- is suspect.

With respect to Cd plated tools -- I don't remember them. I do remember fasteners with Cd plating. I suppose if you don't disturb the plating it's not likely to leach. However that says nothing about the items in the article which *did* leach. You can't compare plating to something like paint, which is an entirely different thing. If it weren't, you'd never have to plate anything, you'd get by with paint.

In any case I don't buy the whole "we used to use such and so and it ain't harmed me none" argument. When I was young people still carbon tetrachloride to clean circuit boards. Let me tell you it was da bomb. It was cheap, worked like a charm, left no residue, and you could put out fires with it. I knew lots of people who used it and never saw any adverse reactions. That doesn't mean it didn't hurt some people. For one thing I haven't followed those people for thirty years and don't know how many ended up with liver damage.

Re:Scaremongering

[QuoteMstr]

Children. :-)

The real question is:

[Hurricane78]

Do you buy it anyway?
Because I don’t see it not being sold everywhere, anytime soon.

You don’t have to buy it from China, you know?
But it’s so cheap, right? ;)

When did cheap become equal too good?
I guess by the time that simple became equal to efficient...

Itai-Itai

[the eric conspiracy]

The Japanese have experience with environmental pollution from cadmium mining.

They call the results itai-itai disease, which is roughly translated into ouch-ouch. Few victims actually die from the disease, they typically commit suicide to get relief from the pain it causes.

Re:Itai-Itai

[Concerned Onlooker]

From wikipedia:

"One of the main effects of cadmium poisoning is weak and brittle bones. Spinal and leg pain is common, and a waddling gait often develops due to bone deformities caused by the cadmium. The pain eventually becomes debilitating, with fractures becoming more common as the bone weakens. Other complications include coughing, anemia, and kidney failure, leading to death."

No mention there of suicide, although you may have other sources. Sounds like just the thing for our children to be ingesting.

Well that's *very* comforting

[toby]

Jewelry industry veterans in China say cadmium has been used in domestic products there for years.

And we know the Chinese don't give a damn about poisoning their backyard or themselves.

We'll all pay for this unforgivable, mindless destruction eventually.

Re:Well that's *very* comforting

[maxume]

Why did you link the same story 3 times?

Why using cadmium?

[wvmarle]

The main thing I wonder is why do they use cadmium in the first place? What's so good about it? TFA says "nothing positive about cadmium" - but I'm sure that depends on your pov. There must be something very attractive about using cadmium (it can't be just the low price, iron is also pretty cheap) that makes them use cadmium.

Re:Why using cadmium?

[maxume]

Cadmium melts at about 600 F. Iron melts at about 2,800 F.

Re:Why using cadmium?

[wvmarle]

You mean 315 C and 1540 C right? Then those numbers start making sense for the rest of the world.

Re:Why using cadmium?

[wvmarle]

That is ionic cadmium. Not the metallic state we are talking about here. Though as with most heavy metals it's the ionic state in which it is soluble in water and hence toxic.

Re:Why using cadmium?

[maxume]

You would need to translate them to an absolute scale (Kelvin or Rankine) to do a really meaningful comparison, but I would hope that most people that read English would be able to at least translate the temperatures into "pretty hot" and "a whole bunch hotter".

Even then, the temperatures may be less interesting than the amount of energy required to bring the materials to those temperatures (but adding energy at lower temperatures is probably easier).

Re:Why using cadmium?

[wvmarle]

Thinking of working with molten metals at such temperatures, the greatest advantage for sure will be the moulds that can made of almost any metal. Copper may do, to name a soft one. Makes mould making so much easier.

Safety is another. Molten cadmium will burn when you touch it, molten iron is worse. Spilling molten iron may set your shop on fire. So may many other molten metals. I know many materials can self combust at temperatures in the 600-800 C range, which makes anything at higher temperatures (especially liquids) a fire hazard.

Re:Why using cadmium?

[alexo]

You mean 315 C and 1540 C right?

No, he means 594.22 K and 1,811 K.

Makes nice paints

[dickens]

Actually there is another nice thing you can say about cadmium. It makes lovely yellow and orange pigments. Sort of like lead white. Van Gogh may have absorbed or ingested enough to cause or exacerbate his mental disorders.

Re:Makes nice paints

[mirix]

It's very effective corrosion resistance plating as well. Even better when you put on a chromate conversion coating after (also toxic).
It's not used much in consumer goods though, mostly military stuff (chrome conversion can conveniently turn it olive-drab, too.)

I believe the main problem with Cd is - it's very similar to Zn. And due to this similarity, your body absorbs it, as zinc, but you are unable to excrete it, and get something like a horrible zinc deficiency? I'm not entirely certain, but I seem to recall something like that.

Coincidentally, Cd and hex-chrome as both banned in the EU, under RoHS, - Well It would be if these were electronics.

Re:Makes nice paints

[mirix]

I should add - after years, plain cadmium plating oxidizes, and turns to a sort of butternut yellow coloured powder. I think this is when it is most dangerous, because it is very easy to inhale or ingest.

I see it on occasion on the metalwork of electronic equipment from the 50's and 60's.

Re:Makes nice paints

[mcgrew]

Van Gogh may have absorbed or ingested enough to cause or exacerbate his mental disorders.

Perhaps, but without his mental disorders would we have his paintings today? I once met a very old woman (decades ago) who actually met Van Gogh when she was about thirteen. She said he was the biggest asshole she ever met.

No wonder he only sold one painting in his entire life. Social skills matter.

DUMBASS

[tjstork]

This stuff is absolutely something that needs regulation to control it

There are regulations, but nobody gives a shit. Nobody follows the ones we already have!

Why don't you go up to Washington DC and add another thousands pages and wave your hand like it matters. Nobody trusts the government. Nobody believes in the justice system. Nobody believes in God and nobody believes in your dumbass socialism either.

Everything you are telling me is a lie, and honestly, its just time to divvy up the nukes among the states and let each one be on its way. The federal government is an incompetent, bankrupt tyrant, and many of us have no use for your so called progressive dictatorship.

My theory -- It's a conpiracy

[moogoogaipan]

If you make everyone dumber, you'll be the smartest. EOM

Fair and balanced.

[nemock]

When you consider the astronomical amount of products we import from China, cases like this are the rare exception ... not the norm. Problem is the media keeps digging these cases up and shining flood lights on them to reinforce the stereotype that products from China are poor quality and dangerous. Try to replace China with any country/countries and watch the prices/danger levels shoot up and quality fall. The only positive side of these stories is the public is informed of which specific products should be avoided. Problem is .. they do this only for Chinese products (and no it's not because only Chinese products have issues).

Re:Fair and balanced.

[McFortner]

Wow, you sound like a shill saying that. Get real, the Chinese Communist Central Committee doesn't care as long as they can get our money and get away with it. As soon as we find out, some poor middle management schmuck gets put up against the wall and shot. Remember, Lenin said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." We sure are making the job easy for them....

Re:Fair and balanced.

[nemock]

That's the whole point ... get real. The vast majority of Chinese products are high quality and safe. It's good the media points out these specific cases to the public. Whether they are driven by altruism is doubtful. Stories like this are sensationalistic. It also feeds into the stereotype I mentioned. Japan was derided at first, then feared and now they are our most bestest, most cooliest friends in Asia (and aren't they just wonderful for containing China?).

Re:Fair and balanced.

[Anonymous Coward]

how do you know they are safe ? these products were "safe" and "inspected" before the AP actually tested them and found them to be highly toxic. how do you know the majority of products are uncontaminated ? answer: you dont. this isnt scare mongering - this is a real problem repeating itself on a periodic basis as more and more "safe" chinese products are found to be unsafe.

Re:Fair and balanced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Give us some sources. Name some more countries and their dangerous products that we buy.

Re:Fair and balanced.

[mcgrew]

Problem is the media keeps digging these cases up and shining flood lights on them

I don't have a problem with that. After all, that's their role in society.

to reinforce the stereotype that products from China are poor quality and dangerous.

Most stereotypes are based on truths, although things change and what once may have been true isn't necessarily true any more. If you're Jewish and don't like the stereotype of "jewing someone down" then don't do it. If you're Irish and don't like the stereotype of being a drunken brawler, don't drink and avoid fights. If China wants to overcome the truthful stereotype of producing poisonous toys and food, they should simply stop doing it and in a coupld of generations those stereotypes will go away.

It didn't

[damn_registrars]

When did cheap become equal too good?

Never. However if you are one of many people who have seen their real income decrease over the past decade or so, you find yourself choosing between buying low-quality or not buying at all. And you'll have a hard time explaining that to your young child.

Re:It didn't

[Cryacin]

And you'll have a hard time explaining that to your young child.

Why? My parents did, and you know what? I'm not one of these consumer types that are screwing with our economy. I know the value of a dollar, and you know what? If it's a choice between crap and nothing, I will choose nothing.

Re:It didn't

[Hurricane78]

That logic is wrong. An example is pants:
The cheap ones last less than half the time of the ones that are twice as expensive.
So if you buy the more expensive one, you actually save money. On top of that you save the hassle of driving back and forth, using time and gas.

It’s just like those people who drive 30 miles to save $2 on a product. It’s what happens when you don’t think it trough to the end or don’t think further than til the next morning.

Not saying I’m free from doing that error. But at least I admit that it’s not wise, and try not to do it. :)
Which in the long run is an advantage.

Re:It didn't

[drsquare]

Never. However if you are one of many people who have seen their real income decrease over the past decade or so, you find yourself choosing between buying low-quality or not buying at all. And you'll have a hard time explaining that to your young child.

If it's a necessary product, then you should buy it. However most Chinese imports are disposable consumer crap you only think you need because the TV tells you so.

Re:It didn't

[damn_registrars]

If it's a necessary product, then you should buy it. However most Chinese imports are disposable consumer crap you only think you need because the TV tells you so.

It surprises - and sometimes disgusts - me how often I don't have a choice but to buy Chinese. When I go to my favorite home improvement store, sometimes the plumbing parts I need for my house (at least if I want to have running water) are only available as Chinese-made.

Likewise with some car parts. I drive an American car, made in Michigan. But when I go to the auto parts store, I often end up buying parts that were made in China. Sometimes, when there is a choice of "good, better, best", the "best" one will have been made in Mexico or Japan. But often when there is only one part for the application, it is made in China, regardless of what store I buy it from.

So while there is plenty of disposable consumer crap coming from China, there are also necessary goods as well. At least if I want silly luxuries like running water in my home or brakes on my car.

OMG Ponies!!!

[LostCluster]

Notice Slashdot reports on kids jewelry from China, not say, tech parts from China. How are they doing on that?

Re:silver lining

[jameskojiro]

And Americans will have become overly weakened because we will use medicine to keep people barely alive who have been poisoned by heavy metals.....

Re:But what about all the other painters?

[Obyron]

You're right, we may as well all just let our kids play in traffic. Oh wait, no, you're just wrong.

To Stop This

[randallman]

Whatever company outsources the labor or imports/markets the dangerous merchandise should be held accountable. So if Barbie comes back with lead paint, Mattel should pay the price.

TARIFFS!

[QuoteMstr]

The trade may be free, but it's sure as hell not fair:

1. China has no environmental or labor standards. It's not fair to expect our domestic industries to compete against theirs when we have to clean up after ourselves. Here, we have elections. There, if you complain about the local river turning green and your kids' hair falling out, you get disappeared.
2. China has been manipulating its currency, the renminbi, to subsidize its exports and cost us millions of jobs.
3. Third, the unmitigated, unregulated, and unabashed greed exhibited by Chinese manufacturers and their American partners has not only poisoned our economy with a cavalcade of cheap crap, but put the lives and well-being of our pets, our children, and ourselves in danger.

It's time to place heavy tariffs on Chinese imports until they play by the same rules as the rest of the civilized world. We shouldn't do business with Dickenonsian nightmare states.

Re:TARIFFS!

[QuoteMstr]

"When you owe the bank $10,000 and can't pay, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10,000,000,000 and can't pay, the bank has a problem."

Re:TARIFFS!

[The End Of Days]

When the bank has 1 billion people, nukes, and the ability to destroy your current and near future economic holdings (and let's remember, I'm talking about the 300+ million people of the US here), I'd say they pretty neatly turned that problem around.

I'm not suggesting China ever thinks they will be able to collect. I'm not even suggesting they would use their ability to destroy this country as a punitive action. But do you think it's beyond them to, say, cause a few food riots here and there just to remind us who holds the reins? They certainly don't mind with their own people, and they probably like them a lot more.

Re:TARIFFS!

[QuoteMstr]

The Chinese would be wiping out their own assets if they did as you suggest, and therefore they won't do it. True, it's a kind of financial cold war, but one without the radiological fallout if it goes wrong.

But do you think it's beyond them to, say, cause a few food riots here and there just to remind us who holds the reins?

One of the few things we still make here is food. Lots and lots and lots and lots of food that we export all over the world. Food riots will be the least of our problems.

Re:TARIFFS!

[OrigamiMarie]

It's starting to look like we'll have to pull the plug some time. Is later much better than now?

Re:TARIFFS!

[The End Of Days]

How much food can be grown and distributed without fuel? And how much fuel can we import without money?

I sincerely hope your right, but I'm unshaken in my conviction that it's foolish to count on it.

Re:TARIFFS!

[The End Of Days]

Ask the millions of people who have consistently decided for 40 years to put off all problems until some unspecified tomorrow. I have no say, I just scream into the wind and feel smug that someday I might get to say "I told you so."

Re:TARIFFS!

[nemock]

"until they play by the same rules as the rest of the civilized world" It's easy to play by the rules when you're the one making them and breaking them. You must be blissfully ignorant or lacking serious grey matter if you think the "civilized world" plays by it's own rules. Just admit we are getting beat at the current game, find a way to screw the other side and carry on. It's worked time and time again.

Re:TARIFFS!

[AK Marc]

How much food can be grown and distributed without fuel? And how much fuel can we import without money?

You, sir, are an idiot. You have an almost point, but you forget that the USA has the capacity to grow enough food to feed the entire world. And, the USA still produces enough domestic oil to produce all that food and distribute it to everyone in the world. Sure, no one else would get to drive anywhere, but we are still have our own oil, and the capacity to grow massive amounts of food (so much so that many people are paid to not grow food in order to keep the food markets stable and because Iowa is a swing state).

I sincerely hope your right, but I'm unshaken in my conviction that it's foolish to count on it.

China could destroy the US economy any time it wanted to. However, if it does it now, it will crash *harder* than the US. Wait 20 years, then come back. The situation will be different. Unless the US balances the budget and starts paying off 5% of the debt per year within the next 20 years, then China could destroy the US economy and not have its own destroyed.

Re:TARIFFS!

[d34dluk3]

We shouldn't do business with Dickenonsian nightmare states.

Koothrappali: “I thought we would be gentle with him.”

Wolowitz: “That’s why I added the ‘enonsian.’

Re:TARIFFS!

[d34dluk3]

The trade may be free, but it's sure as hell not fair:

1. China has no environmental or labor standards. It's not fair to expect our domestic industries to compete against theirs when we have to clean up after ourselves. Here, we have elections. There, if you complain about the local river turning green and your kids' hair falling out, you get disappeared.
2. China has been manipulating its currency, the renminbi, to subsidize its exports and cost us millions of jobs.
3. Third, the unmitigated, unregulated, and unabashed greed exhibited by Chinese manufacturers and their American partners has not only poisoned our economy with a cavalcade of cheap crap, but put the lives and well-being of our pets, our children, and ourselves in danger.

It's time to place heavy tariffs on Chinese imports until they play by the same rules as the rest of the civilized world. We shouldn't do business with Dickenonsian nightmare states.

This may be (and I think probably is) all true, but doesn't change the fact that China has us by the balls financially and there's nothing we can do about it without addressing the deficit.

Re:TARIFFS!

[drsquare]

Third, the unmitigated, unregulated, and unabashed greed exhibited by American importers and their American consumers has not only poisoned our economy with a cavalcade of cheap crap, but put the lives and well-being of our pets, our children, and ourselves in danger.

Fixed your post somewhat. I imagine China will stop making dangerously cheap shit when Americans stop trampling each other to death to buy it.

Re:TARIFFS!

[The End Of Days]

You, sir, are an idiot...

I was going to respond with an opportunity for you to demonstrate further brilliance, but I decided the insult contest is more fun, so not only are you an idiot, but your father has smelly balls and your mother's vag looks like a delicious roast beef sandwich with yeasty gravy.

Here's a bit of food for thought: did you consider what it would take to retarget our entire industrial output to feeding our country? That's essentially what you proposed. There, I did give you a chance to be brilliant yet again, and I started with an insult so you should be comfortable with the tone, as well.

fixed links

[toby]

Sorry, copy and paste fail. I intended to link to these:

• Lu Guang from People’s Republic of China won the $30,000 W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography for his documentary project “Pollution in China.”
• Industrial Pollution Kills Hundreds Along the Huai River Basin in China
• de-industrialization of the west just moved the western problems of the past to a country that doesn’t seem to care much about pollution control.

...as just a few examples of the incredible disdain with which China pollutes its own backyard and poisons its people. Even Ceaucescu's Romania has nothing on this mess.

Re:fixed links

[zbrewski]

Disturbing and saddening images...

Even more disturbing is the fact that each and every product I used to access those images (router, pc, monitor, etc..) is most likely made at or near some of these sad places.

Re:But what about all the other painters?

[tjstork]

You're right, we may as well all just let our kids play in traffic. Oh wait, no, you're just wrong.

Your argument is that they should never even be allowed to cross the street.

Re:REGULATORS, the dumbasses!

[The End Of Days]

Interestingly, people accuse the US government of being run by a cabal of free enterprise, but the free enterprise and government in China have no ties?

Curious.

Blame Canada!

[rve]

If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

Because it's cheap.

Citation needed.

I know cadmium is very commonly used in plastics because of the bright and weather resistant colors that can be made with it, not because it's cheap. Bright yellow, red or orange plastic items that have to spend a lot of time outdoors without fading are often colored with cadmium. Plastic beer crates for example, or company logos.

Now it seems obvious that it's less suitable for children's toys, because kids of a certain age tend to put everything in their mouth, but remember that scandal a couple of years ago when lead based paint was used in children's toys manufactured in China? Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that the problem then wasn't in China, but in the specifications sent to them by the American company that had the toys made. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened again.

Re:Blame Canada!

[Fred_A]

Now it seems obvious that it's less suitable for children's toys, because kids of a certain age tend to put everything in their mouth

But don't a lot of children toys get stuffed with cadmium batteries anyway ?

Sounds like a double standard to me. Not to mention that nickel can be toxic too (and a great allergen).

Re:Blame Canada!

[putaro]

It's generally well know that you shouldn't let your kids chew on batteries and they're relatively hard to get out of most toys these days. It's not the same as something on the outside of a toy.

Re:Blame Canada!

[Rob the Bold]

It's generally well know that you shouldn't let your kids chew on batteries and they're relatively hard to get out of most toys these days. It's not the same as something on the outside of a toy.

To add to that for those whose only recollection of battery operated toys is from their own childhood: Changing batteries in recently made children's toys is a serious hassle. The battery compartment is secured not just by a plastic latch but by one or more screws to prevent all but the most handy children -- and practically all mothers -- from accessing the cells inside.

Re:Blame Canada!

[Rob the Bold]

If that country won't take responsibility for the poisons they export to us, why are we dealing with them?

Because it's cheap.

Citation needed.

I know cadmium is very commonly used in plastics because of the bright and weather resistant colors that can be made with it, not because it's cheap.

You're not using much of any plating metal on cheap charms, so the cost of the material is probably not as significant as the cost of plating it on. You want a metal that's easy to plate, shiny and corrosion resistant, so cadmium fits the bill (in retrospect, shoulda put "non-toxic" in there). What other options might they have used? Chrome might be less toxic, but plating generates hazardous wastes. Perhaps the environment people where the shop is located are more diligent (or more present) than the toy safety people. Silver is benign, but it tarnishes. Zinc doesn't tarnish, but is less shiny. Gold, rhodium, palladium are pricey enough to be getting into significant material cost. The price of indium has gone up since the Chinese stopped separating it from zinc ore. Tin would probably work. Dipping it in mercury would make it nice and shiny, but there's the poisonous thing.

So how do you pick? I guess you'd find whatever was cheap enough from a material standpoint and compatible with your expertise and equipment. If anyone complains, well, you're not a toxicologist, are you?

Re:Blame Canada!

[mcgrew]

It's used to make bright yellow, red, and orange paints; the kind of paints that artists use that come in tubes (both oil and acrylic). You'd be surprised at how toxic most art materials are.

Re:Blame Canada!

[ChrisMaple]

I'm no materials scientist, to I'm guessing here. Aluminum is shiny and cheap enough that it can be used not only for plating (Is Al plating difficult?) but as the base metal. For long-term shine, give it a coating of silicon dioxide. As you mentioned, tin is probably OK, and it has a transparent oxide. It's probably possible to give silver a protective coating, but silver would cut into the profit margin.

Most people who've been awake for the past decade, if asked what metals are poisonous, should be able to name lead, mercury, and cadmium. They've all been in the news. A few years ago the arts community made a lot of noise when regulations banning cadmium in all paints (including artist's oils) were proposed. And it doesn't take much effort to do internet research and find out what's really poisonous.

Re:Blame Canada!

[rve]

You're not using much of any plating metal on cheap charms, so the cost of the material is probably not as significant as the cost of plating it on. You want a metal that's easy to plate, shiny and corrosion resistant, so cadmium fits the bill (in retrospect, shoulda put "non-toxic" in there)...

Plating? The cadmium is used in the form of cadmium salts, as a heat and light resistant coloring agent for plastics, not in a metallic form. That would be really expensive, if at all possible. Shiny silver colored plastic is normally made with aluminum, and I imagine gold color can be made by putting a translucent yellow layer on top of that.

According to google, the cadmium paint is actually more expensive than the non-toxic alternative (azo compounds), so I really wouldn't be surprised if this was just another case of Chinese manufacturers not second guessing their western customers' faulty specs, like it was with the lead based paint scandal.

Re:Blame Canada!

[petermgreen]

Most toys designed for younger kids are designed to make it hard to get the batteries out. Many of them even have screw-shut battery compartments.

Also batteries with cadmium in seem to have pretty much gone the way of the dodo at least here in the UK. Non-rechargable batteries were advertising the fact they were cadmium free years ago and most rechargables are now nimh.

Re:Blame Canada!

[FiloEleven]

remember that scandal a couple of years ago when lead based paint was used in children's toys manufactured in China? Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that the problem then wasn't in China, but in the specifications sent to them by the American company that had the toys made. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened again.

Remember too the regulation we got from that incident: a broad law mandating that all products for children under a certain age must be tested for lead and other hazardous materials. This led to lots of small foreign companies pulling their products from American shelves, and small American companies closing their doors--not because they had any chance of containing lead, but because the mandatory testing and tracking is expensive enough to make the toys unprofitable. Hand-crafted children's toys, clothes and furniture are declining rapidly. There is still an issue with children's books in libraries: they fall under the law, too, and libraries aren't sure if they should pull their books to comply with the law (there's no way they can afford the testing).

Mattel and Hasbro, the world's largest toymakers and in Mattel's case the root of the scandal, both lobbied hard for the legislation. I think they saw an opportunity to save face and to squeeze out competition from local artisans in one move. A more thought-out law would have created a better process for determining the safety of non-industrial children's goods and would have had exemptions for books.

What can you do?

[srothroc]

If I were a parent and I had read this article, it would probably scare me shitless. What would you do to protect your children from these kinds of threats -- the ones you don't even know enough about to keep an eye out for? Even if you did know about this threat, how would you make sure that jewelry didn't contain cadmium? It's not like there's a "nutrition facts" sticker for jewelry and toys.

As one poster said, you could try to refrain from buying items made in China, since that's where the majority of the problems come from, but what else can you do? So much stuff is made in China nowadays that it seems pretty hard to not get those things for your kids, or have them get them from other people.

Re:What can you do?

[Tanuki64]

If I were a parent and I had read this article, it would probably scare me shitless. What would you do to protect your children from these kinds of threats -

Throw away the possibly poisonous stuff as soon as you learn about it and go on as always. Scared? Not at all. I am now 46. In my childhood all kinds of cool stuff was allowed, which now scare you nannies 'shitless'. I never heard of children dieing like flys then. On the contrary, it looks like the children were healthier in my time than they are now.

Re:What can you do?

[srothroc]

On the other hand, I wonder if there were as many toxic chemicals and metals being used so casually when you were a kid. It's not like China was a major industrial power then.

Re:What can you do?

[Tanuki64]

Most likely yes. It is not so that the European and American industries were more interested (or educated) in public health than the Chinese industry is now. I do remember several scandals in Germany when poisonous stuff was found in toys. General pollution then was much higher than today. For instance, not so long ago every car emitted lead particles or even worse organic lead compounds. It was a long and hard learning process how to force our industries to act more responsibly. China is now at the beginning of this process.

So as I said, remove the potentially dangerous stuff as soon as you learn about it, but no reason to panic or be scared shitless.

Surprised?

[blind biker]

After all the adulterated, poisonous food, even baby formulas, manufactured by chinese companies - after dozens were poisoned and died, you're still surprised? They will sell you anything they can get away with.

Keep buying "Made in China", fuck off and die. At this point, that's really all one can say.

Re:Surprised?

[Tanuki64]

They will sell you anything they can get away with.

How is this different from any other company in any other country?

Re:Surprised?

[blind biker]

I guess there's a difference in degrees, stemming from cultural differences. There are countries/cultures, where people, for whatever reason, tend to care more about the general well-being. I would like to draw parallels with game theory, but I have no time at the moment.

Re:But what about all the other painters?

[dickens]

If you believe Kirk Douglas's portrayal of Van Gogh in the 1956 movie "Lust for Life" (which I thought was very good) he was a very sloppy painter indeed.

However, they don't use Cad Yellow, or Lead White or Paris Green (arsenic) or Vermillion (mercury) much these days. Heck, they don't use regular paint thinner any more (my mom is an artist) since if you throw it around all day for years it *will* make you sick.

The replacements are simply not the same, but of course nobody really *wants* to die for their art...

Re:REGULATORS, the dumbasses!

[PaladinAlpha]

Private enterprise failed here just as much -- the retailers had just as much opportunity to discover cadmium contamination and didn't do it . I tell you what, you name the private corporation that could handle vetting all of our imports.

While you're chewing on that -- how are those government-built roads, government-run civil services, and food quality that improved measurably after government regulation treating you? Government isn't always the answer, but neither is privatization. Anti-corporate sentiment is at an all-time high, and it is richly deserved.

Solar Cells

[EndoplasmicRidiculus]

Most thin film solar cells are based on cadmium telluride. Cadmium is one of the rarer metals so making children's bracelets out of it seems like a waste as well.

Regulation is about reducing not eliminating risk

[Gage With Union]

I generally agree with you in principle, particularly in regards to non-essential products, but I also think this cannot work in practice, and I have no desire to ever contemplate a privatized FDA. I think skepticism is warranted, but I also know that I cannot become an expert (or even suitably informed) in everything. I must trust someone, whether government or private sector, in establishing the credibility of a vendor. This is not a guarantee of immunity from harm, but an assurance that things will probably be okay, without which society could not function.

Our economy is dependent on trust. Despite the U.S. government's many failings, there are many things that I must trust it with, such as currency, police and fire, roads, building codes, etc. Is it my responsibility to be ever vigilant regarding the thousands of products at my grocery store, any one of which might be contaminated? To know which drugs have been recalled for safety concerns?

Modern life is full of trade-offs, and we eventually must delegate, or live like Ted Kaczynski (minus the bomb-making part), but this doesn't inherently make us complacent. I do not play with matches in my house content in the knowledge that there is a fire station close by. My apartment has a gas stove, which is, relatively speaking, pretty damn dangerous if used improperly. I am responsible for its improper use. On the other hand, if my house explodes due to a manufacturing defect in the stove, it's reasonable to expect consequences. The company could decide that the financial cost of paying off my relatives is below the cost that it would take to repair the defect. Regulation tries to reduce risks to the customer and prevent corporations from making logical yet thoroughly morally abhorrent decisions.

Re:Domestic use

[PaladinAlpha]

Woah -- no it's flipping not "better" if it's domestic, it's still people suffering. People just like you, trying to live their lives. To say that Chinese people "deserve" brain damage because the Chinese government is of questionable character is callous in the extreme. Indeed, apparently remaining domestic perpetuated their use, whereas export exposed the problem, so at least there is some awareness. That being the case I would argue it's better for the entire world if the products are exported.

No one deserves to suffer because of the actions of their government. Think about our own international image and what has happened to it over the past decade. Do you feel like you deserve to be shot because of the actions of your government? Even though you have infinitely more control over your government than those Chinese do over theirs?

Re: Regulation is about reducing not eliminating r

[MindlessAutomata]

Regulation tries to reduce risks to the customer and prevent corporations from making logical yet thoroughly morally abhorrent decisions.

Everyone always blames the corporation, but never the equally morally apathetic consumer that patronizes them.

Pots and kettles

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to place heavy tariffs on Israeli and USA imports until they play by the same rules as the rest of the civilised (sic) world. We shouldn't do business with Genocidal Torture states. There, trolled that for you.

The thing is, dickweed, it's Walmart and similar US corporations that are making the money on this kind of activity, and you're not going to put their owners and senior executives in prison, so you should just shut the fuck up with your racist rhetoric. You can stop this business by dealing with those "American partners", but you refuse, because you're too weak to stand up for yourselves and just want to point the finger elsewhere.

And as for playing by the rules, I hadn't noticed the USA fulfilling its legal requirements as stipulated by its own constitution and legally ratified international treaties. The USA manipulates its currency by launching wars on anyone trying to suppress the petrodollar. Wait, I've been trolled again myself, haven't I?

Good old capitalism

[MartinSchou]

If you can't use substance A, use substance B which is cheaper to use than substance Q.

Substance Q may be completely harmless and substance B might make your eyes rot if you look at it for more than ten seconds, but if B is legal, doesn't the company have a legal obligation to their shareholders to use B instead of Q, when Q is 10 times as expensive?

Re:Good old capitalism

[u38cg]

Yes, it does. The more surprising thing is this is, on net, a good thing. The consumer accepts a level of harm commensurate with the reduction in price, and supplies of substance Q are free to be used where they are needed.

Re:But what about all the other painters?

[Waffle Iron]

I guess Van Gogh shouldn't have been eating paint, but I'm getting a bit of so much scaremongering over small exposures to things.

The problem is that if a kid swallows it (which is not uncommon), it's not a small exposure. For example:

Three flip flop bracelet charms sold at Walmart contained between 84 and 86 percent cadmium. The charms fared the worst of any item on the stomach acid test; one shed more cadmium in 24 hours than what World Health Organization guidelines deem a safe exposure over 60 weeks for a 33-pound child.

But if your reasoning abilities lead you to conclude that since both salt and cadmium can be harmful, therefore salt and cadmium are equally harmful, then by all means feel free to munch down some of these trinkets.

Number 7 out of how many?

[JakartaDean]

On the CDC's priority list of 275 most hazardous substances in the environment, cadmium ranks No. 7.

I see. So, where does it rank on their list of the 500 most hazardous substances in the environment?

2004 election is over

[OrangeTide]

People like you voted for Nader and inflicted Bush the Younger on yourselves, our country, and the world.

If Al Gore and John Kerry can't beat an ape by a significant margin with the rank and file democrat votes then they didn't deserve the job. It's pretty pathetic to blame the swing voters and the far left for the problems of the world. 59M people voted for Kerry out of 215M possible voters. There were 92M voters who really did throw their vote away by not even showing up. Why don't you attack them instead of the roughly 1.1M who voted outside of the two main parties. Barely half a million for Nader.

I think I'll blame the Bush catastrophe on the 59M democrats for not picking someone better in their primaries, at least that sort of unreasonableness has some logic to it.

America's debt to the world.

[Colin Smith]

Our debt is the greatest national security issue we face.

Since 1913 it's also built into your monetary system.

Working class Americans are caught in a suckers game. Don't expect that game to change though, it's been the same in Britain (where the system originated) for 300 years; the ruling class do very well out of it.

However, the problem that specifically America faces is that the US dollar is the world reserve currency. This has a subtle but massive effect on the economy... It makes American goods and services too expensive for the rest of the world and requires that the US government create and spend vast sums on something (military).

Example of the effect:

Lets say a loaf of bread costs $1 and your average American earns 365 dollars per year and can afford a loaf every day. Now the Dollar becomes the world reserve currency and half the dollars are bought by other countries in order to trade.

Half of the US dollars in existence in the USA have just vanished to outside the country. So half the money has vanished but people still expect to be paid 365 dollars per year and to charge $1 for a load of bread. Now, in the rest of the world, 1 loaf of bread locally costs e.g. 1 Euro. But international trade is done in dollars, so you have half the US dollars in existing representing the value of 95% of the loaves of bread in existence (95% of the world is outside America). This inevitably means that loaves of bread outside America are cheaper in dollar terms than loaves of bread within America. It makes economic sense therefore to buy bread and import it into America.

So what you get in America is a tendency for recession and deflation as the money is exported. Wages and prices tend downwards because the money is being exported, however, nobody likes a falling wage, or falling prices for their goods. What you get to force this is unemployment and bankruptcies. A reserve currency tends to make the citizens and their products unreasonably expensive compared to the rest of the world.

Now, politicians try to counter this effect by printing more money to replace that which is exported, but to do this they have to spend it into the economy, and what do you spend it on? Well, an easy answer is the military. America spends more on it's military than the next several nations combined.

Then you have the original feature I mentioned. In America, money isn't simply printed into existence. It is borrowed into existence from the Federal Reserve. So to create more money, politicians have to increase the national debt.

Americans at the lower end of the economic scale are basically fucked. They are too expensive to compete with the rest of the world in terms of wages, products and services, and the government is inflating the money supply on the other hand and making their earnings worthless compared to wealthier Americans. It's like importing the developing world into America, but only for the lower classes.

 

Re:America's debt to the world.

[radtea]

America spends more on it's military than the next several nations combined.

Actually, America spends as much on its miltary as every other nation in the world combined.

Your huge military is necessary to maintain your status as "the world's only superpower", which is one of the reasons why the dollar is the reserve currency. For reasons that are basically simian people are more comfortable putting their wealth in the hands of the alpha nation. So there is a vicious cycle between your role as a superpower, your dollar as the reserve currency, and your astonishingly high military spending.

The end-game for poor Americans is that joining the military is one of the most viable survival strategies (economically, perhaps not physically...) So the poor wind up serving as the grunts who do the dirty work for the system that has impoverished them.

How we break this cycle without reducing the world to chaos is the big problem of the 21st century, for both America and the world.

Re:But what about all the other painters?

[tjstork]

And my argument is that they should quit using lead and cadmium in paint for anything they export.

I'm actually against all imports from China and want free trade to be ended. But I also hate the lie behind this argument - its a "Chinese things are unsafe", and as a rule, that's actually not true and leads to a sort of racism that "Chinese are unsafe". I have nothing against them. I just don't want to import their stuff.

Ironically...

[MikeRT]

That means that the only way to effect change is to subvert one of the political parties. The Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck/tea party people have been eating through the Republicans like a chestburster from Aliens. We need to do the same to the Democratic party to make it more progressive, and various people have been trying.

The Palin/Beck supporters and tea partiers are the ones most likely to be in agreement with the "progressive left" on regulating the shit (pun intended?) out of Chinese goods like this.

Re:Ironically...

[DavidTC]

The Beck supporters are the ones most likely to be in agreement with whatever the fuck Beck says. If he complains about government regulation, they'll be against that, if he complains about China poisoning children, they'll be against that.

Trying to ascribe a political agenda to an personality-based anger-based populist moment is stupid.

Re:REGULATORS!NIKE JORDAN SHOES,COACH,GUCCI,HANDBA

[NiteShaed]

Shipped to you directly from the factory, in far-away, exotic China! Act now, and get a free gift of children's jewelry, made from pure, precious cadmium!

Isn't the idea of children's jewelry an oxymoron?

[EWAdams]

Children are not supposed to be seducing anyone or looking hot. They are supposed to be playing outside. Jewelry would get snagged on tree branches and so forth.

Some Actual Facts About US Manufacturing

[sjbe]

Which is why you should always buy American!

Oh wait...we don't make anything anymore.

The US has a manufacturing sector that produces over $2.6 Trillion annually - larger than any other country on earth including China and larger than the GDP of all but 5 countries. Total imports into the US are just over $2.1 Trillion (16% of those are from China) while US exports are around $1.3 Trillion. (only China and Germany export more)

But we don't make anything anymore... Right... Never let the facts stand in the way of a good sound bite.

Re:Some Actual Facts About US Manufacturing

[Applekid]

Though, since we are going to play the Wikipedia game, you might want to read the last sentence of one of your own links.
"A total of 3.2 million - one in six U.S. factory jobs - have disappeared since the start of 2000."

"We don't make anything anymore" != "We make 16.7% fewer things than before"

Re:Some Actual Facts About US Manufacturing

[shutdown -p now]

It's a different kind of problem. It's not that you don't make anything anymore, it's that you do not make consumer goods anymore.

USSR was also an industrial manufacturing powerhouse in its day, but vast majority of that was heavy machinery and various military stuff. Very little was devoted to things that people use personally in day-to-day life. Ultimately it played a big part in the collapse of the country, when foreign consumer goods started to trickle in - clothing mostly early on, but then virtually everything - and people found out just how crappy the stuff they've used for all their lives was in comparison to that which citizens of "rotten degenerate capitalist countries" enjoy.

In your case, you'd do good to ask just what that impressive manufacturing capability of U.S. is actually used for.

Buy now pay later

[KiwiCanuck]

Reminds me of cigarettes. Cheap & available but watch out later in life. The delayed costs out weight the present benefit.

I would add...

[ThomasFlip]

IANAL but the U.S. has a court system that can enforce criminal negligence. If Walmart starts selling exploding landmine toys, they can be sued for putting people in danger. Additionally, parents should do the due diligence of investigating the safety of toys before buying them. Do we really need a giant bureaucracy funded by tax payers to literally go through every product sold in the U.S. and go through a rigorous safety inspection? Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Why not just let private safety rating agencies do the job? Or how about buy only American toys made locally? Finally, there's always going to be ignorant parents that don't do their homework. What ever happened to the idea that having kids is a RESPONSIBILITY. Well, be responsible and don't buy cheap Chinese toys from Walmart.

Job losses != Manufacturing losses

[sjbe]

Because everyone knows that Wikipedia is a great source and has a wonderful staff that is totally devoted to producing an unbiased, accurate website *eyeroll*.

Fine. Find me a source that proves the data wrong.

"A total of 3.2 million – one in six U.S. factory jobs – have disappeared since the start of 2000."

And yet the US is manufacturing more than ever. How could this be? The answer is that US manufacturing productivity has risen. Fewer people are needed to do the same job. Same thing happened in the farming sector. Fewer people work there and yet its among our most productive and important industries. The jobs shift elsewhere in the economy. Job losses doesn't mean that manufacturing is shrinking - it just means that it is changing. The US doesn't manufacturing labor intensive goods because labor is too expensive here. QED you should expect to see the quantity of labor drop in the manufacturing sector. This does NOT mean that manufacturing is disappearing.

Re:Job losses != Manufacturing losses

[TheWizardTim]

In addition, final assembly of Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Kia cars != building cars in the US. If almost all of the parts come from Japan, Germany or Keora, and are only put together in the US, it's not really made in the USA. It's good PR, and you can put a, "Made in the USA" sticker on the car, but look at all the parts. A car is just the sum of its parts. If all the parts are made outside the USA, then the car can't really said to be, "Made in the USA."

The myth of choice...

[Gage With Union]

This presumes that there is always an ethical alternative. I think that the lobbying actions of the petroleum industry against environmental initiatives are terrible. Who should I buy my gasoline from, then?

Are you prepared to research everything that you buy to determine whether the corporation that sells it is involved in hazardous business? (and if so, I can only presume that that is your job) I'd love to buy exclusively from reputable businesses with ethical practices, but it is entirely impossible, especially given that most products are sourced from many companies.

Sometimes, it's almost impossible to not deal with certain companies, whether we'd like to or not. I'd challenge you to eliminate all products in your house that have association with Archer-Daniels Midland, a company convicted of one of the most notorious cases of international price-fixing.

Markets are great for some things, but they require laws. Regulations exist to force companies to behave more ethically than the market requires of them. The most effective regulations incentivize ideas that the market is unwilling or unable to support but that may be important for long-term growth. Try abolishing the FDIC and then stating that customers will just have to find a bank that will always make good decisions...

Domestic parts

[sjbe]

In addition, final assembly of Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Kia cars != building cars in the US.

Actually yes it does. Your assumptions about where parts are made are wildly out of date. In many cases it's just not economical to produce parts overseas, especially if you are producing in a Just In Time system like Toyota uses.

I've been an engineer in the auto industry and have been in parts plants throughout the US for virtually every major auto manufacturer myself. Most of the cars assembled here in the US have most of their parts made here too, even for the "foreign" brands. Those Hondas they make in Ohio usually have well over 50% and sometimes over 80% of the parts made here in the US or in Canada. I own a Honda that was assembled in Alabama and over 70% of the parts were made domestically.

A car is just the sum of its parts. If all the parts are made outside the USA, then the car can't really said to be, "Made in the USA."

Good thing the parts usually aren't made outside the US then.

Use Mercury instead!

[caspy7]

Dipping it in mercury would make it nice and shiny, but there's the poisonous thing.

What's wrong with using mercury? We happily stick it in our teeth?

(Oh, look at what's number *3* on the hazardous substances list.)

WALMART STILL SELLING THE CADMIUM-LACED CHARM?

[uslurper]

is this the same charm that was found to have high cadmium content?

it's on sale now on walmarts website

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13057362

Manufacturing Defined

[sjbe]

petroleum, food, lumber, mining do not count for "manufacturing" in my book.

Then you know virtually nothing about those industries. You think gasoline comes straight out of the ground ready to be pumped into your car? No, it has to be processed and that is manufacturing. Ever use a plastic bag or nylon fabric or PVC pipe? Manufactured petroleum products. Want to talk lumber? How do you think all those boards you buy at Home Depot are produced? You think they just grow that way? No they have to be made ready for sale and the term for that is manufacturing. Ever buy a processed food? Guess what? That's manufacturing too. I've never seen a farm that harvested cookies. Do you think all the equipment they use in mining and farm is just in the ground waiting to be discovered? Do you think that the iron ore comes in the form of steel I-beams?

You seem quite confused about what manufacturing actually is and clearly haven't given it much thought. Manufacturing is "the use of machines, tools and labor to make things for use or sale." It's everywhere and is critical to the US economy.

Besides, our internal prices are higher.

Of course they are. The US has one of the highest per-capita incomes and are thus its citizens able to pay more. Study Purchasing Power Parity sometime.

The truth is you go to the store and you can't find anything made in the US.

Think so? You haven't actually looked then. Yes a lot of stuff is made elsewhere. It's a global economy after all. But if you are in the US it doesn't have a country of origin label, odds are it was made in the US. The US produces over $1 Trillion worth of goods for domestic consumption. If you can't find them you aren't looking very hard.

US Manufacturing is nowhere close to dead

[sjbe]

Manufacturing less now than in the past is not the equivalent of manufacturing nothing at all!

That's the myth though. The US is NOT manufacturing less. US manufacturing output has grown in the last 10 years. It's down in 2009 because of the crappy economy but that's true everywhere, not just in the US.

The ONLY thing that is changing is that the US is losing labor-intensive manufacturing to places with cheaper labor. The capital-intensive production continues to grow as productivity increases.

If you are concerned about the loss domestic manufacturing of jobs and and industrial capacity (as I am) the source of a product should always be part of the consideration of whether or not to purchase it.

The number of manufacturing jobs is GOING to shrink as long as cheaper labor is available elsewhere. Trying to fight this is like trying to prevent the tides from coming in. It's not just futile, it is wasteful. The good news is that this does NOT mean US manufacturing is going to shrink. Very much like farming, US manufacturing is simply going to have more produced by a smaller percentage of the population. It also means that the products produced in the US will change. In the long run that is not a bad thing.

not surprising

[alt154]

remember this is also the same country that has practically everything pass for food.