Main Menu
collapse

Resources

Recent Posts

The Depaul Roadtrip! by We R Final Four
[Today at 10:02:37 PM]


I disagree with the majority of scoopers by MuggsyB
[Today at 09:58:09 PM]


The Nigel James Conundrum by panda
[Today at 09:47:07 PM]


Nigel James - Next Season by hawk
[Today at 09:16:54 PM]


Portal by wadesworld
[Today at 09:12:31 PM]


Is there reason to believe MU will be better in '26-27? by Warrior of Law
[Today at 08:50:15 PM]


157 minutes by Biggie Clausen
[Today at 08:01:06 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!


jesmu84

https://www.youtube.com/v/yfGOJKbqrWk

When it comes to topics like this, how should we as a society approach it? Should it be a free market response - ie, consumers get sick, companies get punished (financially or otherwise) and then companies change? Or should this be government intervention ahead of time - ie, restrictions, inspections, regulations, etc? It's a tough line to walk.

I understand that companies are out to make a profit, and therefore aren't necessarily going to do things to protect/benefit consumer if the costs outweigh the benefits. In that case, however, don't we rely on the government to protect us? If so, why are we so woefully underfunded and undermanned when it comes to our regulatory bodies (in this case, UDSA, FDA, etc)

Previous topic - Next topic