Hi
Lv 4
Hi asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Who is the ultimate regulator of goods and services, government or the consumer?

Update:

TicToc - You bring up a better question.

Is there really a difference between Mr Rogers spending $5 and government spending $5?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Neither. Well, officially it is the government because it sets the rules by which food is grown/raised, harvested, packaged and distributed. Unfortunately (or not), the government is purchased by big money. A side benefit to that big purchase price is that often government regulations are guided to help big agri-business make money -- for the good of the consumer, of course.

    For an interesting recent example, I suggest you research the history of how bovine growth hormone has been added to dairy cows to increase milk production in the USA. You might want to begin with the film 'The Corporation' to see how Monsanto and the American news media influenced BGH being okayed for human consumption despite it being unproven to be safe, and despite seriously harmful side effects on cows. (It also had a great court drama that wound its way to the American Supreme Court, which ruled that it was okay that Fox News published lies about BGH because there is nothing in the constitution that forces the news to tell the truth. Oh, the other major TV news agencies helped with Fox's legal fees.)

    In his book 'Year 501: The Conquest Continues' Noam Chomsky describes how the American government health agencies had 1.3 million Haitian pigs slaughtered because a few of them became infected with a pig virus. This virtually bankrupted the small farms of Haiti. On the positive side, big American pig business was 'allowed' to step in and help them out -- for a fee.

    Sorry, but with the current state of society, which is that big business has bought themselves the government and that they also own the media in a highly concentrated manner, the 'average' consumer is the dupe, and the government merely big business's pawn so that neither are the consumer or the government are the ultimate regulator.

    Okay, that was a bit cynical. In theory the government works for the people, since we vote for them. So, in theory, the consumer is the regulator. It's just too bad that the corporate and corporatist media has successfully convinced most everyone that the government is the enemy of the people. This attitude, along with the failure of government to honour its commitments to creating and maintaining proper schools, health systems and civil infrastructure while it finances wars and bails out corporations, tend to keep voter turnouts, especially in the US for example, very low.

    As to the Mr. Rogers' question, that depends on the QUALITY of the spending only. If the government's $5 goes to a banker's year end bonus or to help make a missiles to kill people, and Mr. Rogers' $5 goes to buy books for his kids' school or feed his family, then yes there is a difference. If the governments' $5 goes to the medical expenses of the 9/11 rescuers or fixing dilapidated infrastructure, and Mr. Rogers' goes to buying an automatic weapon to defend himself from the world or shares in Mondanto, then yes. Unfortunately current economic ideology does not distinguish between 'good' spending and 'bad' spending, where good means the society is improved, and bad means that the society is hurt. The issue of the poor quality of GDP measures is thoroughly discussed in Marilyn Waring's interesting documentary 'Who's Counting?' Also, the economic critic Hazel Henderson (and others) discuss these kinds of failures of economic measure. To more graphically represent the problem with your question, consider the following. Which scenario is better for the economy: a) a father of 4 is killed in an automobile accident or b) a father of four has an industrial accident and becomes a quadriplegic? Or, as others have put it, things like the Exxon Valdes and 9/11 are huge benefits to the economy because of the amount of economic activity they generate, even if almost all of it is 'negative.' So, the answer to my question is b) because the economy is most improved by the industrial accident. The quadriplegic will create economic activity for years whereas the death causes only an economic blip.

    Source(s): The documentary film 'The Corporation.' Year 501: The Conquest Continues by Noam Chomsky and the references there-in. The documentary 'Who's Counting?' by Marilyn Waring. Creating Alternative Futures by Hazel Henderson.
  • 7 years ago

    Neither. Well, officially it is the government because it sets the rules by which food is grown/raised, harvested, packaged and distributed. Unfortunately (or not), the government is purchased by big money. A side benefit to that big purchase price is that often government regulations are guided to help big agri-business make money -- for the good of the consumer, of course.

    For an interesting recent example, I suggest you research the history of how bovine growth hormone has been added to dairy cows to increase milk production in the USA. You might want to begin with the film 'The Corporation' to see how Monsanto and the American news media influenced BGH being okayed for human consumption despite it being unproven to be safe, and despite seriously harmful side effects on cows. (It also had a great court drama that wound its way to the American Supreme Court, which ruled that it was okay that Fox News published lies about BGH because there is nothing in the constitution that forces the news to tell the truth. Oh, the other major TV news agencies helped with Fox's legal fees.)

    In his book 'Year 501: The Conquest Continues' Noam Chomsky describes how the American government health agencies had 1.3 million Haitian pigs slaughtered because a few of them became infected with a pig virus. This virtually bankrupted the small farms of Haiti. On the positive side, big American pig business was 'allowed' to step in and help them out -- for a fee.

    Sorry, but with the current state of society, which is that big business has bought themselves the government and that they also own the media in a highly concentrated manner, the 'average' consumer is the dupe, and the government merely big business's pawn so that neither are the consumer or the government are the ultimate regulator.

    Okay, that was a bit cynical. In theory the government works for the people, since we vote for them. So, in theory, the consumer is the regulator. It's just too bad that the corporate and corporatist media has successfully convinced most everyone that the government is the enemy of the people. This attitude, along

  • touar
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Laugh: L-love lifestyles like in no way earlier than A-be given the unhealthy, and recognition at the well U-beneath that frown, I see a grin G-well matters occur to people who LAUGH H-Heart is the supply for one of these satisfactory expression one million. Laughter releases believe-well endorphins into your procedure, which will support to alleviate affliction. two. Laughter contracts your stomach muscular tissues and will get your shoulders relocating providing you with a mini-exercise. three. Laughter raises blood float and improves the role of blood vessels, which will support shield the center. four. Laughter has a calming final result at the entire frame for as much as forty five mins afterwards. five. Laughter to begin with increases blood stress, then reduces it, leaving a diminish blood stress than natural. 6. Laughter will also be contagious, growing happiness and intimacy, as a consequence modifying relationships. 7. Laughter accelerates metabolism and center cost, which might support you drop pounds. eight. Laughter expels extra air than natural respiring, which has a cleaning final result at the lungs. nine. Laughter reduces anxiousness and is helping relieve despair via decreasing strain and freeing pent-up anxiety. 10. Laughter raises the quantity of T-cells on your frame, giving your immune procedure a spice up.

  • John
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    Government IS a consumer.

    Other consumers are tightening their belts. maybe they should have been before. For the last decade people have been indulging themselves on McMansions, and Hummers that helped them forget that every road they drove on was crumbling because we lowered taxes, and kept lowering them DURING A WAR. Now we have massive unemployment and a 2 Trillion infrastructure deficit. Seems like one could kill two birds with one stone, there o_0

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    In this country supply and demand regulate the flow of goods not the government. Obama would have you believe otherwise, because he always stresses government stimulus is the key to create jobs. We all know the only thing that creates real jobs is when the government leaves the private sector alone.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    A combination of both.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.