It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ketsuko
Ok. Let me start from the beginning? What does "Big Pharma" do? Are they just advertising and marketing for drugs? I mean, who tests and develop drugs? If they just are an advertising business, I agree, why do they need regulations?
ETA Another poster said the universities do the testing.
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) embodies a set of principles that provides a framework within which laboratory studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived. These studies are undertaken to generate data by which the hazards and risks to users, consumers and third parties, including the environment, can be assessed for pharmaceuticals (only preclinical studies), agrochemicals, cosmetics, food additives, feed additives and contaminants, novel foods, biocides, detergents etc.... GLP helps assure regulatory authorities that the data submitted are a true reflection of the results obtained during the study and can therefore be relied upon when making risk/safety assessments.
originally posted by: jacobe001
originally posted by: Edumakated
It sounds good to reign in the big bad banks, but has actually happened is that it is crushing the small guy instead. See the big banks have the resources to deal with all the extra compliance and cost associated, the small credit union or local bank doesn't.
Can you give examples of policies that would be beneficial to small banks and detrimental the big banks?
Just a couple?
originally posted by: CoBaZ
When it comes to the argument with banks, wall street, regulations. I will be the first to admit I am way out of my league to argue.
But Looking at the situation with a programmers mind I see conflict in the current laws, the Fannie and Freddy laws were are bad because they force the banks hands to give out the loans. The dodd frank law ties hands of those in the speculation market but isn't the whole market in and of itself speculation?
I can see the why and the good intent of both those laws above but after some time of both we can see they were bad moves. What I wonder is why doesn't congress have to review all laws that are enacted every two years or so, and then
1. Renew them as they stand.
2. Revise them to fix them.
3. Let them expire.
I think that would go a long way into making the system more dynamic and more in will with the voters. The only thing that should not have to be reviewed and renewed every two years coming out of congress should be full blown Amendments.
There problem solved, and those lazy bums on the hill would have something to keep them busy.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm all for "deregulation" so long as theres no safety net should a bank or investment firm go bankrupt.
Of-course deregulation doesnt mean that you can cheat a customer, thats a crime regardless.
Deregulate everything but make it clear that if the bank fails, government ie the tax slave, will NOT BAIL THEM OUT.
And youll see these firms regulate themselves overnight.
The only reason why they assume so much risk now is because they know that government will come to their rescue.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — the "top Wall Street lobby" — has expressed support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it in order to prevent a stronger law from passing.
Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
"Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts," said Carly Fiorina, who has never held public office but was once ranked by Portfolio magazine as the 19th-worst American CEO of all time.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp
You know that was a simple yes or no question. Yet after all those words, I didn't see either a yes or no to actually answer the question. Are you deflecting because you don't want to acknowledge that you don't mind insider trading and prefer it to government saying that banks can't do that thus stepping in to regulate things?
Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms or political groups to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".
originally posted by: greencmp
The subsidies and, therefore, expected returns the state has extended to big oil should have destroyed the reputation of both BP and the federal government. It was clearly not in either's interest for that to happen.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job overall, while 63% rate the current Congress poorly.
Even that catastrophe wasn't enough for the federal government to break ties so, the unholy alliance persevered.
That BP lobbied lawmakers on the penalties companies faced for spills, as it faced penalties for causing a spill itself, underscores how even the most embattled company often sees Congress as a worthy investment. BP spent $8.43 million in 2011 on efforts to influence legislation. While that total fell far short of the nearly $16 million it spent on lobbying in 2009 -- much of it on working to defeat cap and trade legislation -- it represented a $1 million uptick from 2010 levels. It was also about .0324 percent of the company's $26 billion in profits from last year: a small price to pay to ensure the preferred legislative outcomes for the firestorm it ignited.
“It really is outrageous that after being responsible for the largest oil spill in our nation’s history, BP spent more than $8 million on D.C. lobbyists to try, among other things, to escape any effort to shut off the spigot of taxpayer subsidies,” Menendez told The Huffington Post.