China, trade, and consumer safety

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by couerdelion
Because that is what jingoism is You are implying that

a) there are huge numbers of dangerous products coming from China

That seems to be the case if Q^3's link is anything to go by. Or don't you believe it?

b) people somehow cannot choose not to buy them

I'm implying that they are ignorant of the dangers and that the government has a responsibility to insure that toys, food, medicine, tires, etc. sold to its citizens aren't fatal to them.

c) it is worse if these products come from an a single region.

You think it is somehow better if it comes from a single region?

Originally posted by Tingkai
If the U.S. put up trade barriers on all Chinese products because some cause problems, then yes, that would violate WTO rules.

Evidence doesn't seem to indicate that the problem with internal controls China has over business practices is limited to only one industry and it seems to be increasingly effecting the health of the US consumer. I also don't think that the execution of one man solved it. What do you suggest the US do about it?

One American company that recently did a recall claimed it did not realize that it was using products made in China.

Which one?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Evidence doesn't seem to indicate that the problem with internal controls China has over business practices is limited to only one industry and it seems to be increasingly effecting the health of the US consumer. I also don't think that the execution of one man solved it. What do you suggest the US do about it?

I was just telling you about the WTO rules.

And like I said, the U.S. could ban all direct China imports, but that wouldn't stop indirect imports. It wouldn't stop the crap made in India and Mexico.

A complete ban would also piss off American consumers who suddenly have to start paying a lot more money for lot of products.

The only effective solution is to hire more food safety inspectors. Call your congressman.

But the U.S. government won't hire more inspectors because American business people would complain. They don't want to lose access to cheap materials.

A lot of the problems are caused by companies that want the cheapest product without asking questions so that they can make the most profit.

It's the free market at work.



As for the company that didn't know where its raw materials came from, see:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/04/business/quality.php

The company owner "Ehrlich said he had been unaware of where the ingredients used in the seasoning originated. The products are made under contract. Ehrlich declined to identify the manufacturer."

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Tingkai


It's the free market at work.

Stupid consumers of whom are taken advantage by greedy importers. And histerical champions of world wide competition continue to claim that competition is good for all. They just forget to define the complex and costly content of quality the absence of which makes the fair competition impossible.
Inspectore of the State are needed, and also consumers associations.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

c) it is worse if these products come from an a single region.

You think it is somehow better if it comes from a single region?

Neither better nor worse. That was the whole point of the comment. Simply because something is not true does not mean that the opposite must be true.

There are several levels of consumer protection which should be relevant here and these should be enough. Using this as a smoke-screen for protective measures against China is basically dishonest and will, in any case, hurt America more than China. There is, in any case, no moral justification for punishing many for the failures of a few.

The correct response for consumers is to identify those companies that sell faulty goods. This puts the onus of quality control onto companies to ensure that they have reputable suppliers. If they do not then they will lose business from active consumers who do not trust that the products are safe or reliable. Companies then, who are in a better position to implement quality controls, can do the work that government cannot.

If we were to apportion blame for any dangerous products (as opposed to just poor quality), I would suggest three key groups who are responsible

a) the companies who produce the goods
b) those companies who sell them to customers without verifying they are safe
c) the customers who are buying products from unreliable companies

If the problem is as widespread as you say, then neither group escapes blame apportionment for any harm they have caused.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
A complete ban would also piss off American consumers who suddenly have to start paying a lot more money for lot of products.

Well products that have less potential to unexpectedly kill you do tend to be more expensive then their potentially fatal rivals in the market place. I will agree with you on that point. However, I tend to give less weight to the ire of either the consumer or the business community in this instance than you seem to since I believe it is one of the government's chief responsibilities to insure that the products on the marketplace are safe for public consumption. If in that endeavor prices are raised in order to provide non-fatal products, so be it.

As for the company that didn't know where its raw materials came from, see:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/04/business/quality.php

The company owner "Ehrlich said he had been unaware of where the ingredients used in the seasoning originated. The products are made under contract. Ehrlich declined to identify the manufacturer."

You'll have to pardon me if I find that owner's denials unconvincing. Declined to identify the manufacturer? Please.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I believe it is one of the government's chief responsibilities to insure that the products on the marketplace are safe for public consumption.

Why is this government's responsibility? Quite apart from this, the cost would be exorbitant and the benefits small if you were to expect every product to be safe from every consumer in every possible situation.

Two of the biggest killer products in the US today are cars and guns. The only way these can be made safe is if they do not work.

But maybe the difference here is that a lot of these products are not made in China

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by couerdelion
Why is this government's responsibility?

Because Upton Sinclair published a popular book.

Quite apart from this, the cost would be exorbitant and the benefits small if you were to expect every product to be safe from every consumer in every possible situation.

Do you feel that it is too much to ask that products sold to the US consumer not be coated in lead paint, poisoned, diseased, etc.?

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you feel that it is too much to ask that products sold to the US consumer not be coated in lead paint, poisoned, diseased, etc.?

Well I guess, like most people, that I would not find it desirable that there are products like this around. If there are, then surely there would be some pretty big liability suits going around and some companies should be out of business for selling these products.

Correct? If not then why not?

If correct, this problem is being resolved in the proper manner without any arbitrary and pointless state interference (which would also stop people buying perfectly good quality goods)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How is it jingoistic to be curious what measures can be taken to stem the seemingly large tide of dangerous products coming from a single country?

You're just taking the thrill and surprise out of shopping.

What next ? Vegan McDonalds ?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
believe it is one of the government's chief responsibilities to insure that the products on the marketplace are safe for public consumption.

I'm fully in favor of government-monitored safety standards.

But your solution would cause a supply shortage in the U.S., massive inflation, higher unemployment, a stock market crash, and it wouldn't stop tainted goods from entering your country. All in all, not a good solution.

[Whoha]

Re: Re: China, trade, and consumer safety

Originally posted by Tingkai
But this won't solve the problem. We live in a global marketplace where something made in China can end up being used in, say, a Canadian product, which is then shipped to the U.S.

This is also true, because of false flagging and such this will eventually lead towards pretty much disallowing importing food. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing if death by heavy metal poisoning isn't your cup of tea.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200707100128.html

[Odin]

If the US had a competent government that didn't suck up to the multinational corporations China would be getting slapped with tariffs right now because of this ****. But NOOOO, our leaders have to follow the corporate propagandist Neo-Liberal "economists" that bloviate on and on about the supposed virtues of the holy free market.

[Q Classic]

You forget how powerful +2 Economy can be--and with enough luxuries, the -5 Police can be dealt with.

The -3 Planet is a problem, but it's not like anybody in China really cares. Just roll the formers out and be ready to deploy the solar shade.

[Slade Wilson]

Just watch out for planet busting ecomaniacs

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Odin
If the US had a competent government that didn't suck up to the multinational corporations China would be getting slapped with tariffs right now because of this ****. But NOOOO, our leaders have to follow the corporate propagandist Neo-Liberal "economists" that bloviate on and on about the supposed virtues of the holy free market.

@ Commies