How Should Economic Policies Address Conflicts of Interest?

[nismaratwork]

it's not so much about funding, but about freedom. it comes down to DSHEA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSHEA#United_States

you could think of it as allowing the sale of placebos, if you like. not unlike your friendly physician handing out paxil.

Proton, I find it hard to believe you don't have more issues with supplements as they're marketed and regulated in the US. The fact is that people are meant to be protected from snake oil... really, it's a basic function of government in my view. I'd add that these powders, gels, pills, and drinks aren't placebo... that would be BETTER!... these are unregulated, and tested only by the private sector... which doesn't seem to be enough.

There are real drugs in these placebos, just not effective as advertised, and without full knowledge of the interaction.

 

[nismaratwork]

If a lender wanted insurance to hedge loans, the lender is able to buy forms of insurance, but insurance is regulated and requires reserves, while CDS aren't regulated and don't require reserves, so the CDS's end up being cheaper for the lender. In addition, anyone wanting to place a bet on the default rate of a loan pool can buy CDS's, even though they have no involvement with the lender or the properties used for those loans. There were a few very successful investment funds that did exactly that (bet that sub-prime home loan pools would default). Since AIG didn't have the reserves to pay out on the CDS when loans defaulted, the CDS purchasers should have taken the hit, since the purchasers knew the risk up front when buying CDS, but apparently it seems that at least some companies were expecting the feds to bail out AIG.

CDS are just a form of deravitive, a side bet placed on the outcome of some finanancial event, but without any actual ties to the financial event. Unlike stocks that represent ownership of a company, or bonds that represent loans made to a company, derivatives are just side bets, a legalized form of gambling. This becomes apparent when congress passed laws in 1992 and 2000 to preempt states from banning such transactions as illegal forms of gambling.

Regulation can't guarantee 100% safety, but it increases the odds and helps prevent criminal behavior such as this:

http://americanfraud.com/filmrecoverysystems.aspx

Hell, corrupt as it is, the gaming industry in Nevada is still better than the criminal alternative we're familiar with in the relatively recent past (for the consumer at least). That bit of regulation, the loss of a gaming or liquor license, doesn't make it smooth sailing, but it keeps casinos tricky rather criminal.

 

[WhoWee]

If a lender wanted insurance to hedge loans, the lender is able to buy forms of insurance, but insurance is regulated and requires reserves, while CDS aren't regulated and don't require reserves, so the CDS's end up being cheaper for the lender. In addition, anyone wanting to place a bet on the default rate of a loan pool can buy CDS's, even though they have no involvement with the lender or the properties used for those loans. There were a few very successful investment funds that did exactly that (bet that sub-prime home loan pools would default). Since AIG didn't have the reserves to pay out on the CDS when loans defaulted, the CDS purchasers should have taken the hit, since the purchasers knew the risk up front when buying CDS, but apparently it seems that at least some companies were expecting the feds to bail out AIG.

CDS are just a form of deravitive, a side bet placed on the outcome of some finanancial event, but without any actual ties to the financial event. Unlike stocks that represent ownership of a company, or bonds that represent loans made to a company, derivatives are just side bets, a legalized form of gambling. This becomes apparent when congress passed laws in 1992 and 2000 to preempt states from banning such transactions as illegal forms of gambling.

Regulation can't guarantee 100% safety, but it increases the odds and helps prevent criminal behavior such as this:

http://americanfraud.com/filmrecoverysystems.aspx

Let's not forget the transactions (and trading operations) were not all US based.

 

[cobalt124]

The following is a pale shadow of the articulate response that PF decided to chew up and throw away.

The above contains an unwarranted assumption: that somehow the oversight of fallible people by other fallible people...are somehow guaranteed to render business safe.

I don't expect guaranteed safety, just a robust system that fallible people can operate within. It can be done. Look at the scrutiny given to Iraq by U.N. weapons inspectors searching for WMD's. I think something along these lines should be applied to companies so that fallibility is minimised, criminal activity not tolerated, and regulations are adhered to. They cannot be trusted to police themselves, or to operate responsibly. Ideally there should be a change in corporate culture (i.e. it is accepted) rather than it being enforced by government.

it is guaranteed to impose additional costs on business operations, which may in itself hinder the safety of others.

This hints at one of the problems with current corporate culture, that additional costs may hinder safety. There should be no connection here. Better that additional costs may make us rethink whether the operation is morally or financially viable, for example. The influence of money on corporate culture needs to be reduced.

Panacea or not, like our court system, it's just the best we have to work with right now. Just roll it back to Clinton era regulation, and go after corruption the way republicans want to.

What is needed is a shift in emphasis towards a system where corruption is not tolerated, and away from a system that runs down the field after corruption after it has bolted from the stable.

deregulation has been a pretty ugly thing for the most part, in my opinion.

I suspect, but I don't know, that the primary reason for deregulation is to free up companies to allow them to make more money, and any other reason (good or bad) to do so is given less weight.

Hell, can you REALLY say that the lack of proper funding for the FDA isn't a shame on us all? We shouldn't have to be concerned about our food supply being blatantly unregulated, and supplements being this magical niche for snake oil.

It would be a disgrace. It reminds me of the whole GM thing, where being right and making money took precedence over earning the peoples trust.

Apologies, multiquote went belly up on me.

Proton Soup Quote:
"it's not so much about funding, but about freedom. it comes down to DSHEA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSHEA#United_States

you could think of it as allowing the sale of placebos, if you like. not unlike your friendly physician handing out paxil."

Freedom is an issue in this. More regulation implies less freedom.

rcgldr Quote:
"Regulation can't guarantee 100% safety, but it increases the odds and helps prevent criminal behavior such as this:

http://americanfraud.com/filmrecoverysystems.aspx"

It isn't just an issue of fallibility and rule dodging, there are criminals in this. That increases the need for regulation.

 

[mheslep]

If a lender wanted insurance to hedge loans, the lender is able to buy forms of insurance,

Yes

but insurance is regulated and requires reserves, while CDS aren't regulated and don't require reserves, so the CDS's end up being cheaper for the lender.

Which means that, without access to the cheaper CDS in the current form, lenders are less likely to hedge their loans, concentrating risk, or less likely to lend, making credit harder to obtain, etc, etc.

In addition, anyone wanting to place a bet on the default rate of a loan pool can buy CDS's, even though they have no involvement with the lender or the properties used for those loans.

Yes, the so called naked CDS, though obviously lenders with first hand involvement in the loan can also buy a CDS.

There were a few very successful investment funds that did exactly that (bet that sub-prime home loan pools would default). Since AIG didn't have the reserves to pay out on the CDS when loans defaulted, the CDS purchasers should have taken the hit, since the purchasers knew the risk up front when buying CDS, but apparently it seems that at least some companies were expecting the feds to bail out AIG.

With the government created Fannie and Freddie creating the mortgage security market investors had good reason to believe everyone would be bailed out, as most of them were.

CDS are just a form of deravitive, a side bet placed on the outcome of some finanancial event,

Yes, as are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)#Examples"

but without any actual ties to the financial event.

Possible, but no not necessarily true.

Unlike stocks that represent ownership of a company, or bonds that represent loans made to a company, derivatives are just side bets, a legalized form of gambling.

In some cases, maybe so. Certainly not if the lender buys a CDS. But given no CDS can occur without first creating risk via a loan, it is not clear to me, yet, that this is so.

This becomes apparent when congress passed laws in 1992 and 2000 to preempt states from banning such transactions as illegal forms of gambling.

Because the states wanted to regulate as gambling something formerly unregulated doesn't mean that it is such. They may just have wanted to collect fees from regulation.

Regulation can't guarantee 100% safety,

Agreed.

but it increases the odds and helps prevent criminal behavior such as this:

An assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc"
And more than that, there is excellent evidence that in some cases the opposite is true, that regulation causes harm, even fatal harm. The US FDA has killed thousands by keeping drugs off the market or making them vastly more expensive in its quest to prevent the release of the possible bad drug.

 

[Proton Soup]

Proton, I find it hard to believe you don't have more issues with supplements as they're marketed and regulated in the US. The fact is that people are meant to be protected from snake oil... really, it's a basic function of government in my view. I'd add that these powders, gels, pills, and drinks aren't placebo... that would be BETTER!... these are unregulated, and tested only by the private sector... which doesn't seem to be enough.

There are real drugs in these placebos, just not effective as advertised, and without full knowledge of the interaction.

the people don't want your protection, and neither do i. I've got a few supplements that i take myself which i think are helpful, and quite frankly, it's nobody's business if i do.

now, if you're worried about harm, well, the FDA does step in when there are problems.

i would also question how much you think you know about supplements in general, or why you might want to take any.

edit: this all off-topic though. but if you feel strongly enough to argue why i should be protected from myself, even when i have my legislators legislate for it, then please start another thread.

edit2: or i guess you could try to find a way to argue it in here.

 

[cobalt124]

Because the states wanted to regulate as gambling something formerly unregulated doesn't mean that it is such. They may just have wanted to collect fees from regulation.

I'd suggest that's part of the problem. Using gambling laws to regulate financial transactions and saying it's OK and it's a means to an end just muddies the water. IMO the gambling aspect of financial transactions is just wrong. Regulate gambling and financial institutions separately, or they just end up being labelled the same thing. It sounds to me like we are getting what we deserve and are unwilling to actually do anything about it (as with many issues).

An assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc"
And more than that, there is excellent evidence that in some cases the opposite is true, that regulation causes harm, even fatal harm. The US FDA has killed thousands by keeping drugs off the market or making them vastly more expensive in its quest to prevent the release of the possible bad drug.

The first port of call to resolve an issue like this issue should not be logical argument. A better idea would be to look at the chances of something happening, based on past experience and then err on the side of caution. From that perspective, I agree with the original statement. The issue with the FDA is not whether they allow or prohibit drugs, the issue is why they would do so and who are they accountable to.

 

[nismaratwork]

the people don't want your protection, and neither do i. I've got a few supplements that i take myself which i think are helpful, and quite frankly, it's nobody's business if i do.

now, if you're worried about harm, well, the FDA does step in when there are problems.

i would also question how much you think you know about supplements in general, or why you might want to take any.

edit: this all off-topic though. but if you feel strongly enough to argue why i should be protected from myself, even when i have my legislators legislate for it, then please start another thread.

edit2: or i guess you could try to find a way to argue it in here.

I think you have the right to harm yourself, or take risks at least, and supplements are hardly Russian Roulette. I don't think that your own VERY educated view (compared to the average consumer) should be the benchmark for consumer protection.

I for one, would like the FDA to do what it has since its inception (until a certain bill passed...) and regulate our food and medicine. If it's not medicine, then a supplement is... food. This isn't overreaching, it's just going back to what worked compared to this idiocy. I'm [EDIT: NOT... I can't believe I left out 'not'] NOT saying that the FDA should criminalize these products, but I don't see how your argument is remotely different from one allowing the sale of snake oil and tonics.

You know why that became an issue?... people wanted them to WORK, so salesmen put REAL drugs into them... opiates, cocaine, RADIUM. The same is happening now; consider the weight-loss supplements that had REAL drugs in them, despite labeling! there's no quality control between supplements... no...

... I don't buy that you get to justify a billion+ USD per year industry because you personally don't wish to be protected from harm. I don't see a need to make that case to you, as long as others wish to be protected from that same harm.

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Gambling" is a really, really loaded word, and I would suggest that it does nothing to advance the discussion.

If I own a snow shovel factory, and am deciding on how many shovels to make this year, I have imperfect knowledge and have to somehow guess on how snowy the winter will be. We can call this "gambling", but we cannot prohibit it - decisions based on imperfect knowledge are inevitable.

Now, if I have a bank, and am deciding whether or not to loan money to a snow shovel maker, don't I have the exact same problem? And if I am a depositor in this bank... well, you get the idea.

 

[WhoWee]

"Gambling" is a really, really loaded word, and I would suggest that it does nothing to advance the discussion.

If I own a snow shovel factory, and am deciding on how many shovels to make this year, I have imperfect knowledge and have to somehow guess on how snowy the winter will be. We can call this "gambling", but we cannot prohibit it - decisions based on imperfect knowledge are inevitable.

Now, if I have a bank, and am deciding whether or not to loan money to a snow shovel maker, don't I have the exact same problem? And if I am a depositor in this bank... well, you get the idea.

Banks make loan decisions based on the ability to repay (of course) - that is the credit score and net worth of the borrower. Further, when the loan is for a business - the bank loans based on the experience of the industry in that type of business - don't try to borrow to start a restaurant (for example) at this time.

With that said, when the Government wades into the affairs of the banking industry and mandates loans be made to select groups of persons - many higher risk - the industry needs extra protection against these unacceptable risks. The 3rd party involvement of mortgage brokers further complicated matters in the recent bubble.

 

[mheslep]

"Gambling" is a really, really loaded word, and I would suggest that it does nothing to advance the discussion...

Without definition yes the discussion falls back on negative connotations; that's why I tried to define gambling consequentially up thread - a financial wager that creates a risk solely for the purpose of the wager where risk did not previously exist. There's been some economics work done demonstrating good/bad consequences between the two - creating risk for a bet and creating risk necessary to, say, embarking on a business venture.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Right, but banks also have to assess risk. The risk of lending to a snow shovel manufacturer depends on the snowfall in the next few years. Which they only know in the broadest terms. ("I don't think the Florida market is as big as you think it is")

 

[nismaratwork]

"Gambling" is a really, really loaded word, and I would suggest that it does nothing to advance the discussion.

If I own a snow shovel factory, and am deciding on how many shovels to make this year, I have imperfect knowledge and have to somehow guess on how snowy the winter will be. We can call this "gambling", but we cannot prohibit it - decisions based on imperfect knowledge are inevitable.

Now, if I have a bank, and am deciding whether or not to loan money to a snow shovel maker, don't I have the exact same problem? And if I am a depositor in this bank... well, you get the idea.

How many removes from the act of production does it take for something to be considered "gambling"? There is something to be said for the stake you have in something being proportional to your reward. If you're the owner of the shovel company and you predict enormous demand and profit, you're the FIRST and biggest winner. Your bank gets a piece, their investors get a diluted piece from a generalized pool... and then what?

I don't think the issue here is that gambling is inherent in all human endeavors, but that gambling in the sense that non-stakeholders create a side-economy JUST to bet on and repackage N product. There should be a tapering of profit from the point of production, not a tapering, and then explosion for a few in the financial sector.

 

[WhoWee]

Right, but banks also have to assess risk. The risk of lending to a snow shovel manufacturer depends on the snowfall in the next few years. Which they only know in the broadest terms. ("I don't think the Florida market is as big as you think it is")

Sounds like an opportunity to sell some of those sand management attachments.

I have experience in the car wash industry. The same type of variables must be considered - how often does it rain or snow, is precipitation more likely during the week or on weekends, what is the predictable period of non-precipitation days between precipitation days? I actually helped develop an (lost business) insurance product for the industry that factored all of these variables (and more).

The insurance was intended not to replace income - but to insure mortgage payments for fast developing operators. The average cost to build a new wash now exceeds $1 million.

 

[rcgldr]

Without definition yes the discussion falls back on negative connotations; that's why I tried to define gambling consequentially up thread - a financial wager that creates a risk solely for the purpose of the wager where risk did not previously exist.

I'd say sports bets at Vegas on the outcome of a sporting event, football, boxing, horse racing, ..., are all forms of gambling, along with derivatives bought and/or sold by people that have no direct involvement with the financial event being wagered on. In all of these examples, the probabitly of the outcome of the event is independent of the wager. It's not clear what you mean by creating a risk, since any side bet creates (or at least increases) the amount of risk involved in an event by increasing the amount of money wagered on that event.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is a description of how Credit Default Swaps work.

http://accruedint.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-does-credit-default-swap-cds-work.html

"CDS are also a vehicle for speculating on a credit. The buyer of protection is essentially short the credit, while the seller is long. Buying protection may be easier than actually finding the bonds to short. Similarly, selling protection may allow one to get exposure to a credit with greater leverage than would otherwise be the case. CDS also have no interest rate exposure, so someone who wants get get long or short a credit can do so without needing to work about hedging credit risk on either the short or long side."

 

[mheslep]

I'd say sports bets at Vegas on the outcome of a sporting event, football, boxing, horse racing, ..., are all forms of gambling, along with derivatives bought and/or sold by people that have no direct involvement with the financial event being wagered on. In all of these examples, the probabitly of the outcome of the event is independent of the wager.

I disagree that the outcome probability is the only relevant factor, and I do not grant that derivatives per se are independent of the original outcome over time, though perhaps they are. Derivatives are said to help help make a financial market by adding liquidity, so that an entity can enter that market to raise money through stock or bond sales. As you and others have indicated before, there may be a case where derivatives help bring about the failure of a entity over time by forecasting its demise thus cutting off its ability to raise further funds required to continue operation, and I'll add I believe the reverse also occurs. Either way, in such a case the derivative has a direct impact on the outcome on the risk event the entity took when it first went to raise money in that market.

It's not clear what you mean by creating a risk, since any side bet creates (or at least increases) the amount of risk involved in an event by increasing the amount of money wagered on that event.

First, as before I distinguish between the sporting events you allude to (or the gaming table) and a loan in that there is often little or no financial risk in existence with the sporting event (never with an amateur event) until the moment a party makes a wager on the event, unlike the case of the loan.

Second, in this discussion I've tried to establish the difference between i) a side transaction made by parties to the original loan (which a CDS can be) and ii) a side transaction that is not made by original parties, i.e. purportedly not connected to the original loan (which a CDS can also be). Note in the later case I'm also inserting the caveat that I am not sure that the side transaction, inevitably made on the original loan by someone, can ever be wholly disconnected from it, though I'm open to argument that it is.

Case i)
1. A loans to B incurring risk worth X.
2. Subsequently A buys a CDS (or creates a CDS and sells it) from/to third party C. So if risk X=X1+X2, A lays off risk X2 to C, retaining only X1.​

Thus in at least in case i) there is no increase above total risk X among all parties. Tangentially I also think that a hazard occurs, intrinsic to the side transactions, in that the accuracy in the evaluation of risk X degrades as piece of X changes hands, so that C mistakenly believes X is 0.1X, or the like.

 

[Proton Soup]

"Gambling" is a really, really loaded word, and I would suggest that it does nothing to advance the discussion.

If I own a snow shovel factory, and am deciding on how many shovels to make this year, I have imperfect knowledge and have to somehow guess on how snowy the winter will be. We can call this "gambling", but we cannot prohibit it - decisions based on imperfect knowledge are inevitable.

Now, if I have a bank, and am deciding whether or not to loan money to a snow shovel maker, don't I have the exact same problem? And if I am a depositor in this bank... well, you get the idea.

yes, the industry prefers that you call it "gaming". which is just as well, since the odds are usually stacked much in favor of the house, making it not much of a gamble at all.

but yes, it does advance the discussion, because as mentioned earlier in the thread, it was a change in the law against gaming that allowed these unregulated financial instruments to be used in the first place.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think you have the right to harm yourself, or take risks at least, and supplements are hardly Russian Roulette. I don't think that your own VERY educated view (compared to the average consumer) should be the benchmark for consumer protection.

I for one, would like the FDA to do what it has since its inception (until a certain bill passed...) and regulate our food and medicine. If it's not medicine, then a supplement is... food. This isn't overreaching, it's just going back to what worked compared to this idiocy. I'm [EDIT: NOT... I can't believe I left out 'not'] NOT saying that the FDA should criminalize these products, but I don't see how your argument is remotely different from one allowing the sale of snake oil and tonics.

You know why that became an issue?... people wanted them to WORK, so salesmen put REAL drugs into them... opiates, cocaine, RADIUM. The same is happening now; consider the weight-loss supplements that had REAL drugs in them, despite labeling! there's no quality control between supplements... no...

... I don't buy that you get to justify a billion+ USD per year industry because you personally don't wish to be protected from harm. I don't see a need to make that case to you, as long as others wish to be protected from that same harm.

actually, we sort of do allow the sale of tonics and snake oil right now. homeopathic products get in as a sort of religious exemption, and they're really nothing more than ingredients that are watered down to the point that the original product is undetectable.

generally, supplements are food products. and yes, do not usually have real drugs that work. when they do, FDA has a tendency to shut them down (steroids, ephedrine, etc.). there are exceptions (red rice yeast, st john's wort, licorice), and often these are the types of things that come under fire from drug companies when they are in direct competition with their own products.

now, why is this an issue? people know where the "real" drugs are, and they know how to get them. it's because of something that people aren't getting from their doctors: care. or if they do, they simply don't know how to help them.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but yes, it does advance the discussion,

OK, so who is gambling? Our snow shovel manufacturer who is looking to expand, hoping for a snowy winter? The bank manager who loans him the money to let him do this? The depositor in the bank who provides the money that will be used for the loan? Tell me who is gambling and who is not.

 

[nismaratwork]

actually, we sort of do allow the sale of tonics and snake oil right now. homeopathic products get in as a sort of religious exemption, and they're really nothing more than ingredients that are watered down to the point that the original product is undetectable.

generally, supplements are food products. and yes, do not usually have real drugs that work. when they do, FDA has a tendency to shut them down (steroids, ephedrine, etc.). there are exceptions (red rice yeast, st john's wort, licorice), and often these are the types of things that come under fire from drug companies when they are in direct competition with their own products.

now, why is this an issue? people know where the "real" drugs are, and they know how to get them. it's because of something that people aren't getting from their doctors: care. or if they do, they simply don't know how to help them.

When I say, "supplements", I'm talking about everything from (for some) useful nutritional supplements, to Zicam and other absurdities, and all of the gingko biloba in between.


You also say that people know where the "real drugs are"... I say, are you KIDDING ME?! People are lucky that they don't just throw fecal balls at each other all day. These are the same people who still think that the MMR vaccine destroyed their kids, and that you can use chapstick on your head to relieve pain!

Sorry Proton, but you're telling me what is in a given capsule, when one of the major issues is that until or unless a problem emerges that is clearly linked... we don't know. The fact is that this IS what the FDA is meant to regulate... and that they don't actively screen products for efficacy as they do prescriptions is idiotic. If a product makes a claim, it shouldn't be able to simply state that the FDA didn't "evaluate" that claim and sell it. This is a case of money and lobbying defeating common sense... I'm surprised to see you on the opposite side of this issue to be blunt.

Vanadium 50: It should be considered gambling when a wager is made, otherwise you're torturing the word. Everyone you described makes forms of wagers, but this isn't about semantics... it's about regulation! It's OK to simply draw a line, like the UK (and we USED to) has, to regulate betting once it's reached a certain remove from the stakes.

*note... not in the same manner as prescriptions or medical devices.

 

[Proton Soup]

OK, so who is gambling? Our snow shovel manufacturer who is looking to expand, hoping for a snowy winter? The bank manager who loans him the money to let him do this? The depositor in the bank who provides the money that will be used for the loan? Tell me who is gambling and who is not.

what do you want to argue? that life is a gamble, therefore we must go full bore libertarian and allow ponzi schemes to run in the open? I'm sorry, but it doesn't "advance the discussion". banks and insurance companies have to meet capital requirements. yes, banks make loans, with calculated risks. they also require collateral on larger loans.

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

When I say, "supplements", I'm talking about everything from (for some) useful nutritional supplements, to Zicam and other absurdities, and all of the gingko biloba in between.You also say that people know where the "real drugs are"... I say, are you KIDDING ME?! People are lucky that they don't just throw fecal balls at each other all day. These are the same people who still think that the MMR vaccine destroyed their kids, and that you can use chapstick on your head to relieve pain!

Sorry Proton, but you're telling me what is in a given capsule, when one of the major issues is that until or unless a problem emerges that is clearly linked... we don't know. The fact is that this IS what the FDA is meant to regulate... and that they don't actively screen products for efficacy as they do prescriptions is idiotic. If a product makes a claim, it shouldn't be able to simply state that the FDA didn't "evaluate" that claim and sell it. This is a case of money and lobbying defeating common sense... I'm surprised to see you on the opposite side of this issue to be blunt.

you know, zinc up the nose actually works as an antimicrobial, it just has the unfortunate side effect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosmia#Zicam_controversy". seems like FDA did its job there, tho.

no, I'm not kidding. when people are in real pain, more than the usual niggles, they go to the doctor and get the antibiotics and opiates.

i could care less if a product makes a claim. i just want my methylcobalamin, 5-MTHF, melatonin, creatine monohydrate, fish oil, and whatever else strikes my fancy and to be left the **** alone. is that blunt enough for you?as for food in general tho... just how long ago was it that chinese sources of melamine-tainted food were killing our pets, and no one seems to give a darn. i guess we'll need a pile of dead babies before anyone gets truly annoyed about the lack of regulation there. in the meantime, enjoy your cheap chinese aspirin. or heck, even your tylenol products with a couple of shipping pallets ground up into the mix. come to think of it, there was another big time pharma company on the news just the other day (was it 60 minutes?) that had an entire plant shut down because they were doing crazy stuff like putting the wrong pills in the bottles.

 

[Vanadium 50]

what do you want to argue? that life is a gamble, therefore we must go full bore libertarian and allow ponzi schemes to run in the open?

No, I am arguing that using the word "gambling" is being used to describe "actions that I disapprove of that involve uncertainty about the future" and as such is not very helpful.

We can equally well call insurance companies "bookies" and cast fire insurance as "I am betting $500 a year that my house will burn down and Allstate is betting that it won't".

My specific suggestion is that we do not use such loaded words as they generate more heat than light.

 

[nismaratwork]

what do you want to argue? that life is a gamble, therefore we must go full bore libertarian and allow ponzi schemes to run in the open? I'm sorry, but it doesn't "advance the discussion". banks and insurance companies have to meet capital requirements. yes, banks make loans, with calculated risks. they also require collateral on larger loans.

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



you know, zinc up the nose actually works as an antimicrobial, it just has the unfortunate side effect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosmia#Zicam_controversy". seems like FDA did its job there, tho.

no, I'm not kidding. when people are in real pain, more than the usual niggles, they go to the doctor and get the antibiotics and opiates.

i could care less if a product makes a claim. i just want my methylcobalamin, 5-MTHF, melatonin, creatine monohydrate, fish oil, and whatever else strikes my fancy and to be left the **** alone. is that blunt enough for you?


as for food in general tho... just how long ago was it that chinese sources of melamine-tainted food were killing our pets, and no one seems to give a darn. i guess we'll need a pile of dead babies before anyone gets truly annoyed about the lack of regulation there. in the meantime, enjoy your cheap chinese aspirin. or heck, even your tylenol products with a couple of shipping pallets ground up into the mix. come to think of it, there was another big time pharma company on the news just the other day (was it 60 minutes?) that had an entire plant shut down because they were doing crazy stuff like putting the wrong pills in the bottles.

I feel like you're making my case for me, and just saying that you personally want this stuff... and this somehow means you shouldn't see they be controlled for quality and efficacy? You're right that the FDA struggles to do just a part of its job, which is a good argument for reorganization and funding, not against regulating billions in mostly useless kidney-wash.

Vanadium 50: What would you call it... preferably a single word that we can use in lieu of "gambling"? I'll call it, a wager, a bet, or even: "fnrbz", if that will turn down the heat on the conversation. Honestly the outrage I noticed seems to be directed at the actions taken, not the appellation used, but I could be wrong. So... what's the word we use?

P.S. We could call insurance companies bookies, but frankly the economy of illegal gambling is far more self-regulating and fair than insurance. The difference is that a bookie is fairly transparent, and generally will break your body, not take your home. Oh, and bookies don't get a government bailout when they place wagers!

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, this is irony. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/07/arizona.transplants/index.html?iref=allsearch

She seems to see the need to ration healthcare, and she chooses bone-marrow, lung, and LIVER transplants?! I think I hate her.

 

[Al68]

yes, the industry prefers that you call it "gaming". which is just as well, since the odds are usually stacked much in favor of the house, making it not much of a gamble at all.

It's no gamble for the house at all, even with very low odds advantages. Unlike the patron, the house gets to take advantage of the fact that as the number of individual bets increases, the results get closer and closer to predicted results.

In blackjack, for example, a gambler's odds for each hand is about 52%/48% (depending on specifics). If a gambler only plays a few hands, he's almost equally likely to leave a winner or a loser.

But as the number of hands increase (thousands of hands), the margin of error becomes very small compared to the 4% advantage, and the odds of the house coming out behind approach zero, eliminating the risk to the house completely.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's no gamble for the house at all, even with very low odds advantages. Unlike the patron, the house gets to take advantage of the fact that as the number of individual bets increases, the results get closer and closer to predicted results.

In blackjack, for example, a gambler's odds for each hand is about 52%/48% (depending on specifics). If a gambler only plays a few hands, he's almost equally likely to leave a winner or a loser.

But as the number of hands increase (thousands of hands), the margin of error becomes very small compared to the 4% advantage, and the odds of the house coming out behind approach zero, eliminating the risk to the house completely.

Indeed, and that's why the motto in vegas is to keep them coming back to the table. The longer someone plays, the better it is for the house.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, this is irony. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/07/arizona.transplants/index.html?iref=allsearch

She seems to see the need to ration healthcare, and she chooses bone-marrow, lung, and LIVER transplants?! I think I hate her.

Why hate the Arizona politician? The Feds mandate expansions of Medicaid - and the states can't pay the bill.

""It's a shock to me," said Randall Shepherd, who thought he would receive Medicaid funding for the heart transplant he needs.

"There's a bit of a personal loss and the realization that this could be me in time if something's not changed here," Shepherd said, referring to the two who have died. "Until I get a new heart, my life is in a holding pattern."

Shepherd, like many others outraged by the state decision to slash $1.2 million from the state's Medicaid funding, said he believes the cuts could have come from elsewhere. Nonetheless, he said he understands the reasoning behind the decision.

"It's obvious. If the state's broke, it is broke," he said. "I can kick and scream all I want, and if there's no money for a transplant, it is just not going to happen."[/I]

 

[nismaratwork]

Why hate the Arizona politician? The Feds mandate expansions of Medicaid - and the states can't pay the bill.

""It's a shock to me," said Randall Shepherd, who thought he would receive Medicaid funding for the heart transplant he needs.

"There's a bit of a personal loss and the realization that this could be me in time if something's not changed here," Shepherd said, referring to the two who have died. "Until I get a new heart, my life is in a holding pattern."

Shepherd, like many others outraged by the state decision to slash $1.2 million from the state's Medicaid funding, said he believes the cuts could have come from elsewhere. Nonetheless, he said he understands the reasoning behind the decision.

"It's obvious. If the state's broke, it is broke," he said. "I can kick and scream all I want, and if there's no money for a transplant, it is just not going to happen."[/I]

It's ironic, is what it is, especially when you see this woman on TV explaining that bone-marrow transplants, and other recognized medical procedures are dismissed as not-too-useful. That's simply untrue, so blame the death panel-scare-governor for not saying, "We have to ration care in AZ", instead of blaming the fed.

Either way, it's hilarious that this bumbling fool of a governor would be so blind in this. California and many other states are past bankrupt, but they manage to recognize the value of liver transplants.


This is idiocy, and it's going to just further degrade the standard of care for those who are least able to provide it for themselves, and least able to support a career politician with votes and money.

 

[WhoWee]

It's ironic, is what it is, especially when you see this woman on TV explaining that bone-marrow transplants, and other recognized medical procedures are dismissed as not-too-useful. That's simply untrue, so blame the death panel-scare-governor for not saying, "We have to ration care in AZ", instead of blaming the fed.

Either way, it's hilarious that this bumbling fool of a governor would be so blind in this. California and many other states are past bankrupt, but they manage to recognize the value of liver transplants.


This is idiocy, and it's going to just further degrade the standard of care for those who are least able to provide it for themselves, and least able to support a career politician with votes and money.

Are you familiar with Medicare's rules for End Stage Renal Disease? ESRD is the only pre-existing medical condition that can prevent someone from purchasing a Medicare Advantage Plan.

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/10128.pdf