bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (01/01/70)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <380@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >1. Consumer research groups like Consumers Union stay afloat financially >by making the information available in their magazine. Your statement is >demonstrably false. > Ok, enough is enough. Consumers Union is mentioned over and over by the Libertarians on the net as example of the success of private consumer testing organizations. And yet, in their magazines, CU consistently advocates *MORE* government consumer protection, not less. Therefore, I submit that we should not subscribe to Libertarian consumer protection schemes since CU is against it. And after all, we KNOW we can trust them. Bob Weiler.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/11/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / umcp-cs!mangoe / 10:52 am Jun 8, 1985 ****/ >In article <1340170@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > >>> . . . I've seen peasants (that's what they >>>call them) being beaten up in the street by bourgeois business men >>>because they tried to sell them a box of Chicklets. > >>In a libertarian society such behavior would be against the law, of >>course. > >Of course? How? I suggest you take the advice in Sykora's next paragraph (learn!) by reading "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman, which contains a well-thought-out description of libertarian police and courts. Interestingly, Friedman's discussion assumes no central government for police functions. > >> Libertarianism is against gov't involvement in other than >>defense and police activties only. Next time you post something >>about libertarianism, try to learn just a little bit about it >>first. > >But your teaching is soooo instructive. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.) You will find that your local libertarian party (sometimes hard to find in the case of small ones) has pamphlets available. >The first statement in this paragraph is tantamount to a tautology. The >only way I can make it read otherwise is to take it to mean that they want >all the regulatory functions of the government removed. Magically, they >believe that the free market will pick up these functions. Do YOU believe in magic, Charley? You seem to: a few lines hence, you argue that the problem with independent drug testing is that there's no way for a consumer to know that the drug company hasn't bribed the tester. And yet, you seem to assume that this is some improvement over the situation where the consumer doesn't know that the drug company hasn't bribed the government! Is the government "magically" protected against bribery? If not, how is the "independent testing" function different if done by government than by independent labs? It's worth noting that in a libertarian society, a mendacious laboratory would (besides losing business) be liable for fraud. Of course, in OUR society, the federal government is not liable to suit unless it DECIDES to be. >Well, I must >ask, who IN PARTICULAR is going to do it? A company which (for instance) is >testing the purity of drugs will not be paid for by the manufacturers, >because it represents a cut in profits. Insurance premiums represent a cut in profits. Do you think the drug companies will have no insurance? Lack of public confidence in the purity of your product represents a lack of sales, and thus a loss in profits -- do you think they'll take no measures to convince the public? If XYZ aspirin company is unable to convince distributor's associations, consumer reports, and others that their product is on the level, they'll have trouble selling it. If, at the same time, ABC aspirin comes out with endorsements from the AMA, the European equivalents of the FDA, Consumer's Union (although they do not allow re-publication of their materials), and a few widely-respected forensic labs, they'll sell more than XYZ, which (so far as anyone knows) is selling snake-oil. >It will not be paid for by the >ultimate consumers, be cause they cannot afford it individually; moreover, >they are not in a position to check that (for instance) the testing company >is not being brided by the manufacturer. Go to the back of the class. Consumer's Union regularly tests the operational characteristics of everything from toothpaste to automobiles. Your argument holds as true for those items as for drugs, and yet here we have a private association doing it EVEN THOUGH the government exists and enforces (for example) a certain sort of accuracy in mileage testing. If you KNEW that no government stood between you and rapacious abusers, wouldn't YOU make a point of checking your purchases, or shopping at stores (or chains) that you trusted? One of the reasons that Sears is a popular place to shop is that you can be sure that THEIR quality-assurance people looked over the tools they sell. Before people got the curious idea that the government should concern itself with such things, it was a major function of such chains to assure quality.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/23/85)
>Insurance premiums represent a cut in profits. Do you think the drug >companies will have no insurance? Lack of public confidence in the >purity of your product represents a lack of sales, and thus a loss in >profits -- do you think they'll take no measures to convince the public? >If XYZ aspirin company is unable to convince distributor's associations, >consumer reports, and others that their product is on the level, they'll >have trouble selling it. If, at the same time, ABC aspirin comes out >with endorsements from the AMA, the European equivalents of the FDA, >Consumer's Union (although they do not allow re-publication of their >materials), and a few widely-respected forensic labs, they'll sell more >than XYZ, which (so far as anyone knows) is selling snake-oil. Ever wonder why "selling snake-oil" is a popular metaphor for dishonest salesmanship? Have a look at advertisements from newspapers and magazines from the days before government regulations concerning truth in advertising, and about drug effectiveness and safety. Did the snake-oil salesmen go broke? How many fortunes were made from "Little Pink Liver Pills" and the like? People tend to believe that what someone tells them is the truth, if they are told often enough. > ... >If you KNEW that no government stood between you and rapacious >abusers, wouldn't YOU make a point of checking your purchases, or >shopping at stores (or chains) that you trusted? One of the reasons >that Sears is a popular place to shop is that you can be sure that >THEIR quality-assurance people looked over the tools they sell. Before >people got the curious idea that the government should concern itself >with such things, it was a major function of such chains to assure >quality. Or to assure that the public thought they provided lower prices than the competition for equivalent quality. It was always public belief rather than truth that mattered (except for a few institutions, such as Rolls-Royce, but most people didn't deal with them). Occasionally, I refer to Consumers Reports in conversing about some item. It's amazimg how often I get the response "you don't really believe what they say, do you?" Not because the person thinks Consumers Reports is biased or paid-off, but because the results disagree with some prior belief and therefore the testing methods must be inadequate. A most recent case in point: I mentioned to a friend that I bought Toyota because CR found their reliability to be the best of all makes of car except possibly Mercedes. He disbelieved it, because he had had three consecutive US-built cars that had served him reliably. So, CR's methods of getting data had to be wrong. You get enough scantily clad girls dancing around and singing "At Ford, quality is job one", and people begin to believe it. Better to have some laws that are enforced, to make sure quality IS job one before they advertise it. Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with the sense to take advantage of them, and the time to do so. Unfortunately, we don't all have the time to research each purchase, even if we might have the sense to want to. So we like to be able to rely on the notion that false advertising and dangerous goods are rare, and eliminated whenever they are found (I guess that's still a pipe dream, but things are better than they used to be). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/29/85)
/* mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) / 2:43 pm Jun 23, 1985 */ >People tend to believe that >what someone tells them is the truth, if they are told often enough. Ultimately, people are going to have to be responsible for their own decisions. Of course, fraud such as this should be illegal. I suspect that before government regulation there was little enforcement, and that that was the problem. >You get enough scantily clad girls dancing around and singing "At Ford, >quality is job one", and people begin to believe it. Better to have >some laws that are enforced, to make sure quality IS job one before they >advertise it. Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with >the sense to take advantage of them, and the time to do so. So everyone else has to pay for their stupidity thru higher produuct costs. >Unfortunately, >we don't all have the time to research each purchase, even if we might >have the sense to want to. That is precisely why there are such organizations as CU. >So we like to be able to rely on the notion >that false advertising and dangerous goods are rare, and eliminated >whenever they are found (I guess that's still a pipe dream, but things >are better than they used to be). What you are saying is that we are penalizing the thoughtful and prudent in our society to reward the capricious, i.e., we are subsidizing the cost of capriciousness by decreasing the benefits of prudence. The implications for our future are not pleasant. >Martin Taylor Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/01/85)
> > >Insurance premiums represent a cut in profits. Do you think the drug > >companies will have no insurance? Lack of public confidence in the > >purity of your product represents a lack of sales, and thus a loss in > >profits -- do you think they'll take no measures to convince the public? > >If XYZ aspirin company is unable to convince distributor's associations, > >consumer reports, and others that their product is on the level, they'll > >have trouble selling it. If, at the same time, ABC aspirin comes out > >with endorsements from the AMA, the European equivalents of the FDA, > >Consumer's Union (although they do not allow re-publication of their > >materials), and a few widely-respected forensic labs, they'll sell more > >than XYZ, which (so far as anyone knows) is selling snake-oil. > > Ever wonder why "selling snake-oil" is a popular metaphor for dishonest > salesmanship? Have a look at advertisements from newspapers and > magazines from the days before government regulations concerning > truth in advertising, and about drug effectiveness and safety. Did > the snake-oil salesmen go broke? How many fortunes were made from > "Little Pink Liver Pills" and the like? People tend to believe that > what someone tells them is the truth, if they are told often enough. America was less lawsuit oriented in 1900 than it is now; today such fraud would bring a flock of suits. This is the good side of a surplus of lawyers (there has to be something good that comes from the legal profession.) > > ... > >If you KNEW that no government stood between you and rapacious > >abusers, wouldn't YOU make a point of checking your purchases, or > >shopping at stores (or chains) that you trusted? One of the reasons > >that Sears is a popular place to shop is that you can be sure that > >THEIR quality-assurance people looked over the tools they sell. Before > >people got the curious idea that the government should concern itself > >with such things, it was a major function of such chains to assure > >quality. > Or to assure that the public thought they provided lower prices than > the competition for equivalent quality. It was always public belief > rather than truth that mattered (except for a few institutions, such > as Rolls-Royce, but most people didn't deal with them). Sears made it big by offering a money back guarantee at a time when few firms did; that is definitely a substantial advantage to the consumer, and worth somewhat higher prices. If the public can't discern truth well enough to figure out what dishwasher to buy, how can they pick a President or Congressman? > > Occasionally, I refer to Consumers Reports in conversing about some > item. It's amazimg how often I get the response "you don't really believe > what they say, do you?" Not because the person thinks Consumers Reports > is biased or paid-off, but because the results disagree with some > prior belief and therefore the testing methods must be inadequate. > A most recent case in point: I mentioned to a friend that I bought > Toyota because CR found their reliability to be the best of all makes > of car except possibly Mercedes. He disbelieved it, because he had > had three consecutive US-built cars that had served him reliably. > So, CR's methods of getting data had to be wrong. > On cars, I tend to be skeptical of CR's testing techniques. For quantitive measurements of automotive repair, their results largely match my experiences. Certainly, people are going to make their decisions as to what is valid information. Why are you so sure that they are wrong? > You get enough scantily clad girls dancing around and singing "At Ford, > quality is job one", and people begin to believe it. Better to have > some laws that are enforced, to make sure quality IS job one before they > advertise it. Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with > the sense to take advantage of them, and the time to do so. Unfortunately, > we don't all have the time to research each purchase, even if we might > have the sense to want to. So we like to be able to rely on the notion > that false advertising and dangerous goods are rare, and eliminated > whenever they are found (I guess that's still a pipe dream, but things > are better than they used to be). > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt People sure are stupid, aren't they? Our is it that you believe that you are so much smarter than everyone else?
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/06/85)
>= Clayton Cramer >and worth somewhat higher prices. If the public can't discern truth >well enough to figure out what dishwasher to buy, how can they pick a >President or Congressman? > No comment required!!! >> advertise it. Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with >> the sense to take advantage of them, and the time to do so. Unfortunately, >> we don't all have the time to research each purchase, even if we might >> have the sense to want to. So we like to be able to rely on the notion >> that false advertising and dangerous goods are rare, and eliminated >> whenever they are found (I guess that's still a pipe dream, but things >> are better than they used to be). >> -- >> >> Martin Taylor > >People sure are stupid, aren't they? Our is it that you believe that you >are so much smarter than everyone else? Where do you get either of those ideas out of what I said? I don't think ANYONE is smart enough or has enough time to research whether lemons from that orchard used dangerous pesticides, AND that this or that toothpaste isn't just chalk in oil, AND that .... for all purchases. I want a blanket assurance that my common purchases are going to do more or less what they claim and are not going to kill me. Private quality-testing groups are great for the major purchases over which one is willing to spend some time and effort. But I'd like to have some time left over after just surviving, for work and for play (and for sleep, too). And I don't want to rely on my heirs getting a big judgment on a lawsuit over the meat that killed be. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)
> >> advertise it. Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with > >> the sense to take advantage of them, and the time to do so. Unfortunately, > >> we don't all have the time to research each purchase, even if we might > >> have the sense to want to. So we like to be able to rely on the notion > >> that false advertising and dangerous goods are rare, and eliminated > >> whenever they are found (I guess that's still a pipe dream, but things > >> are better than they used to be). > >> -- > >> > >> Martin Taylor > > > >People sure are stupid, aren't they? Our is it that you believe that you > >are so much smarter than everyone else? > > Where do you get either of those ideas out of what I said? Your above remark: > >> Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with > >> the sense to take advantage of them, From your remarks about Ford's "Quality is Job 1" ads, in which you suggest that people are swayed by those ads enough that they can't see reality. > I don't think > ANYONE is smart enough or has enough time to research whether lemons > from that orchard used dangerous pesticides, AND that this or that > toothpaste isn't just chalk in oil, AND that .... for all purchases. > I want a blanket assurance that my common purchases are going to do > more or less what they claim and are not going to kill me. Private > quality-testing groups are great for the major purchases over which > one is willing to spend some time and effort. But I'd like to have > some time left over after just surviving, for work and for play (and > for sleep, too). And I don't want to rely on my heirs getting a big > judgment on a lawsuit over the meat that killed be. > > Martin Taylor Private quality testing groups are in a position to put a stamp of approval (much like Underwriters Labs) on products that meet standards. (Very much like the Food and Drug Administration does with meat.) You can be sure that grocery store chains would make a big hype that, "We carry only Consumer Research Institute approved foods." as a way of encouraging customers to shop there. In short order, I suspect that all chain stores, and almost all independent grocery stores, would do so.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/09/85)
>/* mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) / 12:11 pm Jul 6, 1985 */ >I want a blanket assurance that my common purchases are going to do >more or less what they claim and are not going to kill me. So you are willing to twist the arms of those who would not cheat you in order to make sure that no one will, right? >Private >quality-testing groups are great for the major purchases over which >one is willing to spend some time and effort. But I'd like to have >some time left over after just surviving, for work and for play (and >for sleep, too). That is precisely why private quality-testing organizations come into being, because many people have this need but don't have the time to research everything themselves. >Martin Taylor Mike Sykora
nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/09/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 12:11 pm Jul 6, 1985 ****/ >I don't think >ANYONE is smart enough or has enough time to research whether lemons >from that orchard used dangerous pesticides, AND that this or that >toothpaste isn't just chalk in oil, AND that .... for all purchases. >I want a blanket assurance that my common purchases are going to do >more or less what they claim and are not going to kill me. Private >quality-testing groups are great for the major purchases over which >one is willing to spend some time and effort. But I'd like to have >some time left over after just surviving, for work and for play (and >for sleep, too). In that case, you need only buy from reputable dealers (Sears comes to mind) knowing that should they slip from advertised standards, consumer groups will sue the bejesus out of them. Your anxiety about the dangers of people who may just deal freely, with no oversight, suggests an obvious market niche, somewhat analogous to insurance: quality certification. No big deal -- you just look for the "Ace quality & safety assurance" sticker on the door as you go in a store, and if you don't see it, go elsewhere (just as you might do now should the store not sport the appropriate credit card stickers). >And I don't want to rely on my heirs getting a big >judgment on a lawsuit over the meat that killed be. Or, perhaps, your descendants getting rich because you breathed asbestos dust while working for the government? In other words, you've no better guarantee that meat won't kill you right NOW. If we absolutely MUST have the government sticking its nose into food (quite an image) then why not limit them to an advisory role? Then all you need is to buy only the meat that says "Certified by FDA", but (for example) in New York, you'd be free to buy out-of-state milk (something I understand is illegal right now).
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/11/85)
In article <354@kontron.UUCP> Clayton Cramer writes: > Private quality testing groups are in a position to put a stamp of > approval (much like Underwriters Labs) on products that meet standards. > (Very much like the Food and Drug Administration does with meat.) You > can be sure that grocery store chains would make a big hype that, > "We carry only Consumer Research Institute approved foods." as a way > of encouraging customers to shop there. In short order, I suspect that > all chain stores, and almost all independent grocery stores, would > do so. Sounds good, but there are a variety of reasons why it wouldn't work as well as the current system. Once you have consumer research groups competing to certify quality, there are basic conflicts of interest. First, the research group has a high value placed on keeping information about the products private for two major reasons: 1) so that your competitors have to conduct expensive certification procedures themselves, and 2) to protect yourself from potential discovery of negligence. These are not large problems for the FDA. Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. Third, neither the client nor the research organization will be willing to bear the cost of failure to maintain quality: they will try to offload it as much as possible on the consumer, and let the consumer attempt to prove "fraud". These sorts of gambles can be quite economic, especially in a case like the recent Lindane contamination of watermelons. The melons were ordered off the shelves by a government agency, after another agency detected the pattern of poisoning. Competing organizations would not be willing to share information that makes them potentially vulnerable, and would be more hesitant to order possibly dangerous foods off the shelves because of the costs to their clients: the markets and growers. They would not want to publicize the danger of already-purchased melons because of the bad PR. They would want to conceal their own knowledge of the problem to justify inaction in case of later torts. My sister is a safety director for a large pharmeceutical firm. This is quite an analogous position, because she is essentially competing with other safety directors who could do her job, yet faces the conflicts of interest of keeping the facilities safe for employees, not creating many many expenses, and not leaving herself or the company liable. She faces all of the above problems, but is glad (as a conscientious, pro-worker professional) that there are government agencies to provide the minimal framework of things that must be done. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/13/85)
>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 3:50 pm Jul 11, 1985 */ >Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to >those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is >better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. What you don't appear to have considered is that people will probably tend favor the products of those companies that willingly submit their products for testing. The stamp of approval of a testing agent would be a selling point. And if people don't favor such products, it means they don't care so much about these safety considerations, and therefore shouldn't be forced to support government safety enforcement agencies. Mike Sykora
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/13/85)
In article <1340289@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 3:50 pm Jul 11, 1985 */ > > >Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to > >those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is > >better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. > > What you don't appear to have considered is that people will probably tend > favor the products of those companies that willingly submit their products > for testing. The stamp of approval of a testing agent would be a selling > point. And if people don't favor such products, it means they don't care > so much about these safety considerations, and therefore shouldn't be > forced to support government safety enforcement agencies. The testing organization you propose would not be in its business for philanthropy. Its goal would be money. It will charge for the service of rating a product. Because a favorable rating will be of value to the producer (a selling point), and a bad rating will cost, there will be a strong financial interest in a "gentlemanly" contract for the service, where only favorable information is released. I've heard this very complaint about camera magazines. I've never read a bad review of a product in one. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/19/85)
> In article <354@kontron.UUCP> Clayton Cramer writes: > > Private quality testing groups are in a position to put a stamp of > > approval (much like Underwriters Labs) on products that meet standards. > > (Very much like the Food and Drug Administration does with meat.) You > > can be sure that grocery store chains would make a big hype that, > > "We carry only Consumer Research Institute approved foods." as a way > > of encouraging customers to shop there. In short order, I suspect that > > all chain stores, and almost all independent grocery stores, would > > do so. > > Sounds good, but there are a variety of reasons why it wouldn't work as well > as the current system. > > Once you have consumer research groups competing to certify quality, > there are basic conflicts of interest. First, the research group has a high > value placed on keeping information about the products private for two major > reasons: 1) so that your competitors have to conduct expensive certification > procedures themselves, and 2) to protect yourself from potential discovery > of negligence. These are not large problems for the FDA. > 1. Consumer research groups like Consumers Union stay afloat financially by making the information available in their magazine. Your statement is demonstrably false. 2. I don't understand WHAT you are talking about. Do you mean an manufacturer would keep data relating to their product secret to avoid lawsuits? You are correct. Consumer research organizations would have a powerful incentive to locate such information in the interests of maintaining their image. You may also recall that the exploding Pinto gas tank idiocy was discovered at least partly because some Ford engineers leaked memos disclosing willful negligence on the part of the company. Even if you assume that everyone who works for a company is without scruples, you can be certain that some bribes, appropriately placed, can put all sorts of evidence of negligence into the public record --- and consumer research groups seem like a very appropriate group to do that. > Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to > those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is > better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. > I'm still confused by what you are saying. Consumer research groups right now buy competing products for testing. They don't rely on the manufacturer being helpful. > Third, neither the client nor the research organization will be willing > to bear the cost of failure to maintain quality: they will try to offload > it as much as possible on the consumer, and let the consumer attempt to > prove "fraud". These sorts of gambles can be quite economic, especially > in a case like the recent Lindane contamination of watermelons. The > melons were ordered off the shelves by a government agency, after another > agency detected the pattern of poisoning. Competing organizations would > not be willing to share information that makes them potentially vulnerable, > and would be more hesitant to order possibly dangerous foods off the shelves > because of the costs to their clients: the markets and growers. They would > not want to publicize the danger of already-purchased melons because of the > bad PR. They would want to conceal their own knowledge of the problem > to justify inaction in case of later torts. > Consumers Union is not paid by manufacturers of products; they therefore have no incentive to be concerned about what manufacturers think. Competing organizations would have a powerful incentive to expose corruption by their competitors, just to demonstrate they group A is more trustworthy than group B. > My sister is a safety director for a large pharmeceutical firm. This is > quite an analogous position, because she is essentially competing with > other safety directors who could do her job, yet faces the conflicts of > interest of keeping the facilities safe for employees, not creating many > many expenses, and not leaving herself or the company liable. She faces > all of the above problems, but is glad (as a conscientious, pro-worker > professional) that there are government agencies to provide the minimal > framework of things that must be done. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Your sister's position is NOT analogous. She works for the company. If she worked for an organization that was responsible to the employees (for example a union), she would not be facing these conflicts. I don't think you understand the concept of private certification.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/23/85)
> In article <1340289@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 3:50 pm Jul 11, 1985 */ > > > > >Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to > > >those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is > > >better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. > > > > What you don't appear to have considered is that people will probably tend > > favor the products of those companies that willingly submit their products > > for testing. The stamp of approval of a testing agent would be a selling > > point. And if people don't favor such products, it means they don't care > > so much about these safety considerations, and therefore shouldn't be > > forced to support government safety enforcement agencies. > > The testing organization you propose would not be in its business for > philanthropy. Its goal would be money. It will charge for the service > of rating a product. Because a favorable rating will be of value to the > producer (a selling point), and a bad rating will cost, there will be a > strong financial interest in a "gentlemanly" contract for the service, > where only favorable information is released. > > I've heard this very complaint about camera magazines. I've never read > a bad review of a product in one. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Do you ever read Consumer Reports? Does Underwriter Labs approve every product? I think you need to get out of your ivory tower and see how these functions are being performed *right now*.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/30/85)
> Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ > Keywords: > > In article <380@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >1. Consumer research groups like Consumers Union stay afloat financially > >by making the information available in their magazine. Your statement is > >demonstrably false. > > > Ok, enough is enough. Consumers Union is mentioned over and over by > the Libertarians on the net as example of the success of private > consumer testing organizations. And yet, in their magazines, CU > consistently advocates *MORE* government consumer protection, not less. > Therefore, I submit that we should not subscribe to Libertarian > consumer protection schemes since CU is against it. > And after all, we KNOW we can trust them. > > Bob Weiler. Gee, seems to me that's how all totalitarian regiemes get their start --- lazy people decide that if A can be trusted with one thing, A can be trusted with all things.