FDA to Crack Down on Alcoholic Energy Drinks

Coincidentally enough, I just started reading Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's "Winner Take-All Politics." I took quick photos of the three pages I just read, as they bear a ton of relevance to the discussion of market and governments (and they summarize the perspective I have, saving me a lot of the time of typing).

Photo%20Nov%2023%2C%201%2003%2022%20AM.jpg
Photo%20Nov%2023%2C%201%2003%2042%20AM.jpg
Photo%20Nov%2023%2C%201%2004%2005%20AM.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-A...tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1290492507&sr=8-1

Also, while I haven't deeply read this thread, I did notice that Liberty1 would like to see a return to 19th century capitalism. We do recall how that ended, yes?

nobody_knows_you.jpg

EDIT: Well that's odd; they're properly oriented in Finder, yet on DB they're rotated 90º counter-clockwise. Eh, going to bed, will fix in the morning I suppose.
 
Would you be comfortable working for a company that could fire you for any reason? Let's say shoddy maintenance on a blast furnace leaves you without an arm. Now, you could get compensated for your loss. Pre-1900, you were told to take a hike.
Click to expand...
That is a companies right, as far as I'm concerned. Today, people have come to expect certain benefits from their employers, so I'm a believer that many companies would still provide insurance for disability, unemployment and so on.

Would you feel comfortable if your black neighbor was hung from a tree while his house burned just because a white man accused him of a crime? How about if your neighbor beat his wife so badly she went blind and miscarried? It wasn't legal two centuries ago but it definitely wasn't prosecuted like it is today. Maybe you'd be OK if companies continued to dump toxic sludge into our drinking water. We can always find other sources right?
Click to expand...
I never claimed that everything was perfect at the times. And all of these things are considered crimes under libertarianism, unless the company owned EVERYTHING it contaminated.

Also, while I haven't deeply read this thread, I did notice that Liberty1 would like to see a return to 19th century capitalism. We do recall how that ended, yes?
Click to expand...
That is a misconception created by the liberal interpretation of history. Herbert Hoover was an interventionalist, not a capitalist. The Great Depression was caused by the government trying to control the economy thus creating a bubble of over investment. The government did the same thing it did then as it does now, and that was try to spend its way out of the depression. This just makes it worse. A recession is the free markets way of discarding malinvestment, increased spending does not allow the free market to fix itself. The government spent money at record levels from the onset of the depression in the early 30s into and past WW2. Yet, the depression still lasted nearly 10 years.

America actually suffered through several recessions before the Great Depression. The government did little to nothing to intervene and fix them, the recessions fixed themselves.

The Great Depression was the great American experiment in interventionalist policies in the economy. As far as I'm concerned, this was also the greatest deception the government ever pulled off, that it was in fact the free market, and not the government itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F.A. Hayek received a Nobel prize in economics for his work on miscalculations that can be caused by government intervention in the 1970s. He has been buried and forgotten by mainstream Keynesian economists ever since.

Sooner or later, you will realize that your "God given" right to do whatever the fuck you want does NOT trump everyone else's right to co-exist on this green Earth.
Click to expand...
I do believe that we have the right do whatever the f we want, as long as it dosen't harm anyone else or their property, pollution does often damage private property but the government has never enforced it because it dosen't give an f about private property. BP should be held completely liable for private property damages.

You cling to the Constitution but you forget the most basic lesson from the Revolutionary War. "United we stand. Divided we fall." Look up Patrick Henry and get back to me whether pure Libertarianism = Founding Father's Principles.
Click to expand...
I do not cling to the Constitution. It is a broken piece of paper that has been stomped on and danced around. Any libertarian that still clings to the Constitution needs to rethink their faith.

I do believe that our country was much more attractive for businesses in the pre-1900s, which caused much of the economic prosperity that we enjoy today. Companies moved here, not moved away like they do today. Driving off businesses with taxes certainly dosen't help our situation.

Yes, there was inequality and the government did it's experiments in creating an overseas empire, among other things. It wasn't perfect.

As for Patrick Henry, I'm fond of him because he was Anti-Federalist and a radical that helped spur on the revolution. I honestly don't know that much about him, though. Will do some more research, I believe I even have a book on him around here somewhere.

I don't desire to go back in a time machine or anything. I'm just fond of the hands-off approach to the economy that the government practiced at the time. It encouraged entrepreneurship and innovation much more than our economy does today. The federal budget was a drop in the bucket compared to now. But, I do not pretend that I would want to live back then. I'm too fond of technology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Liberty1']That is a companies right, as far as I'm concerned. Today, people have come to expect certain benefits from their employers, so I'm a believer that many companies would still provide insurance for disability, unemployment and so on.[/QUOTE]

You're kidding me right? Companies didn't provide any of that until they were forced to. What makes you think that any of the big corporations would provide them if they didn't have to?
 
[quote name='Liberty1']That is a misconception created by the liberal interpretation of history. Herbert Hoover was an interventionalist, not a capitalist. The Great Depression was caused by the government trying to control the economy thus creating a bubble of over investment. The government did the same thing it did then as it does now, and that was try to spend its way out of the depression. This just makes it worse. A recession is the free markets way of discarding malinvestment, increased spending does not allow the free market to fix itself. The government spent money at record levels from the onset of the depression in the early 30s into and past WW2. Yet, the depression still lasted nearly 10 years.[/QUOTE]

You're starting with the premise that there is a 'market' that exists wholly independent - that ever did or ever could exist wholly independent - of government. Which is the single greatest logical fallacy of any extreme libertarians (that the 'market' is a 'natural phenomenon' which is only hindered by a government's involvement, say, in enforcing parties abide by contracts).
 
I had some jager & red bull at the bar on saturday after the san jose sharks game. i was hungover on sunday... probably should ban them (the drink, not the sharks).
 
again, that's philosophy, and not empiricism. you type in broad strokes about ideals that have never existed because they never could exist.

to wit: you and I enter into a business contract, wherein i order 10,000 widgets from you at $1/piece. They cost you $0.45/piece to manufacture, exhausting your supply of capital to fund other projects. You deliver said widgets to me, and I tell you I won't pay more than $0.50/piece for them. You say "we had a contract!" to which I reply "who's going to enforce it?"
...now, you have to replenish your capital by selling them to me, or sit on them, hoping some third party is interested in buying all of the widgets at a price between $0.50 and $1.00 per. If you don't sell them, you're fucked - you can't pay your employees or yourself in widgets. If you sell them to me, you're fucked, because your net gain is so minimal that pay cuts for workers have to go somewhere. So who takes the cuts? Everybody?

...too bad; the pay cuts have now caused your workers to go on strike and demand their wages as well as the ability to unionize. How now brown cow?

EDIT: Anybody wanna design a video game with me? SimLibertarian? The Randian Trail? Sid Meier's The Fountainhead?
 
I don't disagree that contracts have to be enforced. I really think this could fix itself, however, because once the company breaks one contract, who is really going to enter into the next contract with the company?

Yes, one company was hurt, but the offending company will be hurt in the long run, and many other companies would question breaking a contract themselves, when the original perpetrator can't get widgets at all anymore.
 
Also, suppose the company that was hurt in this launches a publicity campaign and the offending company loses all of it's customers.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I'm sure he probably did have slaves. It's nice to know that that is apparently the one and only thing that mattered.[/QUOTE]

Tell me more about how the free market ended slavery in those glorious days of liberty.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I don't disagree that contracts have to be enforced. I really think this could fix itself, however, because once the company breaks one contract, who is really going to enter into the next contract with the company?

Yes, one company was hurt, but the offending company will be hurt in the long run, and many other companies would question breaking a contract themselves, when the original perpetrator can't get widgets at all anymore.[/QUOTE]

This is a big country, son, and I can change my name...and even grow a moustache!, wear a different hat, and take advantage of someone somewhere else.

I'm trying to be patient and polite with you (two things I'm not at all known for), but you're effectively saying there's no such thing as confidence artists, or, rather, that confidence artists exist when there are laws against them (currently), but when there are no laws against them, they will cease to exist because of the market. There's no logic there, just...well, faith, really.

[quote name='Strell']Super Ronpaulio Bros?[/QUOTE]

Sonic the Rugged Individualist.

[quote name='Liberty1']Also, suppose the company that was hurt in this launches a publicity campaign and the offending company loses all of it's customers.[/QUOTE]

Astroturf. What, you think that the truth of the world exists out there in the news? It would be a he-said/she-said story, and if you have no money to pay your employees, you certainly can't finance a fine narrative. Let me ask you this: who do you think is most responsible for the expiry of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year? Think about your answer, and you should, I hope, discover that a mere 'campaign' against my widget-exploitation is going to be a failure.

For other examples of recent astroturfing, see "Americans for Prosperity," "The US Chamber of Commerce," and http://stopgrocerytaxes.com/ (which is a HFCS tax, but you won't see that mentioned anywhere on the site).

You have the truth? We got stories. You're no match for that. Think of how much airtime was devoted to Obama's spending $200 million per day when he visited India recently.
 
This is a big country, son, and I can change my name...and even grow a moustache!, wear a different hat, and take advantage of someone somewhere else.

I'm trying to be patient and polite with you (two things I'm not at all known for), but you're effectively saying there's no such thing as confidence artists, or, rather, that confidence artists exist when there are laws against them (currently), but when there are no laws against them, they will cease to exist because of the market. There's no logic there, just...well, faith, really.
Click to expand...
There will always be some rogues that try to ruin things for everybody else for their own gain. I'm not sure that I believe that it would be significant enough to be that much of a threat, but I'm pondering it. You have a point though.


Astroturf. What, you think that the truth of the world exists out there in the news? It would be a he-said/she-said story, and if you have no money to pay your employees, you certainly can't finance a fine narrative. Let me ask you this: who do you think is most responsible for the expiry of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year? Think about your answer, and you should, I hope, discover that a mere 'campaign' against my widget-exploitation is going to be a failure.

For other examples of recent astroturfing, see "Americans for Prosperity," "The US Chamber of Commerce," and http://stopgrocerytaxes.com/ (which is a HFCS tax, but you won't see that mentioned anywhere on the site).

You have the truth? We got stories. You're no match for that. Think of how much airtime was devoted to Obama's spending $200 million per day when he visited India recently.
Click to expand...
I really have little to no answers here, let me just say that you are a very intelligent person with some valid criticisms.

And that stopgrocerytaxes.com is some propaganda bullshit, lol.

I'm not pondering my faith in the free market, but rather, if it could function on it's own or not without some government to protect it.

I am more reasonable than many might realize, namely Msut77, that seems to think I want to go back in a time machine and buy up a bunch of slaves. You have gained respect from me, in that I think your the first person on here to actually produce some valid arguments against my beliefs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a follow up to my last post just to give you some things to ponder.

HFCS was made into the problem that it is through government subsidies for corn. I don't agree with the tax, but the subsidies are a case of government intervention gone wrong. It is a case of corporate interests using the government at the cost of the American people's health.

The HFCS problem was not created by the free market, but the government itself. Now, I'm willing to agree that their is distortion of the facts by companies and corporations, just the same as the government distorts the facts. It is an example of government sponsored corporatism, almost bordering on fascism. It is a mistake to label this as capitalism as the liberal academics would suggest. Just the same as it's a mistake to label Herbert Hoover as a capitalist. Many of the things people blame on capitalism isn't the result of capitalism, but government intervention on behalf of corporations and other lobby groups.

I think what this really goes to show, is that everyone has an agenda, and that perhaps the people need a small government to act as a mediator in such cases and that everything should be taken with a grain of salt, including history.

You have successfully made me more skeptical of... everything, though.
 
Yes, the subsidy is the core of the problem, but if the government got rid of that, it would be acknowledging that they themselves were the ones that made the mistake. It's a lot safer politically just to tax the HFCS.

I think what this really goes to show is that everyone needs to be more skeptical and less trusting. Libertarians need to realize that not all individuals and businesses always act in the most honest matter. Liberals need to realize, on the other hand, that often times, government is not the answer.

Government intervention is rarely done in an altruistic manner. When you get deep down at the heart of the issue, it's usually the government looking after one business's or group of businesses' interests at the expense of their competition or their customers.

What government does, more times than not, is not protect you from malicious businesses, but insteads helps them. A business can approach a politician with a million dollar contribution and accomplish more than it would with 50 times that amount if it was left to it's own devices. And many support ending campaign contributions from businesses, but that dosen't
change the fact that many politicians will take the money under the table. A government official is just as likely to be a crook as any businessman or individual.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I don't disagree that contracts have to be enforced. I really think this could fix itself, however, because once the company breaks one contract, who is really going to enter into the next contract with the company?

Yes, one company was hurt, but the offending company will be hurt in the long run, and many other companies would question breaking a contract themselves, when the original perpetrator can't get widgets at all anymore.[/QUOTE]

Who's going to enter a contract? The next company that doesn't give a damn about ethics...
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Did you read anything that was discussed after that?[/QUOTE]

I did. Basically, you're coming from the assumption that businesses are generally good or that bad businesses will be run out of town because of their practices. That doesn't even happen now. Why would it happen without government intervention?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']That sure is a big, blurry page on it's side. Come on Myke, couldn't even rotate them for us?[/QUOTE]
Did you notice they're rotated to the left too?

Mmm hmm.....;)
 
Government intervention is now the same as corporate collusion? That is good to know going forward.
Click to expand...

Greater regulation tends to favor larger corporations and put the small guys out of business that don't have the money to keep up with the regulations.

I did. Basically, you're coming from the assumption that businesses are generally good or that bad businesses will be run out of town because of their practices. That doesn't even happen now.
Click to expand...

The problem is, many good businesses are put out of business because of corrupt businessmen and politicians. A good example would be the hemp industry, which a convenient casualty in the war on marihuana.

The paper, lumber and textile industries urged the government to ban marihuana and at the same time, conveniently, hemp, their biggest competition.

And, if you had read a little closer, you would see that I already acknowledge that perhaps a small government is needed for mediatory and supervisory reasons.
 
Anyway, my whole point is that it isn't fair to trust the government but not businesses, as politicians have their own agenda as well, and it's a lot easier to do something malicious when you have some cheap whore politician in your pocket.

And I forgot to mention the pharmaceutical industry being a big pusher for the weed ban as well.
 
Are the drinks any good though? That's the question that never seems to get answered. There's some grape flavored thing at one of the LC's on my way home and at $3 a can I've always wanted to try it, but worry that it's going to taste like NyQuil.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']And, if you had read a little closer, you would see that I already acknowledge that perhaps a small government is needed for mediatory and supervisory reasons.[/QUOTE]

Ah - so you're a moderate then.
 
[quote name='nasum']Are the drinks any good though? That's the question that never seems to get answered. There's some grape flavored thing at one of the LC's on my way home and at $3 a can I've always wanted to try it, but worry that it's going to taste like NyQuil.[/QUOTE]

Sparks is pretty tasty, I mean not like Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout tasty, but it's just as good/bad as Bud Light, Coors, etc.
 
Haven't been able to find the Sam Smith for the last few weeks up here.

I don't know if Summit keeps the Unchained stuff local or not, but if you have a chance to try the Pumpkin Porter it's one of the best pumpkin fusions I've ever had.
 
has Anchor made anything decent other than the Liberty Ale? Everything of theirs I try is usually better suited for the drain...
 
Anchor Steam, on draft, is fine and dandy. But I think it's distance thing as well. It's fine on draft on the west coast, but the further (older?) it gets, the more it tends to develops off-flavors.

EDIT: Yeungling is the same way, IMO (tho' a different style of beer altogether).
 
Yeungling seems to have exploded here, a few years ago no one I knew ever mentioned it, now it's all I hear.
 
damn hipsters, why can't they just stick with their PBR?
Widmer's Winter Seasonal this year is quite excellent, doesn't taste like peppermint schnapps was poured into a beer at all
 
[quote name='nasum']damn hipsters, why can't they just stick with their PBR?
Widmer's Winter Seasonal this year is quite excellent, doesn't taste like peppermint schnapps was poured into a beer at all[/QUOTE]

hipsters ruined PBR. i read an article a while back about how PBR has been able to steadily increase their price over the last couple of years and their sales are still increasing. used to be you could get a 12 pack of decent cheap beer for $5-$6, now its like $8+!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top