More on the cost of regulatory compliance

[shanek]

Here's some more information about (among other things) the costs of government regulation to American companies, organizations, and individuals. Some highlights:

Whereas regulatory agencies issued 4,167 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively low 269 bills in 2002.

Of these 4,187 regulations now in the regulatory pipeline, 135 are “economically significant” rules that will have at least $100 million in economic impact. Those rules will impose at least $13.5 billion yearly in future off-budget costs.

The Office of Management and Budget’s latest report on the costs and benefits of federal regulations finds cumulative 1992–2002 costs of “major” regulations to be between $38 and $44 billion, while noting costs of all rules could be more than 10 times larger.

Based on a more broadly constructed competing compilation of annual regulatorycosts by economists Thomas Hopkins and Mark Crain, regulatory costs hit an estimated $860 billion in 2002, an amount equivalent to 43 percent of all FY 2002 outlays.

Regulatory costs are five times the $158 billion budget deficit.

Regulatory costs of $860 billion are equivalent to 8.2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, estimated at $10,443 billion for 2002.

Regulatory costs also exceed all corporate pretax profits, which were $699 billion in 2001.

Regulatory costs rival estimated 2002 individual income taxes of $949 billion, and are far greater than corporate income taxes of $201 billion.

On the basis of estimates from the Weidenbaum and Mercatus Centers,
agencies spent $25 billion merely to administer and police the regulatory state in 2002, 14 percent more than the previous year. Counting the $860 billion in off-budget costs, that brings the total regulatory burden to $885 billion.

Following deficits through 2006, the maximum surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office over the coming decade is (a highly dubious) $508 billion in 2013. But regulatory costs of more than $800 billion already well exceed that amount. Moreover, regulations and taxes can be substitutes for one another; a new government program requires increasing spending—or imposing new rules and regulations. Thus, unless regulatory activity is better monitored, the balanced-budget imperative may tend to invite Congress to adopt new off-budget private-sector regulations rather than new spending that would deplete the surplus. If regulatory costs remain largely hidden from public view, regulating will continue to look like an attractive alternative to taxing and spending.

Check out the PDF file with the whole thing. There's a wealth of information there, much more detail than the important points I highlighted here.

I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that the cost of regulatory compliance in this country has a greater inhibiting effect on our economy than even the Income Tax. I urge all of you who have been ignoring these costs in other threads when I've pointed out to seriously read this, and at least consider that just because you don't see these costs, doesn't mean that they aren't extensive and prohibitive, and only do our economy harm.

http://www.cato.org/tech/pubs/10kc_2003.pdf

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by shanek
Check out the PDF file with the whole thing.

I don't see a URL...

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Wolverine


I don't see a URL...

It's most likely from Cato, Von Mises, or the American Freedom Foundation for Liberty, Freedom, and Even More Liberty.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wolverine
I don't see a URL...

Argh! Sorry. It's there now.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
It's most likely from Cato, Von Mises, or the American Freedom Foundation for Liberty, Freedom, and Even More Liberty.

:roll: Okay, I know this was a personal dig at me, but it was still funny... :roll:

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Argh! Sorry. It's there now.

URL now found
Four Oh Four no longer stops
Research continues

Thank you

[Wolverine]

:jaw:

Now if only HR 110 had a snowball's chance....

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
URL now found
Four Oh Four no longer stops
Research continues

Thank you

You're most welcome sir
I do await your response
Haikus are such fun

[Gem]

In my opinion, regulations have to be put in place where the free market goes too far. For example, child labor laws, and certain safety regulations.

However, there is such a thing as too much regulation. If markets already go above the standard, then there is no need for it anymore.

Gem

[fishbob]

Most people think of OSHA safety regs and EPA regs when this topic comes up. I think that some of the lesser known regs are far more costly to the economy.

Take a look at the FARS - the Federal Acquisition Regulations - these are the rules for government contracting. These are huge documents, with lots of tiny print, that will make your brain hurt to read. They are periodically revised to add loopholes, incentives, and treats for special interests. Compliance with these regs is like being nibbled to death by ducks - each little bite is almost harmless, but the sheer number of little bites can be fatal.

FAR 52.204-4 - PRINTING/COPYING DOUBLE-SIDED ON RECYCLED PAPER (JUN 1996)

(a) In accordance with Executive Order 12873, dated October 20, 1993, as amended by Executive Order 12995, dated March 25, 1996, the offeror/contractor is encouraged to submit paper documents, such as offers, letters, or reports, that are printed/copied double-sided on recycled paper that has at least 20 % postconsumer material.
(b) The 20% standard applies to high-speed copier paper, offset paper, forms bond, computer printout paper, carbonless paper, file folders, white woven envelopes and other uncoated printed and writing paper, such as writing and office paper, book paper, cotton fiber paper, and cover stock. An alternative to meeting the 20% postconsumer material standard is 50% recovered material content of certain industrial by-products.

(End of clause).

This clause, along with 100 or so others, is buried in the fine print of our current contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers. Try to figure out what this means and comply with it. I have been dinged for not submitting double sided reports. Do you know how much extra time is required to copy and print 30 double-sided, 600-page reports? Well the gubmint rule writers obviously have no idea, but the cost difference in this case was several thousand dollars.

[Rayn]

Hrm.

I have to agree with Gem here, there need to be some regulations on the economy, especially in light of the horrendous conduct by the CEO's and other executives of companies such as Enron and WorldCom (what is going on with the litigation in these cases and any subsequent legislation?).

Although there is such a thing as over-regulation, I'm not sure we've reached a minimum "quality of life" in this country to really abolish such measures, and the gap between rich and poor is something I also have issues with. I believe more regulation should be devoted to these issues, though they may become as convoluted and difficult to comply with as the clause that fishbob pointed out. However, I'm not the most economically knowledgeable person, so if someone can tell me the what the issues are with these approaches I'll read them.

[Selvedge]

Shanek,

O.k., I can understand your point, that regulation costs a heck of a lot of money (and time, etc.) I don't know much about business/ economics, so bear with me. . .

It seems to me that much of that may be money well spent. Honestly, I just don't trust corporations not to sell me rancid meat, lie in their advertising, pollute my neighborhood, cheat their people out of decent wages, etc., unless they are subject to regulations.

While I don't trust the government a whole lot farther than I can throw it either, it's the only entity right now that has the power to prevent corporations doing harm on their way to making profit. And the government has, at least ostensibly, a responsibility to the people (and ideally, is controlled by the will of the people) unlike corporations.

Are you suggesting that we should do away with regulation altogether? If so, do you trust corporations not to harm people?

If not, what would be your criteria for reasonable regulations vs. ones that are a waste of money & effort?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


You're most welcome sir
I do await your response
Haikus are such fun

Cato Institute!
Research suddenly complete.
Oh well, so it goes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
It seems to me that much of that may be money well spent. Honestly, I just don't trust corporations not to sell me rancid meat, lie in their advertising, pollute my neighborhood, cheat their people out of decent wages, etc., unless they are subject to regulations.

Why not? Why would a private company want to make its customers sick? Why would it want to subject itself to intense liability?

And FYI, private companies routinely make their products much safer than the regulations even require.

While I don't trust the government a whole lot farther than I can throw it either, it's the only entity right now that has the power to prevent corporations doing harm on their way to making profit. And the government has, at least ostensibly, a responsibility to the people (and ideally, is controlled by the will of the people) unlike corporations.

What about private organizations like UL? Have you ever had a hair dryer blow up on you? No? That's not because of government regulations; that's because of the UL testing and certification process...and this happens without the intense costs of regulation. The costs they pay for UL certification is more than made up by the profits made by having a safer product; whereas, as the source shows, government regulation costs the companies more than they make in total profits.

Are you suggesting that we should do away with regulation altogether?

Yes. We don't need it, as the UL situation proves. And government solves nothing, as the USDA situation proves (e.g., ConAgra's tainted meat was caught by a small, private meat processing facility in Montana who alerted the USDA, who sat on the information for months without ever telling ConAgra there was any indication of anything being wrong).

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj


Cato Institute!
Research suddenly complete.
Oh well, so it goes.

Quite disappointed
jj promised smart debate
Should have known better

[chulbert]

Originally posted by shanek Why not? Why would a private company want to make its customers sick? Why would it want to subject itself to intense liability?

Nobody suggests companies "want" to make their customers sick, but that they may accept it as a cost of doing business.

Per usual, you're entire economic worldview is based on the unsupported premise that it is always cost effective for companies to "do the right thing" if only left to their own devices.

So far, I'm not even slightly convinced that's true.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Quite disappointed
jj promised smart debate
Should have known better

Shanek imagines!
Smarter to ignore trolling,
Shanek fears sunlight!

[shanek]

Originally posted by chulbert
Nobody suggests companies "want" to make their customers sick, but that they may accept it as a cost of doing business.

But in doing so, they're going to have to accept responsibility and liability for anyone who gets hurt using their product. History has shown us that that's a great motivator into not only making a safe product, but also proving that product is safe.

Per usual, you're entire economic worldview is based on the unsupported premise that it is always cost effective for companies to "do the right thing" if only left to their own devices.

When did I ever say always? They are much more inclined to do it than they are under government regulation, though, because they don't have the fantastic costs of that regulation to begin with.

[fishbob]

But in doing so, they're going to have to accept responsibility and liability for anyone who gets hurt using their product. History has shown us that that's a great motivator into not only making a safe product, but also proving that product is safe. You know, many companies are run by honest and responsible people. You also know that some companies are run by sleazeballs.

The way the government protects you and me from the sleazeballs is to create disincentives (environmental and safety regulations for example) for sleaziness. These disincentives are of course applied to all businesses equally, and these disincentives are often onerous and burdensome.

Without some of these burdensome regulations, the sleazeballs could make a quick buck at the expense of the consumer or the public, walk away from a company, and enjoy their ill-gotten gains. With the burdensome regulations, at least some of the time, the sleazeballs are held responsible for their sleazy actions.

How would you make it better? Which 'major' regulation is your top candidate for repeal? Remember, the devil is in the details.

Note: My point here is in regards to the big and well known regs. I am still disgusted with the nitty little, special interest, duck nibble regulations. Those could be removed without harm to the public and with great savings to taxpayers.

[Selvedge]

Hi Shanek,

Thanks for your answers to my questions.

A country where litigation replaces regulation? Yikes! I don't think I'd be too interested in living there.

For one thing, I don't agree with your premise that it's in a corporation's best interest to look out for people's well-being. In theory, it sounds good, but in practice, the best way to make a profit fast is often to screw people over.

Off the top of my head, a few problems I can see with litigation as a solution. First is that it puts the burden of problem-solving on the people who have been injured. The injured parties then have to pay for all that litigation. Myself, I'd rather pay for regulations up-front, and not be injured in the first place.

Second, the playing field is too uneven. Corporations are huge, powerful and wealthy. Injured parties have shallower pockets and therefore less access to high-powered lawyers. They also often have jobs, families, and limited free time. Injured parties can band together in class-action groups, of course, but forming such a group also takes a great investment of time & effort & so on. Better to let the government enforce decent behavior on corporations, since it has much more power to do so.

Also, there may be cases where it is simply worth it to the company to swallow the costs of litigation and continue behaving badly. If the cost of settling out of court or paying damages is less than the profit gained by bad behavior, the corporation will continue inflicting harm.

Do you see ways to resolve these problems?

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
You know, many companies are run by honest and responsible people. You also know that some companies are run by sleazeballs.

The way the government protects you and me from the sleazeballs is to create disincentives (environmental and safety regulations for example) for sleaziness.

The problem is that those regulations punish the honest and responsible people as well as the sleazeballs. And the sleazeballs tend to find ways around things anyway while sticking to the letter of the regulations. And when you try and sue the sleazeballs, their defense is that they complied with every regulation and what more can they do, and they generally get off because of it.

Not to mention the fact that government seems to make exceptions to these regulations for the politically-connected.

The free market disincentives are much more effective, but unfortunately regulation just gets in the way of them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
A country where litigation replaces regulation? Yikes! I don't think I'd be too interested in living there.

Why not? Do you have any reasons other than emotional?

For one thing, I don't agree with your premise that it's in a corporation's best interest to look out for people's well-being. In theory, it sounds good, but in practice, the best way to make a profit fast is often to screw people over.

That just isn't true. And again, I'd ask you to explain the success of completely private standards bodies such as UL. Why do you ignore the introduction of other such bodies into the equation? Why is it either government regulation or a free-for-all with the threat of litigation the only recourse?

First is that it puts the burden of problem-solving on the people who have been injured. The injured parties then have to pay for all that litigation.

I'm in favor of a "loser pays" system. The injured parties should not have to bear the burden of their legal expenses for someone else's wrongs.

Myself, I'd rather pay for regulations up-front, and not be injured in the first place.

You're acting like it actually stops injuries in the first place. What about the ConAgra situation I mentioned? They weren't doing it maliciously for a quick buck; they didn't even know about it because the USDA—the regulatory body they were relying on (and, in a very real way, were forced to rely on since the cost of compliance makes redundant testing of their own quite expensive) sat on the information and let people be poisoned. And in the end, it was ConAgra, not the USDA, that recalled the tainted meat.

[Occasional Chemist]

Here's some more food for thought on industrial regulations. It's old, but there's a saying about those that don't know history ... :)

LINK (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/105/)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Here's some more food for thought on industrial regulations. It's old, but there's a saying about those that don't know history ... :)

LINK (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/105/)

Um:

A safe substitute for white phosphorus had been discovered by a French chemist, the sesquisulphide, the American patent rights for which had been bought by the Diamond Match Company. This company with rare generosity, waived its patent rights and allowed the free use of sesquisulphide to the whole industry...So phossy jaw disappeared from American match factories.

Seems to me this problem was solved by the free market. A safe alternative was discovered, and Diamond Match not only eagerly implemented it but also waived all patent rights so anyone could use it. The bias in the article shows through, however, with calling such actions "rare generosity."

Also note that the solution was widely implemented in America before (albeit shortly before) being as widely implemented in Europe, which the author apparently feels is far superior. (And in Britain, at least, the solution was implemented by the Salvation Army, not the government.) But if that's the case, then why didn't Europe solve the problem first? A Frenchman may have invented it, but it was the actions of a free market company in America that resulted in it being widely available.

[Solitaire]

Odd, I thought we were dereugulated.
Maybe we are just wrongly regulated.

I remember talking to a guy who remembered the old days of regulation.
He said it was much better back then, products came with wiring diagrams
so you could fix things - Reagan was the one who repealed that regulation.
And the telephone, he said it was much cheeper back then. You payed your
bill without all these charges on them. Oh yeah, the airlines, he said that
they were much better back then - more room, better food, better service,
on time, lower cost to boot. A pity one cannot traverse time to check it out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Odd, I thought we were dereugulated.

"Deregulated" is politispeak. "Re-regulated" is a more accurate term for what's largely been going on.

And the telephone, he said it was much cheeper back then. You payed your bill without all these charges on them.

This is patently untrue. Long distance rates, deregulated since MCI won their case against AT&T in 1984, have plummeted. Local telephone providers are, for the most part, a government-sponsored monopoly and looking carefully at your bill will show you all of the hidden charges that mount up rather quickly.

Also, airline prices, after adjusting for inflation, are much lower than they were before deregulation in the 1980's. Of course, the airports and infrastructure are still government-owned...

A pity one cannot traverse time to check it out.

One can, however, look at historical data and see that it is, for the most part, untrue.

[jj]

Regulations, hard.
Some good, some bad, some stupid.
No obvious trend.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Regulations, hard.
Some good, some bad, some stupid.
No obvious trend.

The question is, does the good that the good ones do outweigh the harm done by the bad and stupid ones? And how long to the good regulations stay good before they become bad and/or stupid?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


The question is, does the good that the good ones do outweigh the harm done by the bad and stupid ones? And how long to the good regulations stay good before they become bad and/or stupid?

The question is, what?
That's not one question, rather
It's about nine, eh!

:p

Nothing is constant,
The world must adapt, evolve
Or become extinct.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek

A safe alternative was discovered, and Diamond Match not only eagerly implemented it but also waived all patent rights so anyone could use it.



True, but the alternative was more expensive even with no patent issues. It was implemented after Congress taxed the heck out of the matches containing white phosphorus.

From the article:


A safe substitute for white phosphorus had been discovered by a French chemist, the sesquisulphide, the American patent rights for which had been bought by the Diamond Match Company. This company with rare generosity, waived its patent rights and allowed the free use of sesquisulphide to the whole industry, and this made it possible for Congress to pass the Esch law, which imposed a tax on white-phosphorus matches high enough to cover the difference in cost between them and sesquisulphide matches. So phossy jaw disappeared from American match factories.


Originally posted by shanek
Um:


Um, indeed. It sounds like what worked here was a mixture of corporate goodwill and regulation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Um, indeed. It sounds like what worked here was a mixture of corporate goodwill and regulation.

Except that there's nothing that shows the regulation was needed.

[fishbob]

So, which 'major' regulation is your top candidate for repeal? Let's talk about specifics for a minute.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Except that there's nothing that shows the regulation was needed.

Oh, one other thing - Diamond didn't release the patent for the heck of it. After President Taft publically asked them to release the patent, don't you think it'd have been a public relations nightmare for them not to?

As for why the tax might have been necessary - the safety matches were more expensive to produce and corporate uptake was slow.

Profit is, after all, everything.

[Selvedge]

Hi Shanek,

Thanks again for your responses. Sorry for the slow reply -- I don't often have time to post, so have to carry on conversations in slow motion.

Am I misunderstanding you, or when you say "that just isn't true" are you saying you believe that it is literally impossible for a corporation to profit from doing things that cause harm to people? How is it possible that there have been things like sweatshops, unsafe workplaces, dangerous products, false advertising, toxic waste dumps, etc., etc.? Why would corporations behave in these ways if it's not profitable?

Re the success of private standards bodies like UL: when corporations regulate themselves well, that's great. More power to 'em. Presumably, there are cases where ethical behavior is the most profitable -- I just doubt that that's always true, and am concerned about the cases where it isn't.

You asked whether, without regulation, litigation has to be the only recourse. I don't know -- you suggested litigation as an alternative to regulation. I raised some concerns about that, and I don't think the "loser pays" system answers all of them. It doesn't change the "post facto" nature of litigation. It doesn't, I think, really level the playing field, and may make the imbalance worse. The injured party is still a small fish trying to take on a shark, and now has to take on the risk of paying the corporation's legal fees if they lose. And there is still the concern that the corporation may find litigation to be an acceptable business expense when weighed against its profits.

Re the ConAgra situation: you're right. Sometimes regulation fails, and that's a problem. But whether the problem should be solved by making the regulating bodies more effective, or by doing away with regulation altogether, is another question.

Btw, is my response partly emotional? Yes, probably. Like I say, this is not an area where I'm real knowlegeable, and I have mental images of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle ;) That's why I'm asking questions, so I can learn a bit more about this.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek


. . .And the sleazeballs tend to find ways around things anyway while sticking to the letter of the regulations. And when you try and sue the sleazeballs, their defense is that they complied with every regulation and what more can they do, and they generally get off because of it.

Shanek, I was just re-reading your response to Fishbob. Now I'm baffled. It sounds like you're saying that companies do, in fact do harmful "sleazeball" things, and even go out of their way to find legal loopholes in order to do them. I thought your point was that self-regulation is profitable and that harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't, so neither government regulation nor a litigation "free-for-all" is necessary to keep them in line. So why do the companies you're referring to behave this way?

[jj]

Originally posted by Selvedge


Shanek, I was just re-reading your response to Fishbob. Now I'm baffled. It sounds like you're saying that companies do, in fact do harmful "sleazeball" things, and even go out of their way to find legal loopholes in order to do them. I thought your point was that self-regulation is profitable and that harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't, so neither government regulation nor a litigation "free-for-all" is necessary to keep them in line. So why do the companies you're referring to behave this way?

Consistancy is
Yes, a hobgoblin to some
Shane needs orkslayer!

:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
Am I misunderstanding you, or when you say "that just isn't true" are you saying you believe that it is literally impossible for a corporation to profit from doing things that cause harm to people?

I'm saying it isn't true that "the best way to make a profit fast is often to screw people over." It just isn't. It might be the case on rare occasions, but it certainly isn't the best way.

How is it possible that there have been things like sweatshops, unsafe workplaces, dangerous products, false advertising, toxic waste dumps, etc., etc.?

Actually, as I have shown in other threads, most of these have either been exaggerated or brought upon by government.

You asked whether, without regulation, litigation has to be the only recourse. I don't know -- you suggested litigation as an alternative to regulation.

Not exclusively I didn't. That's why I mentioned UL; private regulatory bodies are another alternative, and the combination of those and the litigation will be far more effective than government regulations which effectively remove litigation from the equation.

It doesn't change the "post facto" nature of litigation.

But litigation isn't post facto. It is a deterrent, and an effective one.

The injured party is still a small fish trying to take on a shark, and now has to take on the risk of paying the corporation's legal fees if they lose.

That's why I favor the system where the losing party pays what they paid for their lawyers. So if the plaintiff found lawyers willing to work pro bono, they wouldn't have to pay anything. If the corporations pay millions of dollars for their lawyers, they'd have to pay the plaintiff millions of dollars!

(BTW, I would credit the JREFer who first came up with this idea, but for the life of me I can't remember who it was. Feel free to step forward...)

Re the ConAgra situation: you're right. Sometimes regulation fails, and that's a problem. But whether the problem should be solved by making the regulating bodies more effective, or by doing away with regulation altogether, is another question.

You need to look at the political nature of regulation and see if it [i]can[i] be made more effective.

and I have mental images of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle ;)

Which is a work of fiction and Sinclair himself admitted that he had no real basis for his protrayals.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
Now I'm baffled. It sounds like you're saying that companies do, in fact do harmful "sleazeball" things, and even go out of their way to find legal loopholes in order to do them.

Sometimes they do, yes. The solution, as I've repeatedly said, is to 1) take the politics out of the equation, since if the politicians don't have the power to protect them then they can't be protected; and 2) make them liable in the private sector, through the threat of litigation, private standards and certification bodies, or a combination of both.

I thought your point was that self-regulation is profitable and that harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't,

You do have to make it so that the harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't profitable, though. And that's what litigation and certification (along with a number of other methods) does. What you need to consider is that, since people want safe products, the free market is going to do everything it can to make sure people have an avenue for this.

[Selvedge]

Hi Shanek,

Would you post some links that explain how government causes sweatshops, unsafe workplaces, dangerous products, false advertising, toxic waste dumps, etc.? TIA.

Originally posted by shanek

You do have to make it so that the harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't profitable, though. And that's what litigation and certification (along with a number of other methods) does. What you need to consider is that, since people want safe products, the free market is going to do everything it can to make sure people have an avenue for this.

O.k., this still sounds a little contradictory to me. It sounds like we agree that corporations can profit from misbehavior if left to their own devices (as you say, "we have to make it so that the harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't profitable") and we simply disagree about the best means & whether those means should include regulation. But then you still seem to be saying that misbehavior cannot be profitable, so companies will naturally use self-regulation, voluntary certification, etc.

Are you saying that harmful behavior by corporations is inherently unprofitable, or that we need to make it unprofitable, or both?

Still not sure I agree about litigation as a better solution than regulation (though I like the "loser pays equivalent of own fees" twist.) At least in theory, it still makes more sense to me for us to tell corporations, through our government, that they can't dump toxic waste into the groundwater, than for people to have to sue the company after their families get sick from waste in their groundwater -- making them deal with all the complications of a lawsuit as well as dealing with the sickness in their family. (Or the exploitative work situation, or unsafe workplace, or wrongful advertising, or whatever the problem was.)

I'll grant a lot of things here. Government isn't always responsive to the will of the people. Government can do a poor job of regulating, etc. But I'd prefer to work on solving those problems rather than scrap regulation altogether. And I can see where litigation might -- if the penalties outweigh the profits -- deter the next company from polluting (exploiting, lying, etc.) But for the people who were injured, the response is after the fact, and the problem (ex. poor health) may not be solvable for them at that point. (That was what I meant by "post facto.")

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
You do have to make it so that the harmful, sleazeball behavior isn't profitable, though.

In other words, you have to REGULATE in order to effect harmful, sleazeball behavior.

That's how you "make it" unprofitable. Certification, litigation, laws, etc, are all forms of regulating behavior.

So, in the end, it's regulation that's needed.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Which is a work of fiction and Sinclair himself admitted that he had no real basis for his protrayals.
I'm sure you'll be able to quote that "admission."

Mr. Sinclair's Grave Charges (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/jungle_060519.html) Literary Digest 32 (May 19, 1906)
Mr. Upton Sinclair, who has taken the packing industry for his oyster and opened it with his pen, challenges J. Ogden Armour, head of Armour & Company, to prove legally that Mr. Sinclair's assertions with regard to condemned beef are false, and the press advise Mr. Armour to meet the challenge. "One-hundredth part of what I have charged ought, if it is true, to send the guilty man to the gallows," says Mr. Sinclair in a letter to the newspaper editors of America. "One-hundredth part of what I have charged ought, if it is false, to be enough to send me to prison."
In an article entitled "The Condemned-meat Industry," in Everybody's for May, Mr. Sinclair replies to Mr. Armour with a terrible arraignment of the packer's establishment. He quotes the laws showing them to be so framed that they protect the foreigner against diseased beef, but not the American consumer. The rule of the Department of Agriculture says, "No microscopic examination will be made of hogs slaughtered for interstate trade, but this examination shall be confined to those intended for the export trade." Now, observes Mr. Sinclair, "since one and one-half percent of all the hogs slaughtered in Chicago are found to be infected with trichinosis, it follows that the American people eat not only their own one and one-half percent, but also the one and one-half percent of the share of Europe!" Mr. Sinclair also quotes thus from the affidavit of a former superintendent of P. D. Armour's:

"Whenever a beef got past the yard inspectors with a case of lumpy jaw and came into the slaughter-house or the 'killing-bed,' I was authorized by Mr. Pierce to take his head off, thus removing the evidences of lumpy jaw, and after casting the smitten portion into the tank where refuse goes, to send the rest of the carcass on its way to market.

"In cases where tuberculosis became evident to the men who were skinning the cattle it was their duty, on instructions from Mr. Pierce, communicated to them through me, at once to remove the tubercles and cast them into a trap-door provided for that purpose.

"I have seen as much as forty pounds of flesh afflicted with gangrene cut from the carcass of a beef, in order that the rest of the animal might be utilized in trade."

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves


It's most likely from Cato, Von Mises, or the American Freedom Foundation for Liberty, Freedom, and Even More Liberty.

Don't forget the historical luminaries at Lew Rockwell.com

;) ;) ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

I'm sure you'll be able to quote that "admission."

For example Upton Sinclair is famous for his 1906 book, The Jungle, which, among other things, described what were supposedly horrific conditions in the meat packing industry in Chicago. While most history books treat his depiction of rats and even humans being processed into meat sold to consumers as gospel truth, his book was simply untrue and represented a crude attempt to convince Americans that socialism was their only hope. (Investigation after investigation of the meat packing industry showed Sinclair’s claims to be false.)

Sinclair admitted afterward that his book was an attempt to change the "American heart," but instead managed only to affect "its stomach." Historians often say that The Jungle led directly to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. As usual, the truth is more complicated.

As Milton Friedman has pointed out, American meat processors were anxious to show Europeans that their products were not poisonous and the FDA became the mechanism to do that.

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=364&month=16

The meat companies were accused of profiteering on rotten meat and attempting to poison the troops. Roosevelt carried this resentment to the presidency and when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, TR had his excuse to act.

Sinclair wrote his book in hopes of converting Americans to socialism, and he found a willing ally in Roosevelt. Although The Jungle was pure fiction, it resonated with the public, which was ready to believe the worst about American companies. Roosevelt, acting in the name of the public interest, ordered an investigation of the meat industry, which was delivered to him in secret later that year. However, the president refused to release the report, saying only that the contents were "devastating," and he bullied Congress into passing the Pure Food and Drug Act, which created the FDA, an agency which bedevils the country to this day.

It turned out, however, that Roosevelt had other reasons for refusing to release the report. When Sinclair visited the White House in 1906, the president remarked to him that the study contained nothing incriminating. The myth endures, unfortunately, that Roosevelt somehow "reformed" the meat industry.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=96

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek

Which is a work of fiction and Sinclair himself admitted that he had no real basis for his protrayals.

...

Sinclair admitted afterward that his book was an attempt to change the "American heart," but instead managed only to affect "its stomach."



Is it just me, or is Shanek talkng out of his a$$? Where exactly did Sinclair "admit that he had no real basis for his protrayals?"

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Is it just me, or is Shanek talkng out of his a$$? Where exactly did Sinclair "admit that he had no real basis for his protrayals?"

Read the sources. It was when Roosevelt's investigation found that the situation described in The Jungle was not the case. Of course, that didn't stop the two of them from pretending otherwise...

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek

Read the sources. It was when Roosevelt's investigation found that the situation described in The Jungle was not the case. Of course, that didn't stop the two of them from pretending otherwise...

Ok, let's try this again.

Shanek: "Sinclair himself admitted that he had no real basis for his portrayals."

Neither of the links you posted mention anything about Sinclair "admitt that he had no real basis for his protrayals." Each of them [i]assert that Sinclair's charges were fabricated out of wholecloth, but that's it. And one of them mentions Sinclair "admitting" that his purpose in writing the book was to change the "American heart." Big whoop. So that was his motivation. That statement is a far cry from "he admitted that he had no real basis for his protrayals."

Now, perhaps Sinclair did make such an admission, I don't know. What I *do* know is that the sources provided in no way support a bald assertion to that effect.

Please let me know if I missed something.

Mike

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek

For example Upton Sinclair is famous for his 1906 book, The Jungle, which, among other things, described what were supposedly horrific conditions in the meat packing industry in Chicago. While most history books treat his depiction of rats and even humans being processed into meat sold to consumers as gospel truth, his book was simply untrue and represented a crude attempt to convince Americans that socialism was their only hope. (Investigation after investigation of the meat packing industry showed Sinclair’s claims to be false.)
I find it rather sad that you actually believe this stuff. Don't you find it odd that Libertarians have been able to unearth the "real" truth while most history books say otherwise? Several studies did claim to rebut Sinclair, but for some reason this article doesn't mention the investigations that did support his findings (more on that below). I wonder why that is?


Sinclair admitted afterward that his book was an attempt to change the "American heart," but instead managed only to affect "its stomach." Historians often say that The Jungle led directly to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. As usual, the truth is more complicated.
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=364&month=16
As mfeldman has pointed out, this does not constitute an admission that Sinclair "had no real basis for his portrayals." This quote of yours seems to be referring to Sinclair's famous remark: "I aimed at the public's heart and by accident I hit it in the stomach." Sinclair "admitted" before, during, and after that his main goal was to help the working poor. It was no secret that he was a socialist. This is not an admission that the charges in the book are false, and as I pointed out, Sinclair challenged Armour to sue him for libel.
What Life Means to Me (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/sinclair_life.html), Upton Sinclair, Cosmopolitan Magazine 41 (Oct. 1906)
I began to plan a novel which should portray modern industrial conditions, and show how they were driving the workingman into socialism. It was just after the big strike in Packingtown, and the newspapers had contained some account of the situation, which had attracted my attention to it. I knew that this was a place where modern commercial forces held complete sway, and had the making of the entire environment. I went out there and lived among the people for seven weeks; I being a socialist, they took me in and told me all they knew. I would sit in their homes at night, and talk with them, and then in the daytime they would lay off their work, and take me around, and show me whatever I wished to see. I studied every detail of their lives, and took notes enough to fill a volume. I talked, not merely with workingmen and their families, but with bosses and superintendents, with night-watchmen and saloon-keepers and policemen, with doctors and lawyers and merchants, with politicians and clergymen and settlement-workers. I spared no pains to get every detail exact, and I know that in this respect "The Jungle" will stand the severest test -- it is as authoritative as if it were a statistical compilation.

Scene: Oval Office
Cut to Teddy Roosevelt (pounds fist on desk)
"Damn those meat packers, I'll get them if it's the last thing I ever do!"
(Picks up newspaper with serialization of The Jungle)
Ah-hah. Exactly what I've been waiting for, heh-heh. Now those bastards are MINE! (twirls mustache).


The meat companies were accused of profiteering on rotten meat and attempting to poison the troops. Roosevelt carried this resentment to the presidency and when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, TR had his excuse to act.
Two problems with this little scenario:

1. The "embalmed beef" scandal of the Spanish-American War did cause quite an uproar. However, the meat packers were cleared of any wrongdoing by a congresssional inquiry which found that the army's transport and storage practices were the cause of the problem. Unless Teddy was living under a rock at the time, he knew this very well.

B. Teddy originally denounced Sinclair as a total loon.
Meat Inspection Bill Passes the Senate (http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Meat-Inspection-Bill-Beveridge.htm), NY Times, May 26, 1906
The disclosures made in Upton Sinclair's novel, "The Jungle," which led to the passage of the measure, astounded President Roosevelt when he read the book. He could not believe they had any foundation of truth. He put Sinclair in the muck-rake class, and it was some time before he was persuaded to regard his book as having any basis.

Sinclair wrote his book in hopes of converting Americans to socialism, and he found a willing ally in Roosevelt. Although The Jungle was pure fiction, it resonated with the public, which was ready to believe the worst about American companies. Roosevelt, acting in the name of the public interest, ordered an investigation of the meat industry, which was delivered to him in secret later that year. However, the president refused to release the report, saying only that the contents were "devastating," and he bullied Congress into passing the Pure Food and Drug Act, which created the FDA, an agency which bedevils the country to this day.

It turned out, however, that Roosevelt had other reasons for refusing to release the report. When Sinclair visited the White House in 1906, the president remarked to him that the study contained nothing incriminating. The myth endures, unfortunately, that Roosevelt somehow "reformed" the meat industry.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=96
Two more problems with this bit:

A. Yes, Roosevelt held back the Neill-Reynolds report as a club to get legislation passed; but the packers did not want that report released either.
The Packinghouse Investigations (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/jungle_060616a.html) The Public 9, June 16, 1906
In the course of his examination on the subject of the Neill-Reynolds packing house report, before the committee on agriculture of the lower house of Congress on the 7th, Mr. Neill related an interview with a Dr. Dyson, formerly in the Federal inspection service, but now a consulting veterinarian in the employ of the packers, offering on behalf of the packers to meet any sanitary conditions that might be imposed by Messrs. Neill and Reynolds in return for a suppression of their report, and further to submit to a second inspection within thirty days to ascertain if the conditions had been bettered, after which there would be no objection to a report on the condition then found. Upon being informed by Mr. Neill in reply that he was not authorized to make any "deal," Dr. Dyson then in a second letter suggested the appointment of a sanitary committee and that it be given thirty days to accomplish improvements, pending which no report should be made. This was declined, as was a third proposal from Dr. Dyson looking to the suppression of the report and promising reforms. The original letters were produced.
In a courtroom that would be called "consciousness of guilt."

2. (drumroll please) THE REPORT WAS ACTUALLY RELEASED.
Demand for Clean Meat (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/jungle_060609.html) Literary Digest 32, June 9, 1906
The substantiation, in the main, of Upton Sinclair's terrible allegations in "The Jungle" by the Neill-Reynolds report on the Chicago packing-house evils has roused an imperative demand by the press for instant and thorough-going reformation. Messrs. Neill and Reynolds could not confirm some of the more revolting details of the loss of human life, but the descriptions of uncleanliness, unsanitary features, and the evil of conditions generally are pretty well established.

[Gem]

ALl the meat talk reminds me of something. Mad Cow disease and ranchers feeding their cows dead cows, usually cows that had the disease. I'll post some sources on the subject.

Gem

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Avast, ye damn lubbers! I can hardly hear me-self think over the roar of these here crickets. Aaaarrr.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Avast, ye damn lubbers! I can hardly hear me-self think over the roar of these here crickets. Aaaarrr.

And it's still not clear to me whether Shanek is saying that harmful behavior on the part of corporations is inherently unprofitable to them, or whether harmful behavior can be profitable unless we take steps to make it otherwise. He (or she?) seems to be saying both, and that seems contradictory to me -- unless I'm oversimplifying, or missing something?

[shanek]

MKJ:

Are you really saying that Sinclair's use of anecdote and hearsay constitutes proper evidence of his claims in the book? Where are the police or investigator's reports of people dying by falling into the vats and becoming part of the meat product? What were their names? Were any meat products reaching store shelves found to have rat or human meat included? Where are all the complaints that would inevitably arise from such practice? Why did Congressman Crumpacker state before the Agricultural committe that no such complaints existed? And why was this situation apparently limited to only Chicago meatpackers? And who were the inspectors he accused of corruption? Was there not a single meat inspector who was uncorrupt, at least enough to even report one single incidence? What of the millions of visitors who toured these factories every year? Was there not one whistle-blower among them? Were they all part of some gigantic conspiracy? And if none of them knew, then how does a novelist uncover in two weeks what none of them could? Why doesn't Sinclair's failure to witness this himself, or to verify the claims, or to produce any official documents at all on the subject not cast doubt on the validity of his data?

Maybe "admitted" wasn't the right word to have used, but Sinclair certainly never stated to have any objective evidence of his claims, just the hearsay and anecdotes from people giving him what he wanted to hear in the first place.

And the Neill-Reynolds report, by any skeptic's measure, is hardly a reliable confirmation. Neither Neill nor Reynolds had any experience at all with the meat-packing industry, Their "investigation" only covered about two and a half weeks (and again, why did they come up with allegations that millions of people touring the plant every year didn'd see?), and they themselves later said that they had only gone there to find fault and get ammo to get the new law passed. Why is it the only people who found all of this were the ones who wanted to, and who had a strong political motivation to find it?

Why is the fact that the 1906 report from the Department of Agriculture completely rebutted Sinclair's claims (at least the major ones) point by point not something that should be considered?

And most importantly, why are you holding me to a much higher standard than you are Sinclair?

There isn't enough evidence to support the allegations in the jungle to convince anyone with even a small degree of skepticism on the matter.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
And it's still not clear to me whether Shanek is saying that harmful behavior on the part of corporations is inherently unprofitable to them, or whether harmful behavior can be profitable unless we take steps to make it otherwise. He (or she?) seems to be saying both, and that seems contradictory to me -- unless I'm oversimplifying, or missing something?

What you're "missing" (even though I've stated it directly) is that there are many ways of making the behavior unprofitable that don't involve the government in any degree beyond its authority to provide a justice system and its other valid, Constitutional functions. This isn't contradictary at all. It only seems that way to you because apparently you think the only possible measure to make it unprofitable would be government regulation; correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Let me guess, if I can't answer all of you questions, then you've proven your case. :rolleyes: I believe your barrage of questions is called an argument from ignorance. And by the way, you're the one peddling the revisionist history; it's up to you to prove your case. You also seem to be implying that since I disagree with your partisan hatchet job, I must inevitably agree with everything Sinclair wrote. That's called a false dichotomy. I'll address your questions, if only to show how little you know of the subject.
Originally posted by shanek
Are you really saying that Sinclair's use of anecdote and hearsay constitutes proper evidence of his claims in the book?
You really don't know anything about this topic other than what's in this thread, do you? My previous quotes only refer to Sinclair talking to people, so you think that's all the evidence he had. Wonderful. He had more than just the testimony of people he talked to:
Sinclair Gives Proof of Meat Trust Frauds
New York Times, May 28, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

Armed with affidavits and documents sustaining the charges made by him in his book "The Jungle," which deals with the evils in the packing houses controlled by the Meat Trust, Upton Sinclair, the man responsible for the investigation conducted by President Roosevelt's agents. Messrs. Neill and Reynolds, reached New York yesterday, to remain until he learns from Washington whether or not their report is to be published.
Where are the police or investigator's reports of people dying by falling into the vats and becoming part of the meat product? What were their names? Were any meat products reaching store shelves found to have rat or human meat included? Where are all the complaints that would inevitably arise from such practice? Why did Congressman Crumpacker state before the Agricultural committe that no such complaints existed? And why was this situation apparently limited to only Chicago meatpackers?
If you go back and read my other posts you'll see that this is one of the items that the Neill/Reynolds report did not confirm. Of course, you would rather concentrate on the more sensational claims made by Sinclair because it distracts from the issues which were confirmed. And once again, you don't seem to know what Sinclair's actual claims were. He claimed that people fell into vats which were rendering lard. If, as Sinclair claims, this happened, then there wouldn't be any "meat product" to speak of. There were several people who confirmed that people accidentally fell into rendering vats. For example:
Meat Plants Here Condemned by Neill
New York Times, May 30, 1906, p. 1 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

My testimony before the Stock Yards Commission was principally on the conditions of the workers. I know of two persons killed by falling into a rendering vat. The workmen in the pickling rooms had their arms covered with sores caused by the mixture used for preserving meat.

A large oversupply of labor is kept constantly on hand, compelling all to work on short time at starvation wages. No ventilation and inadequate toilet facilities are supplied for workmen.

Animals injured or dying in transit are killed at night in order to avoid inspection, many of the houses running their killing floors a part of every night for this purpose.

A. M. Simons
What wasn't proven is that the resulting lard was actually sold. Regarding rat meat:
Inspection in New York
New York Times, May 29, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

Russell Raynor, the Assistant Sanitary Superintendent of the Department of Health, who is chief of all the Food Inspectors of the Borough of Manhattan, said yesterday that there was no practical way of telling just what was contained in a can labeled meat.

When canned meats coming from the West bear a notice that their contents have been inspected by the Federal Inspectors the New York Inspectors pay no attention to them, excepting in special cases where complaints are lodged with the Health Department.

"But even in these special cases," said Mr. Raynor, "we find that the complaints can rarely be verified.

"It would do no good to open up cans to inspect their contents, for if the label on the can said it contained chicken we should not be able to disprove the statement. After meat has once been cooked and spiced and placed in cans it is impossible to tell just what animal it came from. The only way to get at the facts is to have an Inspector right on the ground.
Regarding Sen. Crumpacker's claim: according to your (uncited) (http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/history/ideasconse.html) source, Crumpacker never claimed that "no such complaints existed," he claimed that no inspector ever came forward with any complaints. He was wrong (see below). No one ever claimed that the "situation" was limited to the Chicago meatpackers, so that is simply a straw man. The Chicago packers produced the majority of canned meat in the US at the time, so that was the focus of the investigation.
And who were the inspectors he accused of corruption? Was there not a single meat inspector who was uncorrupt, at least enough to even report one single incidence?
There were at least two inspectors who came forward.
The Packinghouse Investigations (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/jungle_060616a.html) The Public 9 (June 16, 1906)
According to a Washington correspondent of the Chicago Record-Herald of the 9th, Dr. J. C. Milnes, a trained veterinarian, who was in the service from 1896 until 1905, and was stationed at various times at Kansas City, Leavenworth, Wichita, Waterloo and Chicago, "deemed it to be the duty of an inspector to inspect. He became unpopular with the packers in whose yards he was performing inspection duty, and also with inspectors under him. He freely reported abuses to the bureau at Washington in order to remedy evils that seemed to him to be particularly flagrant. He also carried out his orders to inspect all animals killed and to condemn those afflicted with tuberculosis and order them to the 'tank,' where the steam was turned on and they were rendered into fertilizer. In this way Dr. Milnes came under suspicion at the department as a trouble-maker. Finally the sword fell on Dr. Milnes.
Sinclair Gives Proof of Meat Trust Frauds
New York Times, May 28, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

Ex-Inspector's Testimony

A former Government Inspector, who was on duty for more than two years, including 1904, in the trust packing house at East St. Louis, wrote Mr. Sinclair that his book is "an accurate statement of conditions as they exist." Telling of some of the things he witnessed, he says:

"Concerning the charge that cattle affected with actinomycosis or lumpy jaw have the heads removed and the carcasses then marketed with healthy animals, it is absolutely true, and in fact is not contrary to the regulations for the inspection of meat products. I do not believe that of all the animals condemned in the yards for actinomycosis, more than 10 per cent fail to be passed for food, and less than 1 per cent of this number is condemned for fertilizer, the balance going for lard or grease.

"It is a common practice at all stock yards to trim off bruises, tumors, &c., and allow the remainder of the carcass to pass for food. In the short time allowed for the examination of each carcass, (thirty seconds,) it is impossible to inspect it thoroughly, and I have on several occasions called the attention of the Inspector on duty to diseases and defects which are plainly discernable, even to a layman; on one occasion, in particular, finding a beef carcass passed, and about to go into the cooler, which was rotten with tuberculosis, and which was immediately condemned.

" 'Downers,' or crippled cattle, are very often killed at night, and they are supposed to be reported to the Inspectors when they return in the morning, with directions to as to where the carcass hangs in the coolers. Judging by the fact that these 'reported' carcasses are almost invariably 'passed for food,' the suspicion is aroused that not all are reported.

"Hogs are more affected with cholera than any other diseases, but unless very bad are tanked for lard. The heads also, which have been condemned as tubercular, are almost invariably tanked for lard, this also being left to the judgment of the individual Inspector. In case too many are condemned by some very conscientious Inspector, the packers appeal to the Chief Inspector of the local Government force, who quite often "releases" the carcasses and overrules the decision of his subordinate. At one station certain of the Inspectors declared at one time that it was useless to condemn any but the very worst carcasses, as they were almost invariably overruled.
Sinclair Gives Proof of Meat Trust Frauds
New York Times, May 28, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

Mr. Sinclair requested a statement of conditions concerning meat inspection at Chicago from Dr. W. K. Jacques, who was in charge of the Inspection Bureau of the Chicago Board of Health. In his reply Dr. Jacques said:

... "The Federal Inspector comes to the packer to inspect his meat for export and at his bidding. He is under the packer's influence continually and if not satisfactory to the packer, will lose his place. His instructions make it easy for him by saying that the diseased meat is 'to be disposed of according to the laws and ordinances of the State and municipality in which it is found.'

"The city Inspectors are the usual grade of employee, on duty during City Hall hours, from 9 till 5. The Civic Federation employed a detective to watch three of these and found that most of their time was spent in saloons. There were only four of them at the yards. They were under a head of department at the City Hall, who got his position for strenuous activity in the last campaign. The packers' contribution made this same duty pleasant.

... "Just to show how the packers have their hands on the situation, I have only to say that the first of this month Dr. Biehn was withdrawn from this work, and the stock yards inspection placed under Fish Murray, a protege of the stock yards Alderman Cary. Murray was Fish Inspector under me and laughed at my efforts to make him do something to earn his salary. To my knowledge he never condemned a pound of fish nor did a day's work in the fourteen months that I was his Chief.

"The Health Department now issues a statement that the condition is remedied and that Chicago is no longer a dumping ground for bad meat. The truth is that the Mayor is already fixing up his fences for re-election.
What of the millions of visitors who toured these factories every year? Was there not one whistle-blower among them? Were they all part of some gigantic conspiracy? And if none of them knew, then how does a novelist uncover in two weeks what none of them could?
That was seven weeks, not two. I think the title of this book points to a distinct possibility (notice the publication date--before The Jungle was published by Doubleday).

Hirschauer, Herman. Dark Side of the Beef Trust; a treatise concerning the "canner" cow, the cold-storage fowl, the diseased meats, the dopes and preservatives, and what takes place on the other side of the partitions of the packing houses while the public is being entertained by tinsel and music and a parade of prize steers. Jamestown, New York: Root, 1905.
Why doesn't Sinclair's failure to witness this himself, or to verify the claims, or to produce any official documents at all on the subject not cast doubt on the validity of his data?
Once again, proof that you don't really know what you're talking about. Sinclair did witness the conditions himself.
Sinclair Gives Proof of Meat Trust Frauds
New York Times, May 28, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

When I first went to Chicago I was as innocent about the situation in Packingtown as anybody in the country, but I lived there for seven weeks, talked with the men at night, and in the daytime they would take me around the yards and show me the places I could never have reached alone. They knew the spotters, and it was easy enough to dodge them.

Saw Some Hams Doctored.

"In Armour's establishment I saw with my own eyes the doctoring of hams that were so putrefied that I could not force myself to remain near them. The hams were on a working table, and a man with a foot pump, which worked on the principle of a gigantic hypodermic needle, filled them with a chemical which killed the odor.

"I sent President Roosevelt only a few days ago a collection of trade circulars and catalogues of packing house supply houses, which advertise, in the most bare-faced manner imaginable, all manner of preparations for the eradication of odor from spoiled meat, no matter in what stage of putrefaction. There were other advertisements of dyes, to restore natural color to meat, and of all manner of preservatives.
As for official documents, how about this?
Mr. Sinclair's Grave Charges (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/jungle_060519.html) Literary Digest 32 (May 19, 1906)
"Here are cited decisions by the food-inspecting authorities of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Indiana -- decisions adverse to the products of J. Ogden Armour, who has recently acted as public spokesman for his industry. If these offenses are all purely technical, or if the records merely show practices which are entirely proper, the consuming public certainly has a right to know it.
How about this for verification?
Sinclair Gives Proof of Meat Trust Frauds
New York Times, May 28, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

"Perhaps the best way to phrase it is to quote from the report of H. Adolph Smith, the expert, who investigated conditions in Packingtown for The London Lancet. Mr. Smith has made a lifelong study of packing houses. He wrote:

"Conditions in the Chicago Stock Yards are worthy of mediaeval barbarism, and are a disgrace to American civilization. The system of the Chicago packers is as unsanitary as it would have been if modern bacteriology had never been discovered. Packers pay no attention to the fact that meat is a perishable substance, and that such things as germs are bound to get into it. Instead they treat meat as if it was dry goods. Even when they condemn meat the inspectors have no right to see that it is destroyed, and they are barred from those portions of the packing houses where the by-products of meat are prepared--where the canning, salting, pickling, sausage making and lard rendering are done."
Maybe "admitted" wasn't the right word to have used, but Sinclair certainly never stated to have any objective evidence of his claims, just the hearsay and anecdotes from people giving him what he wanted to hear in the first place.
You're kidding me, right? You post a completely false statement ("Sinclair himself admitted that he had no real basis for his portrayals."), but it's just a "poor choice of words?" Amazing.
Originally posted by shanek
And the Neill-Reynolds report, by any skeptic's measure, is hardly a reliable confirmation. Neither Neill nor Reynolds had any experience at all with the meat-packing industry,
So they didn't know what dirt looked like? Maybe that's why they took an inspector with them:
Report on Meat Converts Cannon
New York Times
May 28, 1906
http://www.nyt.ulib.org/

When the President decided upon Messrs. Reynolds and Neill to make the investigation an effort was made to keep the matter a secret. The news, however, leaked in Chicago, and word of their coming got there before they did. This fact gave the packers considerable time to clean up. The commission spent two or three weeks in Chicago, during which time its members interviewed persons of all classes who were in the stock yards and who were engaged in the packing houses. The Commission was assisted in its work by Dr. William K. Jaques, formerly the head of the Chicago inspection service, and who was forced out of office because he insisted that his inspectors should inject kerosene into all condemned meat so as to render it unfit for food.
...and they themselves later said that they had only gone there to find fault and get ammo to get the new law passed. Why is it the only people who found all of this were the ones who wanted to, and who had a strong political motivation to find it?
Kind of like Sinclair "admitted that he had no real basis for his portrayals?" :rolleyes: The New York Times accounts of their testimony do not mention this "admission" at all. I don't believe they said it; care to provide a quote? Until you do, there is no evidence they were biased in any way.
Why is the fact that the 1906 report from the Department of Agriculture completely rebutted Sinclair's claims (at least the major ones) point by point not something that should be considered?
Where did you get this information, hmmm? Too embarrassed to post a link to another "liberty" (http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/history/ideasconse.html) site? The Department of Agriculture report certainly should be considered (and it was at the time). But your source fails to mention that the "rebuttal" was only part of the report.
President's New Report
Agricultural Department Experts Back Charges of Neill and Reynolds.
New York Times, June 9, 1906, p. 2 (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/)

The President today sent to Chairman Wadsworth the special report of Dr. John R. Mo[hl]er, the Chief of the Pathological Bureau; Rice P. Staddom, Chief Inspector in Chicago, and George P. McCabe, the Solicit[or] of the Department of Agriculture. The report is in two parts, the first being an official account of conditions as the committee saw them. The other part takes [up] statements published in various publications, medical, special, and otherwise, and gives concise comment on them.

...Accompanying the report was a letter from the President, in which he points out that there is no conflict in substance between the Neill-Reynolds report and that of the Agricultural Department experts.
And most importantly, why are you holding me to a much higher standard than you are Sinclair?

There isn't enough evidence to support the allegations in the jungle to convince anyone with even a small degree of skepticism on the matter.
I'm not holding you to a higher standard. Do I need to point out again that just because I don't believe your addlepated propaganda, doesn't mean I believe everything Sinclair wrote? This also brings us to the mother of all Libertarian fallacies, the fallacy of exclusion (http://datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm). Just because you stick your head in the sand and deny that evidence exists, doesn't make it so. You're the least qualified person on this board to determine what constitutes skepticism.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

I don't know if Sinclair or Neill/Reynolds had this information; but I found it interesting.
Brooklyn Eagle, Section:None, Page:4, Date:Tuesday, May 20, 1902
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/

Case Against the Beef Trust

The letter book of Armour & Co., the contents of which have been published and turned over to the United States District Attorney for the prosecution to begin in Chicago to-morrow, indicate that the health boards of various cities might well keep their eyes on these shippers of meats. The letters show a working agreement among the six firms involved which is practically admitted by the parties. But they also show a knowledge on the part of the principals of the shipping of tainted meats, which recalls the beef scandals of the Spanish War, precipitated by these same meat shippers. One letter concerning Utica, N. Y., stands unexampled in cool indifference to the spread of disease for the sake of profit. Armour's agent there had complained that one of the other firms in the combination had undersold the established price. The case was investigated at Chicago and the Armours assured their agent in this letter that it was all right; that the other firm did sell one lot of hams in Utica under price, but that the goods were "old and out of condition."

That admission of course has no bearing upon the hearing before the courts, but it will cause more indignation and alarm than any other revelation so far. If these great firms, which supply more than half the meat eaten in this country, have a habit of disposing of the meat which spoils and grows stale on their hands by lowering the prices and then throwing it upon the market, it is high time that health inspectors kept a sharp outlook on all of their goods which enter every city in the country. Raising prices may or may not be justified by conditions of the market, but selling tainted meat, and thus spreading disease in the community, is business only for jackals. Many people will be loath to believe the authenticity of this letter book for that reason, and if the beef furnished to soldiers under government contract had not put these big packing houses under suspicion, the disbelief would be general. Meanwhile, the legal case goes on. There seems to be little disposition to deny the fact of an agreement, but plenty of willingness to defend it on the ground that it was not such an agreement as violates the Sherman anti-trust law or comes within the purview of the national government. Whether it does or not the quality of the meat comes within the purview of everyone who buys it. This is an excellent time to reiterate the fact that much meat eating in warm weather is unhealthful, and that life is not only bearable, but may be made comfortable and even luxurious without recourse to any of the products of the Chicago or Kansas City packing houses.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Of course, you would rather concentrate on the more sensational claims made by Sinclair because it distracts from the issues which were confirmed.

Because the confirmed issues really weren't all that drastic, not like the ones people who continually bring up The Jungle make it out to be. I'm focusing on the sensational issues because they're the ones resulting in the problem.

There were several people who confirmed that people accidentally fell into rendering vats.

Which brings me back to, who were they? Who determined the cause of death? Again, you just have anecdotes with no corroborating evidence.

What wasn't proven is that the resulting lard was actually sold.

It had to have gone somewhere. Where are the remains?

Regarding rat meat:

In other words, they have absolutely no evidence that there was meat contaminated with rat meat being sold.

Regarding Sen. Crumpacker's claim: according to your (uncited) (http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/history/ideasconse.html) source, Crumpacker never claimed that "no such complaints existed," he claimed that no inspector ever came forward with any complaints.

Okay, fair enough.

No one ever claimed that the "situation" was limited to the Chicago meatpackers, so that is simply a straw man.

To my knowledge, no one accused anyone else. It was only the Chicago meatpackers that were the focus of the investigation.

There were at least two inspectors who came forward.

Again, there's no real evidence cited in those quotes. If this were such a huge and prevalent problem, why was there such a dearth of objective data available?

As for official documents, how about this?

How about this little quote from it:

As regards the charge that diseased carcasses, after being condemned for food, are ingeniously put back into the stream of food destined for the home market...there is no such official evidence. Yet the eminent citizens against whom such abominable charges are made should promptly find means for disproving them, in the courts or in some manner that will quiet the suspicions which have been generally aroused by recent publications.

First of all, note that he admits there is no evidence. He then puts the burden of proof on the accused to DISPROVE it!

And you don't have a problem with that?

How about this for verification?

How about giving me the link directly to the page you got it from?

So they didn't know what dirt looked like? Maybe that's why they took an inspector with them:

Again, hard to verify because you didn't give the direct link. But just from the part you quoted, it's just as flimsy as Bush's claims of WMDs in Iraq.

[personal abuse deleted]

The Department of Agriculture report certainly should be considered (and it was at the time). But your source fails to mention that the "rebuttal" was only part of the report.

So? It was still a rebuttal. How about posting a link to the exact page the quotes came from?

I'm not holding you to a higher standard.

It sure seems like it...You're letting Sinclair get away with a lot more than I ever have on this forum. Insisting that other people must DISPROVE his claims? Come on!

Do I need to point out again that just because I don't believe your addlepated propaganda, doesn't mean I believe everything Sinclair wrote?

When did I claim you did? Stop imagining things.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I don't know if Sinclair or Neill/Reynolds had this information; but I found it interesting.


Again, the link to the exact page you got this from would be imminently helpful.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek


What you're "missing" (even though I've stated it directly) is that there are many ways of making the behavior unprofitable that don't involve the government in any degree beyond its authority to provide a justice system and its other valid, Constitutional functions. This isn't contradictary at all. It only seems that way to you because apparently you think the only possible measure to make it unprofitable would be government regulation; correct me if I'm wrong on that.

O.k., so if I understand correctly, you're NOT saying that harmful behavior on the part of corporations is inherently unprofitable -- that is, a corporation that engages in pollution, nasty labor practices, false advertising, etc., etc., will not, ipso facto, automatically fail to compete well with others in making a profit.

You're saying that in some cases harmful behavior does hinder a company's ability to make a profit, and in these cases companies will self-regulate (i.e. with third-party certification.) In other cases, companies can profit from harmful behavior, and must be hindered from doing so. So far, we're in agreement. We disagree on whether, in these cases, government regulation is an appropriate hindering mechanism.

Do I have this right? Sorry if I sound a bit dense with all this clarification, but I want to make sure I'm responding to what you're really saying. I think some of your statements come across as more absolute than you mean them to, and I don't want to inadvertently start building a family of strawpeople.

So -- in some cases self-regulation works (when corporate interests coincide with the general welfare.) In cases where it doesn't, do I believe that government regulation is the only possible measure to take?

Well, I certainly don't believe that it's a matter of "only government regulation" or "nothing at all." I think that government regulation is an appropriate measure that should be taken in conjunction with other measures. For example, I do think that litigation has a place; I just don't see it as a substitute for government regulation, for reasons we've talked about above.

I suppose what I really believe is that corporations should be regulated by that admittedly fuzzy abstraction, "society" or "the people." A corporation's interests are not identical with the interests of society. A democratic government is a messy, unwieldy, often ineffective tool for manifesting the interests of the people, but it's the best tool we have. Unless you can show me a better way for society's interests to prevail, I'd like to see government regulation improved rather than scrapped.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
O.k., so if I understand correctly, you're NOT saying that harmful behavior on the part of corporations is inherently unprofitable -- that is, a corporation that engages in pollution, nasty labor practices, false advertising, etc., etc., will not, ipso facto, automatically fail to compete well with others in making a profit.

I'm saying that, inherently, it tends to be unprofitable.

In other cases, companies can profit from harmful behavior, and must be hindered from doing so. So far, we're in agreement. We disagree on whether, in these cases, government regulation is an appropriate hindering mechanism.

Right. And the problem there is that regulations adversely affects the companies who aren't committing the harmful behavior at all, and hence, it's an initiation of force. The only appropriate action would be against just the companies causing the harm.

A democratic government is a messy, unwieldy, often ineffective tool for manifesting the interests of the people, but it's the best tool we have.

Not at all. There are other ways, and I've mentioned them here and elsewhere.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm saying that, inherently, it tends to be unprofitable.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure what this means. Harmful behavior is more often unprofitable than unprofitable? Or often profitable in the short run but rarely in the long run? In any case, we're agreed that there are at least some cases where external controls are needed to keep people from getting hurt.


Right. And the problem there is that regulations adversely affects the companies who aren't committing the harmful behavior at all, and hence, it's an initiation of force. The only appropriate action would be against just the companies causing the harm.

I'm not sure I follow this. If you're saying that companies are already self-regulating because it's in their best interest to be, then government regulations are just telling them to do what they're already doing. I can see where there might be some hassle in terms of doing paperwork or putting up with inspections or whatever to demonstrate compliance, but other than that, wouldn't the government regulations be simply redundant rather than harmful to the company? The regulations would only be a true restraint on those companies that would otherwise not refrain from harmful practices -- and they're the ones we want to restrain.

Not at all. There are other ways, and I've mentioned them here and elsewhere.

Just checking to see if we're on the same page. You're saying that yes, corporate interest can conflict with society's interests. And yes, society's interests are more important and should prevail. But there are better ways for society to impose its will on corporations than through government. Do I have that right? If so, you've mentioned litigation in this thread (and I've mentioned some reservations about relying too heavily on litigation.) Would you point me to the threads where you mention other methods? Thanks.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
Hmm. I'm not quite sure what this means.

It's very simple. People want safe products. The market excels at giving people what they want. It's how profits are made.

Of course there are exceptions. Of course there are times when short-term interests and long-term are at odds. But I'm sorry, using those exceptions to deny that the overall effect is taking place is just plain idiotic.

In any case, we're agreed that there are at least some cases where external controls are needed to keep people from getting hurt.

And I have never denied that. In fact, numerous times have I recommended several remedies for this, none of which use the initiation of force that regulation does.

I'm not sure I follow this. If you're saying that companies are already self-regulating because it's in their best interest to be, then government regulations are just telling them to do what they're already doing.

Suppose someone forced you to watch your favorite TV show at gunpoint. Wouldn't you object to that, even though you were going to do it anyway?

Besides, they're not doing what they were already doing anyway. They now have the fantastic costs of regulatory compliance on top of that. So it's more like someone pointing a gun at you and forcing you to both watch your favorite TV show and give him your wallet.

I can see where there might be some hassle in terms of doing paperwork or putting up with inspections or whatever to demonstrate compliance,

Hassle??? These costs are greater than the total profits made by all of the corporations in America combined!!! That's NOT a mere hassle!!!

but other than that, wouldn't the government regulations be simply redundant rather than harmful to the company?

Yes...and other than the fact that you're dead, a murderer really hasn't done any harm to you.

The regulations would only be a true restraint on those companies that would otherwise not refrain from harmful practices

Except that it usually doesn't work out that way. Those companies, especially those who are politically connected, figure out a way around it anyway, only this time there's no remedy because they were in compliance with the letter of the regulations.

-- and they're the ones we want to restrain.

And they're the ones that you won't restrain.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek

It's very simple. People want safe products. The market excels at giving people what they want. It's how profits are made.

Of course there are exceptions. Of course there are times when short-term interests and long-term are at odds. But I'm sorry, using those exceptions to deny that the overall effect is taking place is just plain idiotic.



There is certainly something in this. For example, I can foresee cigarette companies going out of business eventually because public consensus is gradually turning against cigarettes due to their hazardous nature. Government efforts (ex. the surgeon general's warning) may have contributed to this effect, but were certainly not the entire cause. It may well be that over the long haul there is a natural evolution toward safer products.

A few points, here, though:

1. Government regulations don't just cover product safety. They also cover labor practices, environmental practices, advertising practices, etc. -- factors that may not be affected by the evolutionary safer-product trend.

2. We don't live in the long-term future; we live in the present. Cigarettes, for example, may naturally become obsolete, but meanwhile society has suffered from increased lung cancer, etc.

3. Corporations are geared toward short-term profit. While they may put some investment into planning for the future, most of their resources go toward getting a profit for their shareholders today. They may act on short-term interests that are at odds with the long-term interests of society (and possibly at odds with the long-term interests of the corporation as well, but today's shareholders may not care about that if they can get today's profit.)

Given these points, I still see a need for external restraints. But then, so do you, though we disagree on whether government regulation should be part of that.

And I have never denied that. In fact, numerous times have I recommended several remedies for this, none of which use the initiation of force that regulation does..

In this thread, you've mentioned litigation as a measure against companies that do not already adequately self-regulate. Are there other measures that you would recommend? If you've already addressed this in earlier threads, would you point me to them? Thanks.

(Edited to correct quote formatting)

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek


Suppose someone forced you to watch your favorite TV show at gunpoint. Wouldn't you object to that, even though you were going to do it anyway?

Besides, they're not doing what they were already doing anyway. They now have the fantastic costs of regulatory compliance on top of that. So it's more like someone pointing a gun at you and forcing you to both watch your favorite TV show and give him your wallet.

If we're going to draw an analogy between government regulation of corporations and regulation of individuals, I think we need a better analogy. I don't have a favorite TV show. ;) More to the point, my TV watching habits aren't likely to harm society.

Let's look instead at a case where my behavior actually is regulated by the government: car inspection. I don't know if they do this in your neck of the woods? In my state, drivers are required to bring their cars in for periodic safety inspections, once a year for older models, once every two years for newer cars. You can go through the state inspection center for free, or pay a private garage to do it.

Now, I'm a reasonably responsible driver, and I try to keep my car in good condition. Getting in line to get my car inspected is not my favorite use of a Saturday morning. And it's sort of superfluous in my case, since there's nothing wrong with my car for the inspectors to catch.

But I'm aware that other drivers might not be as careful about upkeep. Or might be ignorant about how to take care of their cars. Or might be really busy this year, and have just forgotten to take the car for a tune-up in the midst of whatever else is going on in their life. It's even possible that my own car might have something wrong with it that I wasn't aware of. These cars could be on the road with bad steering, crappy breaks, toxic emissions, etc., and inspection is a mechanism for catching these problems.

Giving up some time on a Saturday every year or so is a price I'm willing to pay for living in a state with safer roads. Over time, those of us who agree with that have expressed that consensus through the state government, which enforces the rule for everyone because the system only works if everyone is required to use it. If that's an "initiation of force" against the people who disagree, it's not one that I'm going to lose any sleep over.

Of course, I don't think all government regulations are this reasonable. I'm sure many corporations are burdened with unreasonable regulations -- the equivalent would be if my car failed inspection and I had to bring it back several times because the inspectors insisted on it being painted an exact shade of blue. But the existence of unreasonable government regulations doesn't mean that government regulation is unreasonable by definition.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek

Hassle??? These costs are greater than the total profits made by all of the corporations in America combined!!! That's NOT a mere hassle!!!

As your OP points out, government regulation does indeed cost a chunk o' change, and is more of a burden to corporations than I was acknowledging -- I stand corrected.

In and of itself, though, that's not a reason to scrap government regulation of corporations altogether unless it can also be demonstrated that:

1. Requiring corporations to pay these costs is harmful to society.

2. The high cost is inevitable, and due to the fact of government regulation per se, rather than to potentially solvable problems with the way regulation is currently applied.

3. The harm to society that is caused by corporations having to pay these costs outweighs the damage that unregulated companies would do to society through harmful practices.


Except that it usually doesn't work out that way. Those companies, especially those who are politically connected, figure out a way around it anyway. . ..

I agree that corporate-political cronyism is a major problem.


. . .only this time there's no remedy because they were in compliance with the letter of the regulations.

Isn't this where litigation would come in? Ex. there might not be any regulation preventing pet store owners from selling tiger cubs. But the court might find that the pet store owner had a responsibility to warn Mrs. Jones that the cuddly kitten she was buying was going to get a lot bigger, and is therefore responsible for her hospital bills.

And they're the ones that you won't restrain.

I assume you mean here that these corporations are the ones that cannot be restrained through government regulation (not that some corporations cannot be restrained from harmful practices at all?)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
There is certainly something in this. For example, I can foresee cigarette companies going out of business eventually because public consensus is gradually turning against cigarettes due to their hazardous nature.

And note that, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the tobacco companies have done everything they can to make cigarettes as safe as possible. And that was before all of the surgeon general's warnings. The only way they could make them any safer is to remove the nicotine, which is the very reason people want the cigarettes in the first place.

1. Government regulations don't just cover product safety. They also cover labor practices, environmental practices, advertising practices, etc. -- factors that may not be affected by the evolutionary safer-product trend.

Why not? The motive is still there in all of these areas.

2. We don't live in the long-term future; we live in the present.

But the companies who only think in the short term tend to go out of business rather quickly. The ones who think long term tend to last. So there's a sort of Darwinian selection at work here.

3. Corporations are geared toward short-term profit.

That is just absolutely not true.

In this thread, you've mentioned litigation as a measure against companies that do not already adequately self-regulate. Are there other measures that you would recommend?

Sure. Tons of them. And they run the gamut from voluntary insurance, to private standards bodies such as UL, to sales of credits.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
More to the point, my TV watching habits aren't likely to harm society.

There are those who would disagree with that. And make no mistake: Your TV viewing IS regulated.

Let's look instead at a case where my behavior actually is regulated by the government: car inspection. I don't know if they do this in your neck of the woods?

They do in NC. They stopped it in SC several years ago, and have suffered no ill effects due to the loss of vehicle inspections. Not cars blowing up at gas stations, not accidents due to failed steering, not excess pollution due to vehicle emissions...None of these have increased since SC stopped vehicle inspections.

They're a money-making scam for the state. Nothing more.

Giving up some time on a Saturday every year or so is a price I'm willing to pay for living in a state with safer roads.

But your roads really aren't any safer. There's no evidence at all that vehicle inspections increase safety.

The free market, on the other hand, has made cars safer and with cleaner emissions. And before you credit government regulation with this, ask yourself why they're making cars safer and cleaner when they're already exceeding government requirements.

Over time, those of us who agree with that have expressed that consensus through the state government, which enforces the rule for everyone because the system only works if everyone is required to use it.

It doesn't even work then.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
1. Requiring corporations to pay these costs is harmful to society.

How could it not be? That is money taken out of the economy that would normally be used to create wealth at a greater rate than the market is already doing.

2. The high cost is inevitable,

How is it not? When you give government the power to use force in one area, it always expands it way beyond anything anyone ever intended originally. That's why government must be restrained by the Constitution. The temptation to just take more power and money for itself is just too great.

I've never understood why some people go on and on about evil corporations taking money and power, when there are many limiting factors that inhibit this, but don't seem to mind government taking money and power, when there are almost no limiting factors whatsoever.

3. The harm to society that is caused by corporations having to pay these costs outweighs the damage that unregulated companies would do to society through harmful practices.

Considering that every objective measure shows that these harmful practices are overblown at best, I'd say that's a given. But you're also ignoring the fact that there are other ways of dealing with those who do commit these harmful practices without adversely affecting those who don't.

Isn't this where litigation would come in?

A lot of companies have avoided litigation by showing they were incompliance with the letter of the regulations.

I assume you mean here that these corporations are the ones that cannot be restrained through government regulation (not that some corporations cannot be restrained from harmful practices at all?)

Correct.

[Selvedge]

Hey ShaneK,

Looks like it's down to you & me on this thread. Perhaps the others left in disgust after the rat meat discussion. ;)

We've generated enough talking points for about six new threads! I have limited time for posting, and I can't keep up with you on all the points that have come up. So I'm going to bow out now, and switch over to some of the other threads where I can talk less, listen more, and get a wider range of viewpoints.

I'm sure many of the points we've raised here will come up in other threads, and I'll look forward to reading your posts there. I've appreciated your responses to my questions. I'm getting a better understanding of your point of view, and you've given me some interesting things to think about. See you 'round the board!

--Selvedge

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
We've generated enough talking points for about six new threads! I have limited time for posting, and I can't keep up with you on all the points that have come up. So I'm going to bow out now, and switch over to some of the other threads where I can talk less, listen more, and get a wider range of viewpoints.

I understand. That's why I've tried to create separate threads for each of these so we can focus on them. Unfortunately, we just end up going right back to the same situation because many people don't seem to want to discuss these fundamental points.

Take the threads I started on the cost of regulation, like this one. Whenever we discuss a regulation, I bring up the extraordinary costs of regulatory compliance. We get into a discussion about that, and people want evidence, etc., and the best thing to do is start a new thread talking about the costs of regulatory compliance. But whenever I do, people insist on taking the thread back to discussing particular regulations! We've been discussing The Jungle, auto safety regulations, etc., and hardly anything at all about the actual costs of regulation! It drives me crazy sometimes...

I'm sure many of the points we've raised here will come up in other threads, and I'll look forward to reading your posts there. I've appreciated your responses to my questions. I'm getting a better understanding of your point of view, and you've given me some interesting things to think about. See you 'round the board!

Thank you for the kind words.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek

Because the confirmed issues really weren't all that drastic,
Like I said, revisionist history and sticking your head in the sand regarding contrary evidence. You can read some of the text of the Neill-Reynolds report in the June 5, 1906 issue of the NY Times (http://www.nyt.ulib.org/). It's pretty gross; unless you happen to have a taste for meat shoveled around on dirty floors which tubercular workers have been expectorating on.
In other words, they have absolutely no evidence that there was meat contaminated with rat meat being sold.

Wrong. They couldn't analyze the product for evidence, but they have the testimony of the employees and inspectors.
Again, there's no real evidence cited in those quotes. If this were such a huge and prevalent problem, why was there such a dearth of objective data available?
No real evidence? The testimony of inspectors regarding the practices of the packers isn't evidence?

How about this little quote from it:

First of all, note that he admits there is no evidence. He then puts the burden of proof on the accused to DISPROVE it!

And you don't have a problem with that?

No, he says that he has no official documents on that issue. That is where the testimony of the inspectors and employees comes in. Try to keep your eyes on the big picture here. Sure I have a problem with Sinclair trying to shift the burden of proof. More on this below.

How about giving me the link directly to the page you got it from?

I was looking through alot of issues of the Times and didn't keep track of links; but since the only way to access the issues is by typing in a date, I figured even a trained monkey would be capable of simply typing one in.
Again, hard to verify because you didn't give the direct link. But just from the part you quoted, it's just as flimsy as Bush's claims of WMDs in Iraq.

[personal abuse deleted]

Of course, it's very hard to believe that the packers, knowing that a government commission was on the way, would scramble to clean up. :rolleyes:
The Packinghouse Investigations (http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/jungle/jungle_060616a.html)
On Monday I began a tour of all the great packing houses, going first to Libby's, then Swift's. Tuesday all the morning discussed changes that ought to be made and caught a glimpse of the awakening at Armour's. In the afternoon visited the plant with the superintendent. Wednesday I rested and contemplated the awakening of Packingtown. It is miraculous. Thursday did Nelson Morris's with the superintendent.... Nelson Morris has done much to make things better. By the time the next inspecting party arrives they will have more new lavatories, toilet rooms, dressing rooms, etc. Cuspidors everywhere, and signs prohibiting spitting. In most the awakening seemed to come by force from without. There was the slightest indication that the "still small voice" was at work also. I made no pretense of making an investigation, but frankly announced my desire to see things for myself, and to get a fresh impression of conditions, as I had not seen the plants since before the strike. On every hand there was indication of an almost humorous haste to clean up, repave and even to plan for future changes. Brand-new toilet rooms, new dressing rooms, new towels, etc. Swift's and Armour's were both so cleaned up that I was compelled to cheer them on their way by expressing my pleasure at the changes.
...The haste toward reform would have been amusing if it were not so nearly tragic.
So? It was still a rebuttal. How about posting a link to the exact page the quotes came from?
It rebutted some of Sinclair's charges; and of course you just zoomed by the "Agricultural Department Experts Back Charges of Neill and Reynolds" part.
It sure seems like it...You're letting Sinclair get away with a lot more than I ever have on this forum.
I realize you're in deep denial on this subject, but I've been quoting Sinclair simply to rebut your false claims about what Sinclair said and did. At no point have I said how much of Sinclair's charges I believe. I think the situation was probably a bit worse than the Neill-Reynolds report indicates, because the packers had time to clean up somewhat. I agree completely with Sinclair's statement that "One-hundredth part of what I have charged ought, if it is true, to send the guilty man to the gallows."
Insisting that other people must DISPROVE his claims? Come on!
I have never insisted this, ergo, you are a liar. The case against the meat industry of that era has already been proven; pick up any high school level textbook on the subject and you'll find this out. Most of Sinclair's charges were verified (except for the more sensational ones, as I have repeatedly pointed out), as was the Neill-Reynolds report. The fact that I can't link to the evidence that you require is irrelevant. You seem to be under the misapprehension that everything ever written on the subject is available on the web. This is far from true; fortunately, there's been enough to prove most of your statements wrong.

As a revisionist, you need to prove that the accepted version of history is wrong. You know, like the moon hoax people. Good luck with that.
Originally posted by shanek
Again, the link to the exact page you got this from would be imminently helpful.
That site doesn't allow linking directly to articles. Maybe it's time to invest in a trained monkey.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Wrong. They couldn't analyze the product for evidence, but they have the testimony of the employees and inspectors.

No real evidence? The testimony of inspectors regarding the practices of the packers isn't evidence?

Not without corroborating evidence, no, it isn't. There's plenty of testimony about alien abductions.

I was looking through alot of issues of the Times and didn't keep track of links; but since the only way to access the issues is by typing in a date, I figured even a trained monkey would be capable of simply typing one in.

And yet, it's that hard for you to do so and just post the links here? All this "trained money" can find are barely legible scans of the page with large black lines going through them. Nothing I can easily read without severe eye strain.

And I seem to remember you complaining about a source of mine being too difficult to get when I linked right to the abstract of it...

Of course, it's very hard to believe that the packers, knowing that a government commission was on the way, would scramble to clean up. :rolleyes:

And this is supposed to be evidence?

I have never insisted this, ergo, you are a liar.

Sinclair had insisted it, and it's obvious that's whom I was referring to. Stop trying to win cheap points.

pick up any high school level textbook on the subject and you'll find this out.

Oh, and we all know how reliable those are (http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html)...

The fact that I can't link to the evidence that you require is irrelevant.

But in other cases you've at least given me enough that I can find it on my own.