Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
There is no "best available", and no "subject to cost" criterion. Its just "use this specific technology", which was state of the art at the time the regs were written in the late 60's. The reason might have been that railroads were viewed as a mature industry, not likely to experience technical change.

And that was written into _primary_ legislation with all the detail?

Addendum: Just took a look at our legislation, there is just one paragraph of parliamentary legislation referring to safety and available technolgy. The details are in a 25 para regulation that only relates to a few specific technical standards.

Is there a reason for Congress to mandate the use of specific technolgies? Someone's pork in that?

[Ned]

Kid, we all know that Lincoln declared slavery to be a "moral" wrong. Today, it is the religious right that declares "abortion" to be a moral wrong. Yesterday, it was these same people who declared communism to be a moral wrong. Democrats, in contrast, are hard put to say why communism is wrong other that it is unreasonable.

On this issue, there is no difference between the religious right of today and of that day.

On the issue of using government to promote business, this was the Whig platform. Here is a snippet from 1840,

"The young Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois state legislator, traveled widely in the state while campaigning for Harrison. The campaign of 1840 introduced what historians call the United States' "Second Party System." The Whig Party emerged in that year as a viable opponent to the followers of Andrew Jackson who had coalesced into the Democratic Party. Where Democrats often advocated a laissez-faire, or "let alone" policy in economic and social life, Whigs actively sought to use government policy to promote economic development and moral improvement. Where Democrats identified themselves as a "white man's party," some local Whig organizations permitted women, who could not vote, to take part in other campaign activities. A few influential northern Whigs came to entertain the idea of abolishing African-American slavery as well."

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/gal/chs30537.html

Compare the policies of the Whigs and modern Republican Party on business and morality. They are IDENTCAL!

Compare the policy of the Democrats on moral issues and society: Hands OFF! They are the same today.

Only on the issue of "laissez-faire" has the Democrat Party changed, although, IMO, Bill Clinton was a "laissez-faire" Democrat. Clearly, Dean is not. But the hallmark of the Democrat Party of today is that it is anti-business.

The core values of the Republican Party are unchanged. If Lincoln was a liberal, then today's Republicans are liberals.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Where Democrats often advocated a laissez-faire, or "let alone" policy in economic and social life, Whigs actively sought to use government policy to promote economic development and moral improvement. Where Democrats identified themselves as a "white man's party," some local Whig organizations permitted women, who could not vote, to take part in other campaign activities. A few influential northern Whigs came to entertain the idea of abolishing African-American slavery as well

Originally posted by Ned
Compare the policies of the Whigs and modern Republican Party on business and morality. They are IDENTCAL!

No, the Democrats then are identical to the Republicans today. That's what the first quote says Neddy.

[Ned]

Kid, either you have a serious screw loose, or you know nothing about the Republican party. I assume the latter.

Lincoln and the Republicans used the government to build the intercontinental RR system. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. Republicans are always trying to reduce regulation and to structure tax policy to promote business. How can you not say the Republicans are not pro-businsess.

Think of Arnold Schwarzennegger's campaign. It sound the clarion cry of bring a good business climate back to Kalifornia. He is a Republican. He is pro-business. As was Lincoln.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, either you have a serious screw loose, or you know nothing about the Republican party. I assume the latter.

I know they are conservative. The Democrats were conservative before the New Deal and Lincoln was liberal (compared to the Democrats anyway).

[Ned]

Kid, finally we agree. It is the Democrats that have changed. The Repubs are essentially the same party.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, finally we agree. It is the Democrats that have changed. The Repubs are essentially the same party.

The Democratic Party abondoned the Southern Democrats. The Southern Democrats became part of the Republican Party, because the Republicans became pro-business. It's a combination of the Republicans becoming pro-business and the Southern Democrats joining their ranks that created the modern Republicans. The certainly did change.

[Ned]

Kid, the Republican Party has historically been pro-business. This is not something new.

Southern Democrats have historically been the main proponents of America's manifest destiny and have always been inclined to a strong, pro American foreign-policy. The Republican Party historically was quite isolationist, hewing to the advice of George Washington to stay out of European politics. That changed somewhat with the election of Eisenhower and changed more with the election of Richard Nixon. But the wholesale abandonment of the Democratic Party by Southern Democrats came with a Democrat nomination of George McGovern in 1972. Very few Southern Democrats can stomach appeasers.

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Depends on whether "available" includes an economic criterion. It usually does.

And what I'm telling you is that from personal experience in the FDA GMP area, I've seen it lead to occasional platinum plating. That doesn't have to happen. But it may.

I'm unfamiliar with regs that have an economic spec written in. Certainly not one that is numeric.

In the end, best available comes down to judegement calls and you get "clarification memos" and such as well as just having to take some chances with inspectors.

It's not awful. But not perfect. And one way that it can have issues is from platinum-plating. Some vendor comes out with a platinum-plated solution to replace the old gold-plated one. You laugh and blow it off. But then some really rich competitor decides to buy it. And before you know it, it is GMP. And you are doing it to.

Now of course, it is good that the industry becomes better with time. But it can lead to overkill. And it happens in the manner, I described.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I consider it sort of funny that someone who says 'know your history' on Lincoln and the Republican Party (basically) doesn't realize that Lincoln and the early Republican Party were BIG supporters of massive business subsidies and were generally viewed as the pro-business party (which is why the Democrats were considered the party of the common man).

[Ramo]

Ramo, The right favor's slavery?

Some of the right does, yes.

The religious right is the party that ended it in England and the United States.

1. The liberal party in England (the Whigs) abolished slavery while the conservative party (the Tories) opposed abolition of slavery.
2. In 1860, the Republicans were better descriged as the liberal party. In 1860, what liberalism stood for are the interests of big industry, while what conservatism stood for big agriculture.

Recall that it is you Democrats that were the party of slavery, for slavery and upon slavery.

1. I'm certainly not a (big-d) Democrat.
2. Democrat is not the same as leftist.
3. The Democratic party of 1860 is totally different from the Democratic party of 2003.

3. You have never done anything meaningful to stop it.

That's because you're deluded. Maybe in Ned-land, the left has nothing to do with opposition to slavery, but back in planet earth that isn't the case.

I pointed out exactly what one [center-]leftist (Dean) would do to stop slavery; leverage trading rights over other states to pressure them into implementing minimal labor standards. You haven't pointed out exactly how Shrub's speech is anything but insubstantial blather, and nor have you explained his friendliness to regimes that support forms of slavery.

Even today, you keep the black man is a new form of separate but equal called the welfare state where they can stay in their ghetto permanetly, supported by welfare.

1. Yes, me and my support of a massive welfare state. Do you ever read what I post, or do you automatically assume that I have the same opinion as your stereotypical leftist?
2. Do you honestly believe that social welfare keeps people from leaving ghettos and getting 6 figure jobs? I take it you've never had gov't assistance in doing anything? Or maybe, daddy was able to take care of everything?

Get a clue.

The funds I'm referring to are soft, very soft, money. The average donor size has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. There are several large funds not explicitly associated with the Democratic party, but for practical purposes dedicated to that cause. They have sprung up just this year to get around campaing finacne reform. This was a well-reported story. Get with the picture.

The Dean campaign isn't funded right now by soft money. It's picked up momentum because it has such broad support among ordinary people who are willing to shell out what little they can afford. The candidate wasn't hand-picked by the DLC and wall street. Dean has proven that a democratic campaign is workable, and his election will encourage more of the same.

And while soft money will certainly play a part by Dean (if he wins) in the general election, but that won't be the case after more stringent campaign finance laws.

And get a new catch phrase.

[Ramo]

(which is why the Democrats were considered the party of the common man).

It's not as clear cut as that. The common man lumped themselves with the Democratic party (i.e. the party of the plantation aristocrat) because they weren't politically strong enough to have an anti-protectionistic agenda advanced independently. The pattern often repeats itself with peasants and small farmers siding politically with large landlords.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by TCO

And what I'm telling you is that from personal experience in the FDA GMP area, I've seen it lead to occasional platinum plating. That doesn't have to happen. But it may.

And all I said is that BAT is overall better than a technology mandated by statute. I know that you disagree with me as a matter of principle, but saying that BAT is flexible and does not always lead to perfect results is kicking in an open door.

"I'm unfamiliar with regs that have an economic spec written in. Certainly not one that is numeric."

Of course it's not numeric. Yet BAT usually includes an economic element. Where I'm currently working, IPPC law, the definitiion is technologies "developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, (...), as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator."

"In the end, best available comes down to judegement calls and you get "clarification memos" and such"

Of course you need guidelines or even secondary legislation to get that broad fluffy outline applicable.

"It's not awful. But not perfect."

And what's perfect?

"But then some really rich competitor decides to buy it. And before you know it, it is GMP. And you are doing it to."

You always have early adoptors. Doesn't change the standard.

[Ned]

Ramo, welfare doesn't keep the enterpising black from leaving the ghetto any more that Indian "welfare" doesn't keep the Indian on the reservation. However, the vast majority still stay on the reservation because they have no need to leave it.

Also, it is the liberals who oppose vouchers, the only chance many blacks have of getting a better education. The liberals insist on keeping the blacks confined in the failed ghetto schools while they send their elitist kids to expensive private schools.

On liberal-conservative, these change over time depending on who is defending the status quo. However, the label "conservative" has been today affixed to the Republican Party even though its core principles are the same as they were in the days of Lincoln. However, today's liberals have nothing in common with Lincoln.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

However, the label "conservative" has been today affixed to the Republican Party even though its core principles are the same as they were in the days of Lincoln. However, today's liberals have nothing in common with Lincoln.

Hmm thats strange. I guess thats why they opposed desegregation, oppose large numbers of immigrants, and has more racists voting for it and who are in it than any other political party.

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


And all I said is that BAT is overall better than a technology mandated by statute. I know that you disagree with me as a matter of principle, but saying that BAT is flexible and does not always lead to perfect results is kicking in an open door.

"I'm unfamiliar with regs that have an economic spec written in. Certainly not one that is numeric."

Of course it's not numeric. Yet BAT usually includes an economic element. Where I'm currently working, IPPC law, the definitiion is technologies "developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, (...), as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator."

"In the end, best available comes down to judegement calls and you get "clarification memos" and such"

Of course you need guidelines or even secondary legislation to get that broad fluffy outline applicable.

"It's not awful. But not perfect."

And what's perfect?

"But then some really rich competitor decides to buy it. And before you know it, it is GMP. And you are doing it to."

You always have early adoptors. Doesn't change the standard.

BAT may be generally better. (I don't know whether it's "always better" or not. Obviously if it has a downside, there is a possbility that there may be times when that downside outweighs other downsides.) In any case, it is useful to know the way it has flaws.

[TCO]

Another downside is that if you have BAT, you will probably need more and better skilled regulators to judge the situation. Since it is not a pass-fail inspection. I'm sure it costs more to pay for an FDA inspector who walks through a plant and makes a sophisticate judgement than it does for a grunt who looks at vacuum tube wattages.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo

The Dean campaign isn't funded right now by soft money. It's picked up momentum because it has such broad support among ordinary people who are willing to shell out what little they can afford. The candidate wasn't hand-picked by the DLC and wall street. Dean has proven that a democratic campaign is workable, and his election will encourage more of the same.

I never said it was. I referred clearly to the soft money.

And while soft money will certainly play a part by Dean (if he wins) in the general election,

Yes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Hmm thats strange. I guess thats why they opposed desegregation, oppose large numbers of immigrants, and has more racists voting for it and who are in it than any other political party.

I see. Another victim of Democrat propaganda.

I reported earlier that Affirmative action with quota's and timetables was a Nixon program. The Republicans were key to passing both Civil Rights acts. Eisenhower sent in the troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

The opposition to illegal immigration is due to the strain the immigrants cause on the state budgets and because illegal aliens use mandated government services but do not pay taxes. Business are generally in favor of more legal immigration so that they can hire skilled workers. It is the UNIONS who oppose immigration because they represent wage competition.

So, take your proganda and go to hell.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo

And get a new catch phrase.

Do you have a creative suggestion? And at least you seem to sense that when I chide you it is a whole different thing then when I mess with Sava or the like. This seems appropriate for a calc-whiz broken-kneed ex-wrestler. And...I mean you, not me!

[JohnT]

You tell 'em, Ned!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ned


I see. Another victim of Democrat propaganda.

I reported earlier that Affirmative action with quota's and timetables was a Nixon program. The Republicans were key to passing both Civil Rights acts. Eisenhower sent in the troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

The opposition to illegal immigration is due to the strain the immigrants cause on the state budgets and because illegal aliens use mandated government services but do not pay taxes. Business are generally in favor of more legal immigration so that they can hire skilled workers. It is the UNIONS who oppose immigration because they represent wage competition.

So, take your proganda and go to hell.

Of interest, the WSJ is in favor of an expanded bracero program.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Republicans are always trying to reduce regulation and to structure tax policy to promote business.

Three words.

Roosevelt and Taft.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ohhh yeaaahhh!.... Taft takin' out the garbage, and bustin' them trusts...

Who is the man who's always in demand?

TAFT!

Yeah, he's one bad mutha -

Shut your mouth!

What? I'm just talkin' bout Taft...

[chequita guevara]

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Three words.

Roosevelt and Taft.

Trust-Buster Extrordinares.

Ned, you are an idiot if you don't think the modern GOP is very differnent creature then it was originally.

[DanS]

It's amazing where this thread has gone. I just started it in order to make fun of Dean.

AS: Isn't that stuff about vacuum tubes and the like written into the regs, not the actual law?

Roosevelt and Taft."

Remember that Taft was also called "Mr. Conservative." There's nothing incompatible between conservativism and trust-busting. Trusts reduce competition, which in the long run is bad for business.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Three words.

Roosevelt and Taft.

Yes. But the abuses of monopoly power had become quite apparent to all. Action was required.

I am a Republican, but I fully support the anti-trust laws and believe the breakup of Standard Oil was right. Ditto AT&T. Ditto Microsoft.

Why?

Because I believe competition is the soul of productivity and innovation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Trust-Buster Extrordinares.

Ned, you are an idiot if you don't think the modern GOP is very differnent creature then it was originally.

The core values remain. The Republican party is pro-business and also includes the religious right who then, and now, viewed slavery as an abomination. Did you hear Bush's last speech to the UN on this topic?

Lincoln built the intercontinental railways. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system.

How, may I ask, is the Republican party different today from the party it was then?

[Ramo]

Ramo, welfare doesn't keep the enterpising black from leaving the ghetto any more that Indian "welfare" doesn't keep the Indian on the reservation. However, the vast majority still stay on the reservation because they have no need to leave it.

Also, it is the liberals who oppose vouchers, the only chance many blacks have of getting a better education. The liberals insist on keeping the blacks confined in the failed ghetto schools while they send their elitist kids to expensive private schools.

Of course, the voucher plans conservatives support tend not to give the poor enough money to actually pay for a private education, and thus would deprive the poor of even more public funding.

On liberal-conservative, these change over time depending on who is defending the status quo. However, the label "conservative" has been today affixed to the Republican Party even though its core principles are the same as they were in the days of Lincoln.

Ah yes, Lincoln's principles. You mean the principles that the military should break strikes, that the state should redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, that poor farmers should be ****ed over, and that blacks are inferior to whites and that they should be deprived of true liberty? Yes, I agree; the Republicans do subscribe to these priciples.

However, today's liberals have nothing in common with Lincoln.

Unfortunately that's not the case.