Will Obamacare succeed where term limits failed?

[Ironside]

What? They're not doing that already?

Don't you find it odd that you think a democratically elected government can force companies to behave on the electorate's behalf, but the electorate itself can't force the change? If a majority of people want ingredients on food labeling, they vote for representatives that will enact the regulation. But, if a majority of people want ingredients on food labeling, can't they accomplish the same thing by buying from suppliers that do so? If it's important, it'll drive sales. If it drives sales, all suppliers will be doing it in short order.

Look at the explosion of organic food stupidity if you need an example. People are willing to pay 3x as much for a banana because it's "organic", as though other bananas are "inorganic". Therefore, you can't find a grocery store that doesn't stock them.

Is aspartame dangerous or not? No matter your answer, what source did you base this on?

Why are those bananas "organic"? Because they're labeled that way. What does the label stand for? Do you know the exact formulation, or are you information deficient? Are the labeling correct or not? How do you know? And why are you calling it a stupidity? Is it a secret goverment project to sell it? Or is it market manipulation by the companies, earning money on the costumers information deficiency?

Seriously, you call the organic food costumers (aka parts of the electorate) falling for something stupid, while asking in the paragraph above why the electorate can't force the change. The electorate gave you Obama vs Romney. And was almost split in half. Combined might, combined ingenuity (the electorate has the power to pick someone else that what the parties offers) indeed.

Your basic assumption are that the companies aren't players. In fact, they are the strongest players there is. Because they've got financial might and vested interest. Only the combined might of the public may beat them. But none informed the public that they should fund independent research and make sure that it's not influenced by the companies. Has American companies lied about the dangers of their products in the past? Oh yes indeed, many times.

But since you and everyone else is homo omnieconomicus, that won't ever be a problem would it?

[Xiahou]

Is it a secret goverment project to sell it? Or is it market manipulation by the companies, earning money on the costumers information deficiency?

It's businesses giving consumers what they want.

Seriously, you call the organic food costumers (aka parts of the electorate) falling for something stupid, while asking in the paragraph above why the electorate can't force the change.

And?

Your basic assumption are that the companies aren't players.

What on earth gave you that idea?

But none informed the public that they should fund independent research and make sure that it's not influenced by the companies. Has American companies lied about the dangers of their products in the past? Oh yes indeed, many times.

And has the government lied or been wrong about the dangers of products in the past?

The naive paternalistic view of government that you and Husar exhibit is amusing.

[Husar]

The naive paternalistic view of government that you and Husar exhibit is amusing.

While your darwinian model is much less so.

At least you can laugh about my model while in your model more people end up miserable and/or die while you sit there calling them dumb and saying they deserve it for not being expert biologists and expert chemists.
Your model of personal responsibility is something only an intellectual who is divorced from the reality of the working classes can suggest. It's incredibly cold and narcissistic borne out of the belief that nothing could happen to you in such a world since you are apparently well-informed about everything. What would happen to others is apparently none of your concern then.

The problem with that is that a majority of humanity disagrees with it and decided to build society in a different way that we call more humane. Your attempts to change this are quite amusing.

[Ironside]

It's businesses giving consumers what they want.

Marketing consists of three parts. The first is to show the world that you exist, the second to increase the number of people wanting your product. The third is to make them willing to pay the price you given (in particular about exclusiveness of a product). The second and third is all about manipulation.

And?

If the people behave like that without "teh guverment keeping dah man down", then why do you expect them to behave differently? To paraphrase. "This would work perfectly if people stopped acting like people." I do remember seeing this about another political system.

What on earth gave you that idea?

Your insistance that "what the consumer wants, the market provides", without acknowledging that the consumers are far from a monolithic mass, and under manipulation from the market. You also ignore that the consumers already got the powers of boycott ("but the electorate itself can't force the change?"), probably because it's too weak. And with your "new, improved" system, that's the only power.

And has the government lied or been wrong about the dangers of products in the past?

The naive paternalistic view of government that you and Husar exhibit is amusing.

A goverment doesn't have any economic reasons for lying about it. A corrupt goverment does, putting it in a similar spot as the companies already bribing them. Remove the goverment and your starting place would be the companies. Or in the best case, underfunded independant research.

My point with the aspartame question is the one of a reliable source. You can choose to be ignorant and ignore it, you can choose to do a basic read up on it, or you can dedicate at least months and probably years of studies to get a full understanding of it.
For most people, it'll be the basic read up. It's a staggering number of sites claiming that a waste product of aspartame is toxic. Bonus point is even the goverment and the producer agrees with that, but says it's a trace amount of a toxic waste we already get naturally in higher amounts. And thus we come to my point:

To be able to do a basic research, the thing 99,9% of the population shouldn't need to surpass, you'll need to be able to easily recognize the reliable sources. You have 3 basic options, the goverment, independant research and the companies. The problem with independant research is thier source of money. Without a stable, reliable source, large conditioned donations would dominate (and you can see how the mild ones look like already). And creating a stable, reliable source is pretty much taxing things already. Easier to keep it within the goverment and have the watchers monitoring that, than developing new systems that looks exactly alike.