Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor -- the overall numbers is what matters. One rich person spending $600 on a pound of kobe beef doesn't create a market demand in any huge way. 600 poor people spending $1 on low quality beef DOES create demand, and the beef supplier who sells $2/pound beef will try hard to reduce the price to attract those 600 new customers.
Voting with your dollars works every day -- look at items that have fallen in price even though your voted government destroys the value of the dollar every day with inflationary policies (designed to make the poor more poor and the rich wealthier). Your voted government is the largest cause of poverty in the world -- did you see that 50% of Mexico's stock market is controlled by one family? Sweden's too? http://blog.mises.org/archives/005755.asp That's socialism for you -- as if the poor are helped by it.
So don't call -- shop at stores that do the calling for you. In my SMALL community (halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee, basically hicksville) we have more than 3 dozen health-oriented stores that handle MOST of the work for me.
My reason for a call is to confirm the product DOES contain something bad. If the phone call receptionist says "Yes, they contain XYZ" I say thank you, hang up, and don't buy their product. If they say "No they don't" or "I'm not sure," now I take an additional step to try to verify -- IF I want the product.
Most of our food is fresh and bought locally -- most. The packaged foods we eat we buy from reputable small stores as well as large health food chains (Whole Foods). Whole Foods is run by a libertarian/semi-anarchist who agrees with me that labeling doesn't work. How many socialists buy from a libertarian store like Whole Foods? Many. Why does Whole Foods do what they do? PROFIT -- more profit from happier consumers who CARE.
I'm not saying do away with labeling, I'm saying do away with anti-competitive State-regulations that definitely do more harm than good since the labeling laws cater to companies who want to do harm legally. It also sets a very high barrier to entry for new companies who can't afford the State-required food institutes that diagnose what is in the product. It also confuses consumers who think that "low sugar" means low sugar and "zero trans fats" means zero trans fats -- when those labels are clearly false, but legal.
That's short sighted and DEFINITELY communistic (you said it).
Many poor people in my community don't care about labels, they care about price. If the labeling standards were more open, their food prices would come down -- giving them MORE money to try to get themselves out of the poverty level.
By the way, poor people don't stay poor, and it isn't because of the government. Many stats show that poor people who are driven to succeed do succeed, and in far less than 1 generation. My own family is proof of that -- we were the poorest people in my birth town (where I lived for 13 years), and I'm doing very well, thankyouverymuch, without government aid. I worked hard and continue to do so.
I've been accused of that for years. I don't know if peer-reviewed links are really appropriate since MOST Austrian-school supporters don't need socialist peer review to help them see that the free market IS best, and that the regulated market creates massive problems.
No one needs to visit my links, and I even tell my regular readers to use ad-blocking techniques (and most of them do). I even block ads. The ads on my sites pay well enough to support the sites but make no one wealthy.
I know I have helped multitudes over the years at slashdot give up their socialist/Statist views and come to a more Austrian opinion. That is the best profit for me -- to see more people realize that MOST information out there is pro-State/pro-paternalism, so I think my "supporters" or "fans" are already aware of why I post. That's enough for me. If 80% of the people think I'm trolling, the moderators will take care of it. When I first came to slashdot (many years ago), I was considered a troll because EVERYONE was pro-socialist here. Now the balance is getting better, and I am proud to be one of the first to have a contrarian view to the usual geekspeak.
Good question, though, and I am working at making my sites less spammy -- another overhaul pushing the ads towards the bottom of the page will soon happen.
I disagree. Cream has almost zero carbohydrates (one of the chief causes of diabetes, heart disease and a number of other diseases). I consume the heaviest fattiest cream every day -- and since doing so my blood pressure has dropped, my healthy cholesterol is up and my bad cholesterol is down. Low-fat milk is a murderer -- it creates more diabetes and heart problems than most would believe (mostly because governments aid in lying to the general public).
Since I added healthy fats to my diet, my weight has dropped, my energy level is much higher, and I'm much happier not going through the carbohydrate rush-and-crash-and-hunger routine every day that MOST people go through.
Pasteurization kills off the good organisms and microbes along with the bad ones. Pasteurization also kills off the enzymes which attack the lactose (carbohydrate) which makes the dairy unhealthier due to higher sugar intake as well as the inability to digest the sugars (lactose-intolerance). Pasteurization destroys the Omega-3 fatty acids in milk (you won't find them AT ALL in pasteurized milk) which helps with cancers, memory loss and a host of other problems.
I'm NOT saying everyone should call every manufacturer -- instead, by removing labeling requirements and letting the competitive market give the consumers what they want, we'd see a better choice of quality, price and product numbers. If you and I wanted MORE labeling, we'd go to a store that worked with their producers to verify manufacturing and content, and we'd pay more. The market provides. If John and Jane didn't care at all, they could go to a store that bought the cheapest product -- the store would be the risk bearer in providing what the market wants.
Right now, I _HAVE_ to call because the labeling laws make it difficult to know what I'm eating. In Spring I called 15 "Zero Trans Fats" producers who verified that their products contain trans fats, just levels lower than the law requires (0.5 grams per serving). You might buy those products thinking their safe -- BECAUSE OF THE LAW! I had to take a step because of the law. Ridiculous.
No, not at all. I'd prefer to see the market provide what the consumers want. Some consumers might not care at all what is in the package -- they might just want cheap and "tasty." I think a lot of ALDI shoppers might feel that way. If the producer can meet their needs cheaper, go for it. Other consumers might want a small book made by the producer describing everything about their manufacturing process and updated yearly. Who knows.
The bar standard of the State labeling is a one-size-fits-all standard, like ALL State-forced standards. All of them fail: education, vehicle safety, food labeling, even medical standards. One-size-does-not-fit-all, and I don't like thinking that we're left with LESS choice and MORE collusion because of it.
Would labeling disappear without the State? Absolutely not! Instead, consumers would get what they're willing to pay for. If you're cheap and don't care, don't blame me for what you're eating. If I want to spend more for more information, I bet there are thousands more like me who would help to bring the cost down to meet those needs together. Producers would be happy to sell those products, especially if we're willing to pay more.
They should come up with a new word for these professionals who work for corporate farms to distinguish them from farmers
I'm not sure it matters -- within 60 miles of my house we have a number of natural food grocers (and some co-ops of grocers) who take the time to investigate what they're buying. I prefer to pay 30% for their labor in doing this. The State still sets requirements on these companies that prevents them from doing everything I'd want them to do.
I prefer to purchase the majority of my food from a farmer who I can look in the eye... i.e. who lives nearby. I got on this kick a while back and I'm surprised how easy it is to get a majority of my family's food from within a 85 kilometer radius. (including most of my alcohol)
Myself as well. We also do buy our alcohol locally as much as possible. Living in the Midwest is awesome for that. We buy our cheese from Wisconsin farmers (and sometimes import cheese from Whole Foods Market), we buy our cream unpasteurized, and we buy our beefs through a wholesale cooperative in Texas that doesn't sell retail and as far as I know doesn't even offer USDA certification but I could be wrong.
Where do you live?
If you like jerky you may _love_ biltong... but it may be impossible to dry in your climate
I love venison jerky and buy a lot of it after the fall -- from local hunters who make it themselves. I've had ostrich biltong that is made locally (we have an ostrich farm the next town over!) and it is awesome, but pricy. I also love Polish Kabanosi (sp?) and Brezaolo (sp) which are both available from local ethnic meat markets for a very good price. Don't leave them in the car in the hot sun for long, though, the stink is worse than that Seinfeld episode and greatly reduces your car's resale value:)
You didn't impede the free flow of information there, you just didn't offer me what I wanted specifically in our trade. I have actually bought things sight-unseen because of the price. I figured if it wasn't what I wanted, I could resell it and try to break even. So far, I haven't failed because the deal outweighed the risks and I usually got close to what I wanted. I just bought $6000 worth of print equipment for $500, and the market value of what I received is almost $3500.
The free flow of information is not a real market necessity. If you need information, you ASK about it. The cost of the seller to meet your asking requirements will decide if they want to do it. If they don't, go elsewhere. Maybe NO ONE will give you the information you want at the price you want -- this means that you're asking too much of the marketplace overall.
Everyone wants profit -- it is what keeps your profitable in the long run that helps both producers and consumers. If consumers like the product and the price falls, both the consumer and the producer are happy. The FDA works against the tide to try to create protectionism for large market producers, but they label the protectionism as "pro-consumer" when in fact it is not. The FDA is unconstitutional, should be disbanded, and should be replaced by a competitive quality control industry like we have in the Underwriter's Laboratories.
Thanks for that -- I didn't have a link. The BIG problem with 0.5g per serving is WHO sets the serving size? I've already found 3 products that have trans fats that have cut their serving size in order to get the transfats under 0.5g per serving. If there are 0.6 grams of trans fats in a 60 gram serving and they cut the serving size to 40 grams, guess what? They can now say "Zero Trans Fats" because the trans fats per serving is 0.4 grams. They didn't reduce trans fats, they reduced the serving size. They also keep the overall container size the same, as people will eat as much as they want to -- usually over the serving size. Labelling laws at their finest.
I've been to Uganda and am going back in December, and their variety of products is minimal. Cloned beef and dairy in the U.S. will give us MORE choice -- and lower prices IF WE WANT IT. Whole foods won't buy the stuff, so just shop there. We do, when we want healthier variety. Yet the cloned cows might make the uncloned farms work harder to reduce prices.
That's how competition works -- some of us will pay more for a grocer who checks their suppliers. Others won't. ALDI versus Whole Foods Market.
I live in the Midwest and we purchase unpasteurized cream locally. It tastes great, it's healthier, and it's cheaper. Competition.
Prices fall because of competition, but the State tries to prevent competition from occuring because they're usually financed by those who don't want to compete.
Wrong. The equal free flow of information is absolutely UNNECESSARY and uncompetitive. If I know a process and my competitor wants to compete with me, free flow of information is counterproductive. If I don't share my process, my competitor will work harder to figure out how I do it, and eventually even find a better way of doing it.
If I am selling an item and you want it, you can NOT know what my costs are, how I make it, or how much it costs me to sit on it until it sells. I can NOT know how much you have in your wallet. When we barter the trade, you and I both decide what the trade is worth. I need a certain amount of money, but if you offer over that, I'll be happy. If you offer below that, I won't sell. You need a certain product, but if you know how much it costs me, you won't pay over that amount.
Free flow is NOT capitalistic, in fact it is socialistic. It tries to remove the risk in any transaction -- it is that risk that gives both parties a great reward of feeling like they profited from the barter.
"Organic" and "Zero Trans Fats" are not working -- the definition is too broad. Zero does not mean zero, organic does not always mean 100% organic.
As to calling the manufacturers, I generally only have to do it once. 1/2 an hour for a lifetime of consumption is a good investment.
Voting does nothing. I vote, but not for anyone you'd vote for. The best way to vote is with your dollars -- and don't tell ANYONE why you stopped buying their product, but tell your friends and family why you did. Competition rises to meet demand, so when you remove demand, other competitors have to figure out WHY. That is what makes items better. If you set a bar at a certain level, the market will try to rise to ONLY that level (this is why the State fails, because they set the bar too low). If you set a bar at a level undetermined, but higher than now, the market will try to raise the bar until you're happy. Usually in raising their bar, they find new ways to provide a better product at a higher quality in a faster period of time and at a lower price.
Voting with your dollars matters, voting at the ballot is a joke.
I'll throw rubbish back at you. I disagree with the "good, cheap, fast" because it absolutely does NOT prove itself in reality. I've been running businesses since I was 13, and I tell you think: I always sold 2 of the 3, but I also tried to make the third better. This is how competition works.
If I was good and cheap, my competitor would try to mimic me and try to do it faster. Eventually, they would. Over time, good gets better, cheap gets cheaper, and fast gets faster. It is ridiculous to think of competition as a closed system. Actually, a State-licensed market IS a closed system only because no one has to worry about good, cheap OR fast. State-licensing makes things worse, more expensive and slower. See DMV for proof.
But the requirements DON'T work. The State solutions fall apart because of other State "solutions" to "fixing" tort, fraud and even definitions of legal rights/processes.
Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated, the paternalism and preferential treatment of protected parties is too strong and embedded, and the consumers just don't care. I would even venture a guess that MOST "label" laws are written by the most powerful in the industry -- the costs to try to get the labeling done by an independent lab is high because those labs are limited in number and licensed by the State.
I barely read the labels anymore -- I do read the ingredients but I even take that with a grain of salt (no pun intended). For me, I have to see how my body is affected by a new product, and if I don't feel right, I'll not consume that product. I'm a very healthy individual, so eating something unhealthy tends to immediately make me feel a little weaker or a little out of whack. I'm guessing that a lot of consumers just aren't healthy to begin with, so they're not as tuned to their bodies rejection of bad things.
I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science, and that science will keep advancing even if it takes a step back on occasion. Cheap CAN mean better, depending on what your definition of "good" is. For an Western consumer with available credit, they might feel better in buying local organic (like my wife does) from a local farm. For someone who can't eat at all because the food isn't available, making cheaper versions of the product makes a lot of sense.
More producing products (cows, in this case) mean more supply of the products I use (cream, cheese and other high fat-low carb dairy products). More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities, which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.
I'm sure there are some health concerns (my wife prefers organic, I prefer mass produced for my daily consumption), but I'm not sure that the concerns are valid. I travel the globe and specifically like to visit previously poor countries (Ethiopia, Uganda, India, etc) and what I see is people who have better lives because of the ability to purchase their needs cheaper. If the health concern is a higher rate of disease that might knock 5 years off your life expectancy, but being able to eat or clothe yourself or keep your body mass consistant will add 20 years, this sounds like a net benefit. Beyond the health concerns, though, we also can see that cheaper dairy might mean more business opportunities in the previously poor areas -- and this also increases the standard of living and life expectancy of the person willing to get involved in the new marketplace.
I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK. I already do it because I don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't. Many items say 0 trans fats but contain a significant amount below 1 gram, and your government allows it to be labeled 0 grams. Nice. That's government at its finest. When I see 0 grams of trans fats, I will call the manufacturer and ask them to confirm the fact that there are zero, and most of the time they'll say "there's a negligible amount" which is the equivalent of saying "yeah, they're in there." No thanks.
Forcing companies to label properly does NOT work. "Organic" means nothing, "0 trans fats" means nothing, "low sugar" means nothing, "whole grains" means nothing. If you're worried, contact the company directly and figure it out on your own.
Cloned animals seems good to me -- if I can get marbled beef at a discount, I'll be happy. If beef jerky comes down even 20% in price, I'll be happy. If creams and cheeses can be made at the same quality for a lower price, I'll be happy. All of these items keep me healthy, slim and energized, and the cost savings means I can eat more -- making myself even healthier.
Because then YOU pay for what YOU need. Government costs are extremely high for this issue, and they try to do a "one sized fits all" situation. There's no need for it when we can do it a la carte cheaper and perfectly matched to what we actually NEED.
My money is stored in gold, silver and hard assets, all of which are readily available at my privately-owned deposit storage. They're armored and they're armed.
I have no debit cards or credit cards.
If you do, why should I be penalized for your lack of insight in keeping those numbers private? There are already rolling-number credit cards. Use them. Generate a new one for each purchase. You didn't? Oh well.
Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I think this is pretty clearly indicated in the Commerce Clause of the Constition. For intra-state transactions, the states have a right to enforce contracts between two business parties as they see fit.
Come on, the Commerce Clause wasn't meant to give the Federal government additional powers over the States -- it was written to prevent the States from destroying commerce. Sure, the current and recent SCOTUS believe the CC gives the Federal government unlimited power, but it isn't hard to do a little research into history and see that the CC was to stop abuse by the States, not to make the Federal government all-powerful.
At some level, you need enforcement. It's great that you're bonded, but what happens when that doesn't pay? Who arbitrates disputes? Who has the authority to decide what constitutes defaulting on the contract? The government, in the end, is around for just such a reason; to serve as an arbitrator between two parties and have the ability to enforce the judgment.
It doesn't matter, that's why bonding insurance is so awesome. I utilize a third-party arbitration company, so does the other party. We agree to let our arbitrators work things out. I also have optional payment bond insurance I can take (1% of the collection), which I have taken in the past on rare occasions (and never had to fulfill). Most of these options are not feasible today because government's monopoly over contract enforcement pushes out so many awesome companies from the market.
Why is it the federal government's place to enforce contracts? I don't see it as one of their powers as listed in the Constitution.
That's the problem with government enforcement of contracts rather than having private contract bonds. When I sign a bid and turn it into a job, my customer REQUIRES a bond to cover the chance that I might skip out on the contract. I've never had to use my bond insurance -- hence I pay VERY VERY little for it (and I have a policy 10 times my yearly contract size). This gives future customers more reason to work with me, and it gives me more reason to make sure the job is done right.
Why shouldn't ANY other contract signing be the same? If my phone company wants my business, they should be bonded according to my specs. Yet we rely on fraudulent GOVERNMENT enforcements of contracts when private bonding insurance is all we really need. Adaptive, competitive, and market driven. I'd prefer to just shovel the feds and the states aside when it comes to "privacy." If I really want it, I can put it in the bid package, the supplier can agree to it, and part of their work-bond will be that they won't violate the terms of the work agreement. If they do, I get paid a certain amount from them or their bond insurer.
Not because what they have to hide is wrong or questionable, but simply because it is private.
But if you need to share it, it isn't private.
For example, who else but you and your partner should be aware of exactly where and how often you have sex?
My doctor, for one (prostate history in my family). I divulge it to him, and I know he probably writes it down. Therefore, I don't make the assumption that it is truly private -- while he knows I'd appreciate it to be kept private, I also am not really embarrassed by the frequency or the number. We have a healthy sex life, why would I worry what others knew or didn't know about it?
There really aren't any "facts" about me that I'd be afraid or ashamed of getting out in the open. Even my sex life.
If I tell you something about me, it isn't a secret. If I make you promise not to tell anyone, it is still out there. If you put that secret in a database and then you sell your business, what can I do? Sue you?
There's no point to secrecy/privacy laws -- the only way to protect yourself would be to sue, and how would you afford to sue? Maybe you can get together with a few thousand people who were hurt by the same party, and class-action sue? How again does that help you?
I don't have secrets -- there's no point. I was talking to a friend about how MySpace is reducing the amount of cheating that goes on in the lives of sexually-active young adults. He didn't believe me, until he realized that its nearly impossible to burn the candles at both ends secretly -- people will find out now that information travels faster than a Sidekick 3 text message.
What do you want to keep secret? Your SSN? Too late. Your debt to income ratio? Everyone knows you don't own the house and car, friends. Privacy is not the concern -- the thing people fear is others stealing their identities. Privacy laws won't help, all it takes is on $8/hour employee seeing your information and counting the future dollar signs. If you want protection, protect yourself by not RELYING on your secrets. There are numerous ways to do this -- forget about credit, own what you want, and if you can't own it from the start, save until you can. Diversify your income by taking on new talents and trades. Focus on building REAL relationships with people around you -- don't do the rock-to-rock skipping around that is so commonplace in life (think: relationships, jobs, etc).
I don't need privacy, in fact, the more people know about me, the easier it is to sell myself to future prospective clients AND future friends. What do I have to hide?
Now if somebody went and started selling your music without your permission, you might get a little upset.
Not at all, in fact in our anti-copyright statement (on every CD) we openly tell people to go ahead and copy the music. One track of each CD contains our explanation of why we repudiate copyright -- and we invite fans to come to the shows. Shows make money, selling a commodity like a CD is a ridiculous form of living. The labor of making a product is what is most worthy of cost -- whether it is the people mining the resources to make the plastic, or the person who physically creates the CD, or the person who copies the CD, or the person who prints and ships it, or the person who sells it. But the music on the CD has negligible value since anyone can use almost no labor to make a reproduction. The cost falls to zero (basic laws of supply and demand).
Rather than embrace a law that has only existed for a few hundred years, return to the idea of selling something that is truly rare and unique -- a performance and then more performances. People pay for live music, so why focus on what they're happier to copy? Also, people DO pay for CDs when they see bands live, as I can testify to in almost every band I have been helping. The bands openly allow people to copy their CDs, yet friends will still buy their own copy (get an autograph, or for supporting the band).
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor -- the overall numbers is what matters. One rich person spending $600 on a pound of kobe beef doesn't create a market demand in any huge way. 600 poor people spending $1 on low quality beef DOES create demand, and the beef supplier who sells $2/pound beef will try hard to reduce the price to attract those 600 new customers.
Voting with your dollars works every day -- look at items that have fallen in price even though your voted government destroys the value of the dollar every day with inflationary policies (designed to make the poor more poor and the rich wealthier). Your voted government is the largest cause of poverty in the world -- did you see that 50% of Mexico's stock market is controlled by one family? Sweden's too? http://blog.mises.org/archives/005755.asp That's socialism for you -- as if the poor are helped by it.
So don't call -- shop at stores that do the calling for you. In my SMALL community (halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee, basically hicksville) we have more than 3 dozen health-oriented stores that handle MOST of the work for me.
My reason for a call is to confirm the product DOES contain something bad. If the phone call receptionist says "Yes, they contain XYZ" I say thank you, hang up, and don't buy their product. If they say "No they don't" or "I'm not sure," now I take an additional step to try to verify -- IF I want the product.
Most of our food is fresh and bought locally -- most. The packaged foods we eat we buy from reputable small stores as well as large health food chains (Whole Foods). Whole Foods is run by a libertarian/semi-anarchist who agrees with me that labeling doesn't work. How many socialists buy from a libertarian store like Whole Foods? Many. Why does Whole Foods do what they do? PROFIT -- more profit from happier consumers who CARE.
I'm not saying do away with labeling, I'm saying do away with anti-competitive State-regulations that definitely do more harm than good since the labeling laws cater to companies who want to do harm legally. It also sets a very high barrier to entry for new companies who can't afford the State-required food institutes that diagnose what is in the product. It also confuses consumers who think that "low sugar" means low sugar and "zero trans fats" means zero trans fats -- when those labels are clearly false, but legal.
That's short sighted and DEFINITELY communistic (you said it).
Many poor people in my community don't care about labels, they care about price. If the labeling standards were more open, their food prices would come down -- giving them MORE money to try to get themselves out of the poverty level.
By the way, poor people don't stay poor, and it isn't because of the government. Many stats show that poor people who are driven to succeed do succeed, and in far less than 1 generation. My own family is proof of that -- we were the poorest people in my birth town (where I lived for 13 years), and I'm doing very well, thankyouverymuch, without government aid. I worked hard and continue to do so.
I've been accused of that for years. I don't know if peer-reviewed links are really appropriate since MOST Austrian-school supporters don't need socialist peer review to help them see that the free market IS best, and that the regulated market creates massive problems.
No one needs to visit my links, and I even tell my regular readers to use ad-blocking techniques (and most of them do). I even block ads. The ads on my sites pay well enough to support the sites but make no one wealthy.
I know I have helped multitudes over the years at slashdot give up their socialist/Statist views and come to a more Austrian opinion. That is the best profit for me -- to see more people realize that MOST information out there is pro-State/pro-paternalism, so I think my "supporters" or "fans" are already aware of why I post. That's enough for me. If 80% of the people think I'm trolling, the moderators will take care of it. When I first came to slashdot (many years ago), I was considered a troll because EVERYONE was pro-socialist here. Now the balance is getting better, and I am proud to be one of the first to have a contrarian view to the usual geekspeak.
Good question, though, and I am working at making my sites less spammy -- another overhaul pushing the ads towards the bottom of the page will soon happen.
I disagree. Cream has almost zero carbohydrates (one of the chief causes of diabetes, heart disease and a number of other diseases). I consume the heaviest fattiest cream every day -- and since doing so my blood pressure has dropped, my healthy cholesterol is up and my bad cholesterol is down. Low-fat milk is a murderer -- it creates more diabetes and heart problems than most would believe (mostly because governments aid in lying to the general public).
Since I added healthy fats to my diet, my weight has dropped, my energy level is much higher, and I'm much happier not going through the carbohydrate rush-and-crash-and-hunger routine every day that MOST people go through.
Pasteurization kills off the good organisms and microbes along with the bad ones. Pasteurization also kills off the enzymes which attack the lactose (carbohydrate) which makes the dairy unhealthier due to higher sugar intake as well as the inability to digest the sugars (lactose-intolerance). Pasteurization destroys the Omega-3 fatty acids in milk (you won't find them AT ALL in pasteurized milk) which helps with cancers, memory loss and a host of other problems.
Labeling in Europe does NOT work, and it falls short of what would be considered "pro-consumer." The labeling laws are helpful to keep protected producers more protected. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n1/full/nbt0 106-23b.html
I'm NOT saying everyone should call every manufacturer -- instead, by removing labeling requirements and letting the competitive market give the consumers what they want, we'd see a better choice of quality, price and product numbers. If you and I wanted MORE labeling, we'd go to a store that worked with their producers to verify manufacturing and content, and we'd pay more. The market provides. If John and Jane didn't care at all, they could go to a store that bought the cheapest product -- the store would be the risk bearer in providing what the market wants.
Right now, I _HAVE_ to call because the labeling laws make it difficult to know what I'm eating. In Spring I called 15 "Zero Trans Fats" producers who verified that their products contain trans fats, just levels lower than the law requires (0.5 grams per serving). You might buy those products thinking their safe -- BECAUSE OF THE LAW! I had to take a step because of the law. Ridiculous.
No, not at all. I'd prefer to see the market provide what the consumers want. Some consumers might not care at all what is in the package -- they might just want cheap and "tasty." I think a lot of ALDI shoppers might feel that way. If the producer can meet their needs cheaper, go for it. Other consumers might want a small book made by the producer describing everything about their manufacturing process and updated yearly. Who knows.
The bar standard of the State labeling is a one-size-fits-all standard, like ALL State-forced standards. All of them fail: education, vehicle safety, food labeling, even medical standards. One-size-does-not-fit-all, and I don't like thinking that we're left with LESS choice and MORE collusion because of it.
Would labeling disappear without the State? Absolutely not! Instead, consumers would get what they're willing to pay for. If you're cheap and don't care, don't blame me for what you're eating. If I want to spend more for more information, I bet there are thousands more like me who would help to bring the cost down to meet those needs together. Producers would be happy to sell those products, especially if we're willing to pay more.
They should come up with a new word for these professionals who work for corporate farms to distinguish them from farmers
:)
I'm not sure it matters -- within 60 miles of my house we have a number of natural food grocers (and some co-ops of grocers) who take the time to investigate what they're buying. I prefer to pay 30% for their labor in doing this. The State still sets requirements on these companies that prevents them from doing everything I'd want them to do.
I prefer to purchase the majority of my food from a farmer who I can look in the eye... i.e. who lives nearby. I got on this kick a while back and I'm surprised how easy it is to get a majority of my family's food from within a 85 kilometer radius. (including most of my alcohol)
Myself as well. We also do buy our alcohol locally as much as possible. Living in the Midwest is awesome for that. We buy our cheese from Wisconsin farmers (and sometimes import cheese from Whole Foods Market), we buy our cream unpasteurized, and we buy our beefs through a wholesale cooperative in Texas that doesn't sell retail and as far as I know doesn't even offer USDA certification but I could be wrong.
Where do you live?
If you like jerky you may _love_ biltong... but it may be impossible to dry in your climate
I love venison jerky and buy a lot of it after the fall -- from local hunters who make it themselves. I've had ostrich biltong that is made locally (we have an ostrich farm the next town over!) and it is awesome, but pricy. I also love Polish Kabanosi (sp?) and Brezaolo (sp) which are both available from local ethnic meat markets for a very good price. Don't leave them in the car in the hot sun for long, though, the stink is worse than that Seinfeld episode and greatly reduces your car's resale value
You didn't impede the free flow of information there, you just didn't offer me what I wanted specifically in our trade. I have actually bought things sight-unseen because of the price. I figured if it wasn't what I wanted, I could resell it and try to break even. So far, I haven't failed because the deal outweighed the risks and I usually got close to what I wanted. I just bought $6000 worth of print equipment for $500, and the market value of what I received is almost $3500.
The free flow of information is not a real market necessity. If you need information, you ASK about it. The cost of the seller to meet your asking requirements will decide if they want to do it. If they don't, go elsewhere. Maybe NO ONE will give you the information you want at the price you want -- this means that you're asking too much of the marketplace overall.
Everyone wants profit -- it is what keeps your profitable in the long run that helps both producers and consumers. If consumers like the product and the price falls, both the consumer and the producer are happy. The FDA works against the tide to try to create protectionism for large market producers, but they label the protectionism as "pro-consumer" when in fact it is not. The FDA is unconstitutional, should be disbanded, and should be replaced by a competitive quality control industry like we have in the Underwriter's Laboratories.
Thanks for that -- I didn't have a link. The BIG problem with 0.5g per serving is WHO sets the serving size? I've already found 3 products that have trans fats that have cut their serving size in order to get the transfats under 0.5g per serving. If there are 0.6 grams of trans fats in a 60 gram serving and they cut the serving size to 40 grams, guess what? They can now say "Zero Trans Fats" because the trans fats per serving is 0.4 grams. They didn't reduce trans fats, they reduced the serving size. They also keep the overall container size the same, as people will eat as much as they want to -- usually over the serving size. Labelling laws at their finest.
I've been to Uganda and am going back in December, and their variety of products is minimal. Cloned beef and dairy in the U.S. will give us MORE choice -- and lower prices IF WE WANT IT. Whole foods won't buy the stuff, so just shop there. We do, when we want healthier variety. Yet the cloned cows might make the uncloned farms work harder to reduce prices.
That's how competition works -- some of us will pay more for a grocer who checks their suppliers. Others won't. ALDI versus Whole Foods Market.
I live in the Midwest and we purchase unpasteurized cream locally. It tastes great, it's healthier, and it's cheaper. Competition.
Prices fall because of competition, but the State tries to prevent competition from occuring because they're usually financed by those who don't want to compete.
Wrong. The equal free flow of information is absolutely UNNECESSARY and uncompetitive. If I know a process and my competitor wants to compete with me, free flow of information is counterproductive. If I don't share my process, my competitor will work harder to figure out how I do it, and eventually even find a better way of doing it.
If I am selling an item and you want it, you can NOT know what my costs are, how I make it, or how much it costs me to sit on it until it sells. I can NOT know how much you have in your wallet. When we barter the trade, you and I both decide what the trade is worth. I need a certain amount of money, but if you offer over that, I'll be happy. If you offer below that, I won't sell. You need a certain product, but if you know how much it costs me, you won't pay over that amount.
Free flow is NOT capitalistic, in fact it is socialistic. It tries to remove the risk in any transaction -- it is that risk that gives both parties a great reward of feeling like they profited from the barter.
"Organic" and "Zero Trans Fats" are not working -- the definition is too broad. Zero does not mean zero, organic does not always mean 100% organic.
As to calling the manufacturers, I generally only have to do it once. 1/2 an hour for a lifetime of consumption is a good investment.
Voting does nothing. I vote, but not for anyone you'd vote for. The best way to vote is with your dollars -- and don't tell ANYONE why you stopped buying their product, but tell your friends and family why you did. Competition rises to meet demand, so when you remove demand, other competitors have to figure out WHY. That is what makes items better. If you set a bar at a certain level, the market will try to rise to ONLY that level (this is why the State fails, because they set the bar too low). If you set a bar at a level undetermined, but higher than now, the market will try to raise the bar until you're happy. Usually in raising their bar, they find new ways to provide a better product at a higher quality in a faster period of time and at a lower price.
Voting with your dollars matters, voting at the ballot is a joke.
I'll throw rubbish back at you. I disagree with the "good, cheap, fast" because it absolutely does NOT prove itself in reality. I've been running businesses since I was 13, and I tell you think: I always sold 2 of the 3, but I also tried to make the third better. This is how competition works.
If I was good and cheap, my competitor would try to mimic me and try to do it faster. Eventually, they would. Over time, good gets better, cheap gets cheaper, and fast gets faster. It is ridiculous to think of competition as a closed system. Actually, a State-licensed market IS a closed system only because no one has to worry about good, cheap OR fast. State-licensing makes things worse, more expensive and slower. See DMV for proof.
But the requirements DON'T work. The State solutions fall apart because of other State "solutions" to "fixing" tort, fraud and even definitions of legal rights/processes.
Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated, the paternalism and preferential treatment of protected parties is too strong and embedded, and the consumers just don't care. I would even venture a guess that MOST "label" laws are written by the most powerful in the industry -- the costs to try to get the labeling done by an independent lab is high because those labs are limited in number and licensed by the State.
I barely read the labels anymore -- I do read the ingredients but I even take that with a grain of salt (no pun intended). For me, I have to see how my body is affected by a new product, and if I don't feel right, I'll not consume that product. I'm a very healthy individual, so eating something unhealthy tends to immediately make me feel a little weaker or a little out of whack. I'm guessing that a lot of consumers just aren't healthy to begin with, so they're not as tuned to their bodies rejection of bad things.
I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science, and that science will keep advancing even if it takes a step back on occasion. Cheap CAN mean better, depending on what your definition of "good" is. For an Western consumer with available credit, they might feel better in buying local organic (like my wife does) from a local farm. For someone who can't eat at all because the food isn't available, making cheaper versions of the product makes a lot of sense.
More producing products (cows, in this case) mean more supply of the products I use (cream, cheese and other high fat-low carb dairy products). More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities, which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.
I'm sure there are some health concerns (my wife prefers organic, I prefer mass produced for my daily consumption), but I'm not sure that the concerns are valid. I travel the globe and specifically like to visit previously poor countries (Ethiopia, Uganda, India, etc) and what I see is people who have better lives because of the ability to purchase their needs cheaper. If the health concern is a higher rate of disease that might knock 5 years off your life expectancy, but being able to eat or clothe yourself or keep your body mass consistant will add 20 years, this sounds like a net benefit. Beyond the health concerns, though, we also can see that cheaper dairy might mean more business opportunities in the previously poor areas -- and this also increases the standard of living and life expectancy of the person willing to get involved in the new marketplace.
I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK. I already do it because I don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't. Many items say 0 trans fats but contain a significant amount below 1 gram, and your government allows it to be labeled 0 grams. Nice. That's government at its finest. When I see 0 grams of trans fats, I will call the manufacturer and ask them to confirm the fact that there are zero, and most of the time they'll say "there's a negligible amount" which is the equivalent of saying "yeah, they're in there." No thanks.
Forcing companies to label properly does NOT work. "Organic" means nothing, "0 trans fats" means nothing, "low sugar" means nothing, "whole grains" means nothing. If you're worried, contact the company directly and figure it out on your own.
Cloned animals seems good to me -- if I can get marbled beef at a discount, I'll be happy. If beef jerky comes down even 20% in price, I'll be happy. If creams and cheeses can be made at the same quality for a lower price, I'll be happy. All of these items keep me healthy, slim and energized, and the cost savings means I can eat more -- making myself even healthier.
Because then YOU pay for what YOU need. Government costs are extremely high for this issue, and they try to do a "one sized fits all" situation. There's no need for it when we can do it a la carte cheaper and perfectly matched to what we actually NEED.
I have no bank accounts.
I have no credit cards.
My money is stored in gold, silver and hard assets, all of which are readily available at my privately-owned deposit storage. They're armored and they're armed.
I have no debit cards or credit cards.
If you do, why should I be penalized for your lack of insight in keeping those numbers private? There are already rolling-number credit cards. Use them. Generate a new one for each purchase. You didn't? Oh well.
Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I think this is pretty clearly indicated in the Commerce Clause of the Constition. For intra-state transactions, the states have a right to enforce contracts between two business parties as they see fit.
Come on, the Commerce Clause wasn't meant to give the Federal government additional powers over the States -- it was written to prevent the States from destroying commerce. Sure, the current and recent SCOTUS believe the CC gives the Federal government unlimited power, but it isn't hard to do a little research into history and see that the CC was to stop abuse by the States, not to make the Federal government all-powerful.
At some level, you need enforcement. It's great that you're bonded, but what happens when that doesn't pay? Who arbitrates disputes? Who has the authority to decide what constitutes defaulting on the contract? The government, in the end, is around for just such a reason; to serve as an arbitrator between two parties and have the ability to enforce the judgment.
It doesn't matter, that's why bonding insurance is so awesome. I utilize a third-party arbitration company, so does the other party. We agree to let our arbitrators work things out. I also have optional payment bond insurance I can take (1% of the collection), which I have taken in the past on rare occasions (and never had to fulfill). Most of these options are not feasible today because government's monopoly over contract enforcement pushes out so many awesome companies from the market.
Why is it the federal government's place to enforce contracts? I don't see it as one of their powers as listed in the Constitution.
That's the problem with government enforcement of contracts rather than having private contract bonds. When I sign a bid and turn it into a job, my customer REQUIRES a bond to cover the chance that I might skip out on the contract. I've never had to use my bond insurance -- hence I pay VERY VERY little for it (and I have a policy 10 times my yearly contract size). This gives future customers more reason to work with me, and it gives me more reason to make sure the job is done right.
Why shouldn't ANY other contract signing be the same? If my phone company wants my business, they should be bonded according to my specs. Yet we rely on fraudulent GOVERNMENT enforcements of contracts when private bonding insurance is all we really need. Adaptive, competitive, and market driven. I'd prefer to just shovel the feds and the states aside when it comes to "privacy." If I really want it, I can put it in the bid package, the supplier can agree to it, and part of their work-bond will be that they won't violate the terms of the work agreement. If they do, I get paid a certain amount from them or their bond insurer.
*Everybody* has something to hide.
Hiding something means not divulging it.
Not because what they have to hide is wrong or questionable, but simply because it is private.
But if you need to share it, it isn't private.
For example, who else but you and your partner should be aware of exactly where and how often you have sex?
My doctor, for one (prostate history in my family). I divulge it to him, and I know he probably writes it down. Therefore, I don't make the assumption that it is truly private -- while he knows I'd appreciate it to be kept private, I also am not really embarrassed by the frequency or the number. We have a healthy sex life, why would I worry what others knew or didn't know about it?
There really aren't any "facts" about me that I'd be afraid or ashamed of getting out in the open. Even my sex life.
If I tell you something about me, it isn't a secret. If I make you promise not to tell anyone, it is still out there. If you put that secret in a database and then you sell your business, what can I do? Sue you?
There's no point to secrecy/privacy laws -- the only way to protect yourself would be to sue, and how would you afford to sue? Maybe you can get together with a few thousand people who were hurt by the same party, and class-action sue? How again does that help you?
I don't have secrets -- there's no point. I was talking to a friend about how MySpace is reducing the amount of cheating that goes on in the lives of sexually-active young adults. He didn't believe me, until he realized that its nearly impossible to burn the candles at both ends secretly -- people will find out now that information travels faster than a Sidekick 3 text message.
What do you want to keep secret? Your SSN? Too late. Your debt to income ratio? Everyone knows you don't own the house and car, friends. Privacy is not the concern -- the thing people fear is others stealing their identities. Privacy laws won't help, all it takes is on $8/hour employee seeing your information and counting the future dollar signs. If you want protection, protect yourself by not RELYING on your secrets. There are numerous ways to do this -- forget about credit, own what you want, and if you can't own it from the start, save until you can. Diversify your income by taking on new talents and trades. Focus on building REAL relationships with people around you -- don't do the rock-to-rock skipping around that is so commonplace in life (think: relationships, jobs, etc).
I don't need privacy, in fact, the more people know about me, the easier it is to sell myself to future prospective clients AND future friends. What do I have to hide?
Now if somebody went and started selling your music without your permission, you might get a little upset.
Not at all, in fact in our anti-copyright statement (on every CD) we openly tell people to go ahead and copy the music. One track of each CD contains our explanation of why we repudiate copyright -- and we invite fans to come to the shows. Shows make money, selling a commodity like a CD is a ridiculous form of living. The labor of making a product is what is most worthy of cost -- whether it is the people mining the resources to make the plastic, or the person who physically creates the CD, or the person who copies the CD, or the person who prints and ships it, or the person who sells it. But the music on the CD has negligible value since anyone can use almost no labor to make a reproduction. The cost falls to zero (basic laws of supply and demand).
Rather than embrace a law that has only existed for a few hundred years, return to the idea of selling something that is truly rare and unique -- a performance and then more performances. People pay for live music, so why focus on what they're happier to copy? Also, people DO pay for CDs when they see bands live, as I can testify to in almost every band I have been helping. The bands openly allow people to copy their CDs, yet friends will still buy their own copy (get an autograph, or for supporting the band).
"Netcast" sounds like a good alternative to me.
I'm not so sure, I think Al Gore said he would go after companies that use the term he invented...