You mistakenly believe the FDA protects you against fraud. I can’t account for ideas, however false, that make some people feel good, but other than those ideas, the FDA provides you with NOTHING of value (unless you are employed by them).

Seems to me that the example is relevant.

while on vacation, I had a hunger crisis, so I went to a restaurant and got myself out of the crisis. Should I have been worried about the lack of “honesty incentive” due to lower likelyhood of “repeated games”?

Why wouldn’t the same profit motive that causes existing suppliers to increase production also lead to market entry? The prospect of additional profits always leads to both. And, how exactly do you suppose drug companies scale up production so significantly? They contract with new manufacturers.

Certainly in a situation like Katrina new suppliers will enter – probably significantly moreso than with vaccines.

But you need to explain why the profit motive increases intensive production but doesn’t increase extensive production.

No doubt the incentives are lower, but suppliers would, in my estimation, actually go above and beyond what is normal decorum during a crisis to build trust with consumers.

I made the (I thought) not too crazy leap that suppliers in crisis situations are less likely to be interested in or have prospects of repeated business interactions, compared to suppliers in normal conditions.

That’s a very large leap to take. While it’s true that there are always charlatans out there running fly by night operations. Do you have any data to support your assertion that they would have a disproportionate market share during a crisis? That’s the only way your argument holds any water.

I would say read her book, but that would be like buying a Kanye West album, I wouldn’t want to reward bad behavior. Needless to say, Shock Doctrine is all the rage in socialist circles (Undergrad English, and Soc depts).

I’m actually pulling this from a workshop I attended that was directed by a GMU econ professor, Bart Wilson. Markets depend on trust. Trust is built to a large extent by the prospect of repeated business interactions. I made the (I thought) not too crazy leap that suppliers in crisis situations are less likely to be interested in or have prospects of repeated business interactions, compared to suppliers in normal conditions. Thus, less incentive to be trustworthy. What’s wrong with that logic? I don’t think you need someone like Naomi Klein to defend that.

Lawyers maybe?

No wait, HS history teachers! My wife had a history teacher that told the class that the Holocaust didn’t happen. She, the teacher, never got fired because of the union, instead she got moved from teaching HS history to grade school (1-5) to fill even younger minds full of utter nonsense.

This is like the Wal-Mart argument. Libs love to complain at Wal-Mart about workers rights, benefits blah blah blah…yet continue to shop there. They don’t put their money where there mouth is.

We probably won’t know how many people die each year waiting on drugs to get approved by the FDA considering where the funding for such a study would come from.