Last year 45 million toys were recalled due to the use of lead paint. There was a public outcry and the federal government rightfully legislated the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in response.
Good! American children shouldn't be exposed to toys with lead. See, Americans are blinded by the cheap price of these toys. This blinding price render the parents unable to research the toys and investigate who makes them, how they're made, and what they're made with. Parents have been forced to put their children at risk. Now, they can safely tuck away any concern they might have had about all of these toy recalls because the government is taking its proper roll protecting their children, as opposed to the parents protecting their children themselves.
We haven't even mentioned the greatest benefit provided by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Not only does it save parents from shopping smart for safe toys as well as allowing them to continue buying anything pretty they see on the shelves without concern, but it is also going to leave toy making to those who do it best. Wait, did I say best? Sorry, I meant most.
In the Yahoo article Ho, ho, no: Toymakers say lead law harms workshops written by Marcus Wohlsen, he speaks with smaller toy makers who will not be able to afford the third party testing of their toys required by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Peapods Natural Toys and Baby Care owner Dan Marshall advises they will have trouble staying in business because of the high cost of the third-party product testing required by the legislation. Mike Lee, co-owner of Sarah's Silks advised that his 9 employees will have to be downsized along with his product line, in order to afford the testing.
Julia Chen, the owner of The Playstore was quoted as saying "the number of brands she sells could drop from more than 300 to about 10." In reference to the legislation, she says "this is truly actually threatening our access to safe toys." I don't think she read the title of the legislation because it clearly indicates it will improve consumer product safety! Kind of like the Patriot Act provides patriotism.
Now Chen says that the number of brands on her shelf will drop from 100 to 10. This is GREAT! Now only toy-makers like Mattel, Fisher-Price, RC2, Cranium Inc., and Marvel Entertainment will be able to afford to make toys. This ensures that the US market will only have toys created by these great toy makers that have never had a history of manufacturing toys in China with lead-based paint, as proven by the links provided for each toy-maker.
Long live free enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
If they can't make safe toys, they should go out of business. I, as a consumer, shouldn't have to go to the science lab everytime I want to buy something. Course, I wonder how I would get it to the science lab before I bought it!
Its not a matter of them being able to make safe toys; their toys are perfectly safe. Its the cost of testing their toys through a government designated third party. Toy companies put their products through their own testing anyway because they have a reputation and brand to maintain. Its the big toy companies that will benefit from this legislation that have a history of making unsafe toys.
Sorry, Josh. Just assuming that toy manufactures can police themself is absurd. As we have seen, the toy manaufacturers are contracting their production out to third party contrators who sometimes aren't as scrupulous. Therefore, there must be a government agency to a) catch comapanies that are unscrupulous, that can't police themselves and b) companies who don't police their contractors closely.
"Toy companies put their products through their own testing anyway because they have a reputation and brand to maintain. Its the big toy companies that will benefit from this legislation that have a history of making unsafe toys."
This is a contradictory statement. I thought the testing the toys companies put their own products through will guard against the big toy companies that make unsafe toys?
"As we have seen, the toy manaufacturers are contracting their production out to third party contrators who sometimes aren't as scrupulous. Therefore, there must be a government agency to a) catch comapanies that are unscrupulous, that can't police themselves and b) companies who don't police their contractors closely."
The article is referring to companies who manufacture their own toys. The companies you are talking are the ones who will benefit from this legislation and have a history of having toys being recalled.
"I thought the testing the toys companies put their own products through will guard against the big toy companies that make unsafe toys?"
No, it won't. What guards against that is consumer awareness. Do you think Mattel wasn't hurt by the massive recalls last year? Any parent would be stupid to keep buying their toys.
Off topic, after Maple Leaf foods had a huge listeria scare, they spent MASSIVE amounts of money on advertising trying to improve their image. I still see the CEO on TV apologizing for their mistake.
There's a reason all of the big toy companies that have been having these issues support the legislation. They know it'll eliminate smaller competition due to increased costs, and give them the last bit of market share that's left to get.
"The article is referring to companies who manufacture their own toys. The companies you are talking are the ones who will benefit from this legislation and have a history of having toys being recalled."
I don't trust any business. Why should I? They say they are policing themselves, but who knows? I don't want to have to find out the hard way. They MUST be regulated. All of them. Not just the bads RIGHT NOW.
"No, it won't. What guards against that is consumer awareness. Do you think Mattel wasn't hurt by the massive recalls last year? Any parent would be stupid to keep buying their toys."
Bullshit. Pure. Utter. Bullshit. Consumer awareness is an AFTER THE FACT solution that demands a BEFORE THE FACT solution. Kids who have swallowed lead should NOT HAVE SWALLOWED LEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE>
"Off topic, after Maple Leaf foods had a huge listeria scare, they spent MASSIVE amounts of money on advertising trying to improve their image. I still see the CEO on TV apologizing for their mistake."
KIDS DON'T EAT HOCKEY PLAYERS, STUPID!
"There's a reason all of the big toy companies that have been having these issues support the legislation. They know it'll eliminate smaller competition due to increased costs, and give them the last bit of market share that's left to get."
GARBAGE ARGUMENT. REGULATION CAME FROM LIBERAL AND LEFTWING POLITICS STRETCHING BACK 60 YEARS. IF SMALL COMPANIES CAN NOT AFFORD THE COST, THEN THEY SHOULD GET OUT OF BUSINESS. THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE EXPENSIVE REGULATIONS, BUT THE FREE MARKET IDEOLOGIES THAT HAVE ALLOWED BIG TOY COMPANIES TO MAKE ALL THEIR TOYS USING SLAVE LABOR. IF A SMALL TOY COMPANY IN AMERICA WANTS TO COMPETE WITH HASBRO, WHICH IS CONTRACTING WITH SLAVE OWNERS IN CHINA, THAT MEANS THAT THE SMALL OWNER IS ALREADY WORKING AT A DISADVANTAGE>>>> A FREE MARKET SLAVE LABOR DISADVANTAGE>
"I don't trust any business. Why should I? They say they are policing themselves, but who knows? I don't want to have to find out the hard way. They MUST be regulated. All of them. Not just the bads RIGHT NOW."
Trusting a business is just like trusting a person, because a business is people. Can you get screwed over? Yes. Should the government be there to make sure that person can be trust? No. You will never know every step a business takes, but you can build a relationship with one over time. Can that trust be violated? Yes. This is what courts are for. This type of fear you demonstrate and yearning for government protection you show is what politicians will use to abuse your rights in the name of protecting you.
"Consumer awareness is an AFTER THE FACT solution that demands a BEFORE THE FACT solution."
And this is why Bush could rationalize a pre-emptive strike. . .should we also be convicting murderers before they commit murder?
"KIDS DON'T EAT HOCKEY PLAYERS, STUPID!"
Maple Leaf Foods has nothing to do with hockey. . .i can't be sure if you were trying to be funny or not so i figured I'd point that out.
"BUT THE FREE MARKET IDEOLOGIES THAT HAVE ALLOWED BIG TOY COMPANIES TO MAKE ALL THEIR TOYS USING SLAVE LABOR. IF A SMALL TOY COMPANY IN AMERICA WANTS TO COMPETE WITH HASBRO, WHICH IS CONTRACTING WITH SLAVE OWNERS IN CHINA, THAT MEANS THAT THE SMALL OWNER IS ALREADY WORKING AT A DISADVANTAGE>>>> A FREE MARKET SLAVE LABOR DISADVANTAGE>"
When you use caps, it really helps make your point (insert rolling eyes here). Nothing about this legislation prevents big companies from continuing to exploit cheap labour in China. All it does is eliminates any profit margin the small manufacturers in the US might have been making.
Companies won't be able to take advantage of cheap labour in China once the dollar bubble bursts and oil goes back through the roof. Its a situation that will come to an end on its own.
Small business need to be able to make money though because that were successful businesses come from, and when businesses grow, jobs are created. But you're too busy shaking in your boots that government isn't watching everyone else's every move to protect YOU, you don't care if your policies lead to bankrupting small businesses. No successful business started off big, and no unsuccessful business can afford to pay the wages you demand.
Please keep putting your responses in caps. It helps me read them easier.
"Trusting a business is just like trusting a person, because a business is people. Can you get screwed over? Yes. Should the government be there to make sure that person can be trust? No. You will never know every step a business takes, but you can build a relationship with one over time. Can that trust be violated? Yes. This is what courts are for. This type of fear you demonstrate and yearning for government protection you show is what politicians will use to abuse your rights in the name of protecting you."
Hey, Josh, I don't buy things from "another person". I buy things from businesses that operate to make a profit. I expect their products to be safe and tested. I.E. government testing. And no, having a government agency that tests products will not end my freedoms. Only a lack of action will do that.
"And this is why Bush could rationalize a pre-emptive strike. . .should we also be convicting murderers before they commit murder?"
Hey, Josh, war is not a product that I use. Shake your head of that illogic before you post.
"When you use caps, it really helps make your point (insert rolling eyes here). Nothing about this legislation prevents big companies from continuing to exploit cheap labour in China. All it does is eliminates any profit margin the small manufacturers in the US might have been making."
GUESS WHAT! I DON'T CARE. YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE CERTAIN POINTS. I MIGHT AS WELL ARGUE THAT NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS A GOOD AGENCY, BECAUSE THEY WILL END UP "PROTECTING ME", WHICH IS ABSURD. TOTALITARIANISM DOES NOT STEM FROM A GOVERNMENT AGENCY EXISTING>
The legislation for safe products came before the free trade agreements. Therefore, it is your ideology's fault.
"Companies won't be able to take advantage of cheap labour in China once the dollar bubble bursts and oil goes back through the roof. Its a situation that will come to an end on its own."
HOW ABOUT WE TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN IT HAPPENS? OKAY? OKAY.
"Small business need to be able to make money though because that were successful businesses come from, and when businesses grow, jobs are created. But you're too busy shaking in your boots that government isn't watching everyone else's every move to protect YOU, you don't care if your policies lead to bankrupting small businesses. No successful business started off big, and no unsuccessful business can afford to pay the wages you demand."
I DON'T CARE, JOSH, WHEN YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT I AM NOT FOR GOVERNMENT THAT IS WATCHING EVERYONE'S MOVE. I AM SIMPLY FOR AN AGENCY THAT TESTS PRODUCTS FOR SAFETY, AND IF YOU WANT MY FULL OPINION, I THINK THE STATE SHOULD PAY FOR THE COST OF THE TESTS. BUT WAIT! YOU FOLKS HAVE BEEN SLASHING GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
"Please keep putting your responses in caps. It helps me read them easier."
OKAY, I WILL! AND I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND ARGUE THAT "GOVERNMENT AGENCY EXISTING = LESS RIGHTS". IF YOU CONTINUE DOWN THIS STUPID ROAD IT ONLY LEADS TO ANARCHISM>>>
"Hey, Josh, I don't buy things from "another person"."
Well the money goes to someone.
"And no, having a government agency that tests products will not end my freedoms."
Right, but you're not the one trying to start business producing toys.
"Hey, Josh, war is not a product that I use. Shake your head of that illogic before you post."
Its the same premise.
"I THINK THE STATE SHOULD PAY FOR THE COST OF THE TESTS."
I don't agree, but it would be tolerable if they didn't need to have an income tax to implement it.
"Well the money goes to someone."
Yes, and I want there to be a third party between me and that person's drive to make profits.
"Right, but you're not the one trying to start business producing toys."
I feel really bad for them *rolls eyes*, but it doesn't change the fact that defective products can hurt me or kill me.
"Its the same premise."
Actually, no, logically it is not the same premise, because you have replaced "product/toy" with war, hence equivocating war with the consumption of products, which is absurd.
"I don't agree, but it would be tolerable if they didn't need to have an income tax to implement it."
Sorry, going to have to call you a moron on this front. You obviously think people should take all their products to the science lab to get them tested before use.
"Yes, and I want there to be a third party between me and that person's drive to make profits."
Yes. Profits are BAD!!! They do great evil like, provide investment in R&D and create jobs! BOOOO!!!!
"I feel really bad for them *rolls eyes*, but it doesn't change the fact that defective products can hurt me or kill me."
Small businesses are the backbone to any economy, and are the solution to getting people out of wage slave jobs. There's nothing more liberating to any individual than working for yourself. It provides motivation, independence, and it encourages innovation.
"Actually, no, logically it is not the same premise, because you have replaced "product/toy" with war, hence equivocating war with the consumption of products, which is absurd."
Its the same premise because you're punishing individuals before any harm has been done. Its a pre-emptive strike on their liberties, which, for some people, provides meaning and purpose to their lives.
"Sorry, going to have to call you a moron on this front. You obviously think people should take all their products to the science lab to get them tested before use."
More name calling. Should the people buying Dad's food bring it to a science lab to be tested before eating?
"Yes. Profits are BAD!!! They do great evil like, provide investment in R&D and create jobs! BOOOO!!!!"
And they cause 95% corporations to pay slave wages in countries without labor protection.
"Small businesses are the backbone to any economy, and are the solution to getting people out of wage slave jobs. There's nothing more liberating to any individual than working for yourself. It provides motivation, independence, and it encourages innovation."
This doesn't change the fact that some of those businesses are unscrupulous.
You know, Josh, if you start the habit of not addressing the point I made, I'm going to have to call you dishonest.
"Its the same premise because you're punishing individuals before any harm has been done. Its a pre-emptive strike on their liberties, which, for some people, provides meaning and purpose to their lives."
Sorry, I don't buy war, Josh. I don't go to the grocery store and buy an Iraq insurgent. They are not the same thing. I do, however, buy beef, and don't want to get mad cow disease because some bonehead free market beef farmer wasn't as diligent as he should have been.
"More name calling. Should the people buying Dad's food bring it to a science lab to be tested before eating?"
Yes, I think there should be a liscense for what Dad is doing, but I think that the testing or whatever should be paid for through taxes, hence allowing Dad to continue.
"And they cause 95% corporations to pay slave wages in countries without labor protection."
These wages will not change over night. They are growing, shopping has turned into China's 4th favorite hobby.
"This doesn't change the fact that some of those businesses are unscrupulous."
And when business are found for causing harm or committing fraud they should go to jail. These are laws that already exist and are in place at the state level.
"Sorry, I don't buy war, Josh. I don't go to the grocery store and buy an Iraq insurgent."
You do if you're an American paying taxes. I buy war; I'm forced to pay for soldier to occupy Afghanistan.
"I do, however, buy beef, and don't want to get mad cow disease because some bonehead free market beef farmer wasn't as diligent as he should have been."
So buy beef from a farmer you trust. Mom and dad have started to do this.
"Yes, I think there should be a liscense for what Dad is doing, but I think that the testing or whatever should be paid for through taxes, hence allowing Dad to continue."
Why should everyone else pay just because Dad decided to start selling produce to people who trust him?
"These wages will not change over night. They are growing, shopping has turned into China's 4th favorite hobby."
For the upper 25%.
"And when business are found for causing harm or committing fraud they should go to jail. These are laws that already exist and are in place at the state level."
No, there should be testing.
"You do if you're an American paying taxes. I buy war; I'm forced to pay for soldier to occupy Afghanistan."
No, Josh. I directly buy a toy at the mall for my child to play with. The child consumes it PERSONALLY. It is my leaders who have choosen to go to war. I have NOT BOUGHT a war.
"So buy beef from a farmer you trust. Mom and dad have started to do this."
I don't trust anyone who operates for a profit and I certainly don't want to sacrifice my family based on a false trust. They should be tested.
"Why should everyone else pay just because Dad decided to start selling produce to people who trust him?"
Because trust is not enough to protect us from death from those who would use their products for short term profit or who are too stupid, cheap, or careful enough to test their products.
"No, there should be testing."
Maybe, but I shouldn't pay for the testing on a product I don't want.
"It is my leaders who have choosen to go to war. t is my leaders who have choosen to go to war. I have NOT BOUGHT a war."
I work, which creates income, they tax, they use these dollars to buy way. I work to pay for war.
"I don't trust anyone who operates for a profit and I certainly don't want to sacrifice my family based on a false trust. They should be tested."
Everyone operates for a profit. Strong communities are built on trust, not regulations.
"Because trust is not enough to protect us from death from those who would use their products for short term profit or who are too stupid, cheap, or careful enough to test their products."
Not 100% and neither is regulation.
"Maybe, but I shouldn't pay for the testing on a product I don't want. "
Yes, actually, you should, because there will always be a product that you WILL BUY that could potentially kill or harm you.
"I work, which creates income, they tax, they use these dollars to buy way. I work to pay for war."
No, sorry, you don't buy war. You buy carrots, not war.
"I work, which creates income, they tax, they use these dollars to buy way. I work to pay for war."
Unfortunately, free markets are in the business of destroying communities and their trust relations, hence protective agencies.
"Not 100% and neither is regulation."
Wow, an intelligent response!
Yes, that is true, but there will many less "accidents" and "oversights" and "we're just human afteralls" if we regulate.
Post a Comment