One of the examples of the experimental standard that they expect is given by one of their own papers "Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Disclaimers in Advertising, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31 (2012), 293-304". It is an interesting read. They undertook experiments that were apparently used in a Florida court case. They that showed that including mandatory Disclaimers for implant surgery had the opposite effect to that intended (ie people were more likely to be confused by the disclaimers and more likely to choose less qualified dentists (for implants) compared to adverts that didn't have the disclaimers.
PROOF are an industry accreditation organisation promoting the commercial production of livestock in free-range open pastures. They have a strict code of ethics and guidelines that are intended to complement State and Territory legislation. [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_screen_shot_2017-01-14_at_12203_pm.png][/imgz] http://www.proof.net.au/ The following link is to suppliers that are licensed PROOF farmers for anyone interested in sourcing their food based upon ethical considerations: http://www.proof.net.au/Where-to-Buy-free-range
IGA/Foodland is governed by Metcash the same goes for the liquor chain store Cellarbrations. http://www.metcash.com/
Are you saying that the restrictions are corporate policy? From what i've read it appears that the restrictions are legislative.
Trump is busy trying to reduce the regulatory burden that individuals and businesses suffer. Would be nice to see our pollies do the same. https://www.rt.com/usa/375642-trump-executive-orders-regulation/
yep he might not be liked but he has plenty of commonsense. This is what happens when a real businessman has the job. He has a kiss mindset which is great in a lot of things , not so good in others
But doesn't government regulation and taxes build businesses and create prosperity? Surely we just need another 100,000 pages of new regulations, double all personal and company income taxes and increase GST to a sensible 40% and we'll have all of the free stuff we want and we'll all be happy as pigs in muck.
Attempts at raising the standards for poultry farming in Australia have hit a stumbling block, with 3 scientists stating their research has been quoted out of context and the RSPCA threatening to quit the whole standards accreditation scheme. So the incorruptibility of the process for establishing new standards for poultry has been questioned? With the RSPCA et al claiming the draft standards put industry interests ahead of the welfare of poultry. That's what happens with mandated legislative practices, they are a political solution to social and resource utilisation issues and as such, do not necessarily reflect the values of all stakeholders in the industry. As so often happens they end up favouring one group at the expense of others and are ineffective. But even more damning and indicative of the failure of State mandated standards: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...of-process-is-questioned-20170213-gubgx0.html In other words, even with legislation in place, consumers remain ignorant of the real standards, the reason they have been adopted and the limitations of these regulations. This is because that under mandated minimum standards there is little motive for producers to market their product and educate consumers in order to stand out from the flock - in other words, there's little money it for them. Everyone has to abide by a state enforced code so why bother advertising it? Furthermore consumer ignorance remains generally unchallenged as they don't know any better, and the only dissenting information they hear is from the RSPCA etc, which has its own motive, and providing consumers with cheap, quality eggs produced in a humane manner is not necessarily at the top of their agenda. Contrast that with a voluntary accreditation and certification scheme where producers are incentivised to both market their product in order to establish themselves as distinct from any opposition, and more importantly, they also have to educate consumers in order to get their message across and in the process create consumer driven pressure to raise standards.
Market demand from consumers driving reform. There has been a massive a shift in the ethical choices of consumers and it's being reflected in management strategies being employed by many farmers, voluntarily. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqOmD5Mhx4[/youtube]
In yet another blow in the face for supporters of the State and their mistaken belief in regulations, the new "Free-range egg" labeling laws are next to useless and set a new benchmark for mass poultry production, rather than reflect consumer sentiment. https://www.proof.net.au/Free-Range-Egg-Labelling
snip Republished on http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive with permission from the Mises Institute.
Determining value for money from mandated regulatory guidelines can be difficult to assess. Compulsory CTP and national injury assistance scheme for accidents on the road add $350/year to the cost of car registration. This is nearly half of the total annual registration costs and are not subject to market choice, as such, there is no way for me to determine if I am getting any value for money. Especially as I already have trauma/life insurance cover.
Appetise had an IPO on the ASX during the week, it’s an online and mobile ordering system that connects restaurants with consumers.
Uber attempts to garner government protection. https://cei.org/blog/uber-wants-make-it-illegal-operate-your-own-self-driving-car-cities
Free-market regulatory conditions make it possible for consumers to avail themselves of products they want, not what governments or corporations tell them they should/shouldn't have: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/yet-another-lesson-from-the-cambridge-analytica-fiasco
