Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Law Passed After Mattel Toy Scare Makes Exception for Mattel
Remember the sloppily written "for the children" toy testing law that went into effect last year? The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) requires third-party testing of nearly every object intended for a child's use, and was passed in response to several toy recalls in 2007 for lead and other chemicals. Six of those recalls were on toys made by Mattel, or its subsidiary Fisher Price.
Small toymakers were blindsided by the expensive requirement, which made no exception for small domestic companies working with materials that posed no threat. Makers of books, jewelry, and clothes for kids were also caught in the net. Enforcement of the law was delayed by a year—that grace period ended last week—and many particular exceptions have been carved out, but despite an outcry, there has been no wholesale re-evaluation of the law. Once might think that large toy manufacturers would have made common cause with the little guys begging for mercy. After all, Mattel also stood to gain if the law was repealed, right?
Turns out, when Mattel got lemons, it decided to make lead-tainted lemonade (leadonade?). As luck would have it, Mattel already operates several of its own toy testing labs, including those in Mexico, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and California.
So while most small toymakers had no idea this law was coming down the pike until it was too late, Mattel spent $1 million lobbying for a little provision to be included in the CPSIA permitting companies to test their own toys in "firewalled" labs that have won Consumer Product Safety Commission approval.
The million bucks was well spent, as Mattel gained approval late last week to test its own toys in the sites listed above—just as the window for delayed enforcement closed.
Instead of winding up hurting, Mattel now has a cost advantage on mandatory testing, and a handy new government-sponsored barrier to entry for its competitors.
Preston|8.31.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Wow! This is quite a surprise! I would have never thought that a
million dollars spent lobbying would have any impact whatsoever on
a piece of legislation. Politicians are smart enough to not buy
into the bullshit peddled by lobbyists.
Not.
Joe M|8.31.09 @ 11:06AM|#
So typical. All the people railing against capitalism need to understand this story and exactly what it means.
|8.31.09 @ 11:12AM|#
All the people railing against capitalism need to understand
this story and exactly what it means.
That the capitalists with the most money get to play by different
rules than their poorer counterparts?
Joe M|8.31.09 @ 11:17AM|#
If they get to influence government regulations, yes. That's why the government shouldn't be regulating. Because they will always, ALWAYS, be bought off.
Xeones|8.31.09 @ 11:18AM|#
ChiTom, this is exactly why i describe myself as a free-market
libertarian, and not a capitalist liberal; the words no longer mean
what they used to.
Mattel already operates several of its own toy testing labs,
including those in Mexico, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and
California.
So just a bunch of third-world countries, then? Whoops, i didn't
read that right. Sorry, China.
Preston|8.31.09 @ 11:20AM|#
The problem isn't that the capitalists with the money get to
play by different rules, per se, but that the government is large
enough to create regulations that create the unfair playing field
that exists.
If there was a true free market, then the smaller companies would
operate on a much more even plane than they do now. The way the
current system is set up, the big companies are able to game the
system by lobbying and donating campaign funds to maintain their
market share. Just look at Altria (AKA Philip Morris) advocating
for the FDA to regulate tobacco. This will undoubtedly allow them
to stay in a leadership position, and limit their competitors
opportunities for growth.
It is a fallacy to say that small government helps big business,
when it is, in fact, the exact opposite. Big government greatly
reduces competition and innovation, which, in turn, helps those
already in power.
|8.31.09 @ 11:25AM|#
The "progressive" response -
We just need more and betterer regulations drafted by "the right
people". Perhaps toy, chidren's clothing and beginner books czars
are in order.
It is not as if the disproportionate impact on small businesses
wasn't loudly and clearly pointed out to every corporate fellating
politician on the hill. They knew what the impact on small
businesses and charities would be. They knew that the lead scare
was at best a tempest in a teapot that consumer choice was already
well on the way to solving.
Any politician who claims to have supported this "for the children"
should be in stocks in the town square.
|8.31.09 @ 11:26AM|#
The "progressive" response
Is "we're not truly free until those who disagree with me and my
morally superior views have absolutely no power to influence the
government; this is the direct result of my lack of absolute
power."
Holly Jahangiri|8.31.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Money talks. Consumers' money, too - if anyone will teach it to
speak. Does anyone care enough about this to try?
Here's a list of things Santa WON'T be bringing in our
household...
Bronwyn|8.31.09 @ 11:29AM|#
I wonder when they'll start coming after me and my crafty
peers?
Sold a baby quilt last week, am shipping off a set of custom aprons
to a return client, and have a pile of bibs and overalls for
delivery to The Makery here in Louisville.
I'm just waiting for the hammer to fall. Practically inviting it
too, I guess. Not sure if this makes me rebellious or stupid, or
both?
Bronwyn|8.31.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Mattel/Fisher Price won't be getting any of my dollars,
Holly.
Actually, I'm buying up the classic Fisher Price toys of my youth
from ebay.
Nothing new, though.
Does anyone know if Melissa & Doug were on the right side of
this?
Holly Jahangiri|8.31.09 @ 11:33AM|#
Let's not let this degenerate into a partisan rant - it was pushed through and almost UNANIMOUSLY approved, in an unseemly rush, towards the end of 2008. It is a bipartisan disaster - both parties are responsible, as are those who jumped on the "but it's for the SAFETY of our CHILDREN!" bandwagon, without reading the law and understanding what it entailed.
Holly Jahangiri|8.31.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Thanks, Bronwyn. Rebellious or stupid, I don't know - but I'm
right there with you. I want to start Operation Rescue the
Children's Books. Because books printed prior to 1985 are at risk
(in some cases, already being destroyed) due to this law.
I say we relabel them all as "collectibles" or ban children 12 and
under from the libraries - I'm willing to be the "subversive mom"
who checks them out and lets her kids read them. Can't you just see
the headlines now: "CPS Removes Kids from Home, Mom Providing Them
Hazardous Waste in the Form of BOOKS!" (Okay, so my youngest is 13,
but I put BOOKS in their CRIBS when they were babies!!)
creech|8.31.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Bronwyn is a terrorist who needs to be hauled off to Gitmo and subjected to endless days of viewing pictures of children maimed by greedy makers of toys (also knows as WMDs).
Bronwyn|8.31.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Holly, I'm linking to your blog on my fb and lj pages. It's nice
being able to defer to those more eloquent than myself :)
As with the healthcare "debate", where opponents of the plan du
jour are labeled as racist murderers, those of us who opposed the
CPSIA are callous baby killers.
Baby killers armed with hand-carved and hand-sewn toys.
Watch it!! She's got a knitting needle!
Joe M|8.31.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Come on, P Brooks, that's a little extreme. Let's just go with mandatory lobotomies and castrations.
|8.31.09 @ 11:58AM|#
I gotta stop being a sucker and working for a living, and become a landlord, then I can profit from all this rent seeking.
Bronwyn|8.31.09 @ 12:03PM|#
To the disappointment and sadness of my husband and 2 year old
son, no, Xeones, we do not at the moment have a dog.
Good thing, too, because Rozsda (may she rest in peace) was known
for enthusiastically greeting threateningly lunging
and wetting the floor assaulting with bodily fluids
anyone who came through our door.
Holly Jahangiri|8.31.09 @ 12:07PM|#
Thank you, Bronwyn.
It occurs to me, though, that the opponents of the healthcare plan
must want it to pass - instead of arguing on point, they show up
and try to drown out any rational debate or discussion. It's a bit
like this, actually; latch onto a few fearmongering buzzwords
("child safety," "lead tainted," "toxic toys" - or "death panels,"
and "nanny state," and "government corruption") and people's brains
miraculously shut down. They don't have to work very hard; no
thought it required, because who in their right mind can't tell
right from wrong when someone's throwing those buzzwords around??
You'd have to be a moron, or a nutcase...
Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of thinking that leaves us
with messes like this.
Bronwyn|8.31.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Buzzwords kill any and all rational thought.
It's for the children!
Tough on Crime!
Food safety! (For the Children!)
Free healthcare for all! (Especially the Children!)
No Child Left Behind!
I wish these people would stop trying to protect my children.
That's *my* job.
|8.31.09 @ 12:22PM|#
I wonder what the kids would think if you could demonstrate the
fascinating effect of logarithmic compounding interest.
Nothing like Saving the Children when its actually the kids who
will pay for it, plus interest.
In a perverse way, all those kids in Chinese factories making junk
for our kids which gets our cash that Chairman Mao then loans back
to us to save our children from said junk, are doing more for their
future then we think...
|8.31.09 @ 12:49PM|#
brotherben, the question is do you consider yourself a
"progressive"?
Do you, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, look to
the government to solve every problem in society or do you possess
healthy amounts of cynicism and skepticism?
BTW, I like you bb. Don't always (usually?) agree with you but I
perceive you as an honest, civil and intelligent sort.
|8.31.09 @ 12:54PM|#
"In a perverse way, all those kids in Chinese factories making
junk for our kids which gets our cash that Chairman Mao then loans
back to us to save our children from said junk, are doing more for
their future then we think..." -
i love that statement. not only is it true, but it identifies what
statists won't admit. whenever libertarians start talking about
deregulation, statists always claim we want to put children to work
in sweatshops. missing completely the fact that us labor standard
and trade regs simply export child labor to other countries. the
real barrier to child labor in this country is wealth, quality of
life, and culture. if people were really that interested in
employing kids, they would do it!
|8.31.09 @ 1:04PM|#
J sub D, thanks for the kind words.
I asked the question after you posited the progressive response. My
thought was this. A country that was founded and governed by the
wealthy landed gentry doing things in the best interest of wealthy
corporations comes as no surprise to me.
|8.31.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Do you, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary,
look to the government to solve every problem in society or do you
possess healthy amounts of cynicism and skepticism?
People in this country need to redevelop a strong sense of personal
responsibility including the realization that their life is a
result of their choices. With that realization they also need to
decide ether to be happy with their circumstances or work to change
them.
I do believe that the government has a duty to address some of the
problems of the people. However, I am jaded enough to strongly
doubt the govts ability to do anything in an efficient and
productive manner.
JB|8.31.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Anyone who works for Mattel is a whore.
When your company is a rent-seeking whore, you are a rent-seeking
whore.
JB|8.31.09 @ 1:26PM|#
We could eliminate teen sex abuse if we kill all children at
age eight.
Abortion...it's for the children.
Well, them and other fetuses.
robc|8.31.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Let's not let this degenerate into a partisan
rant
It is partison. Libertarians vs The World.
robc|8.31.09 @ 2:00PM|#
I wonder if I would gain or lose more votes from having "Fuck off, slavers" yard signs, bumper stickers and billboards? Not to mention TV and radio ads.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 2:14PM|#
When your company is a rent-seeking whore, you are a rent-seeking whore.
Why are you blaming them?
|8.31.09 @ 2:14PM|#
That the capitalists with the most money get to play by
different rules than their poorer counterparts?
That the government, and the so-called "progressives" have
completely given up on any notion that the market should remain a
level (i.e. fair) playing field for all competitors, and decided
that it should be "engineered" to "create jobs" and benefit the
"national interest". Hence we get massive bailouts for the Big
Three, because we have to "support US industry", and narrowly
focused tax breaks for "green energy" - whatever that means.
And once you get the government trying to manipulate the economy to
favor or disfavor particular industries (depending on whatever the
conventional wisdom thinks is good for us at the moment), you are
going to get lobbyists vieing for such favor.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 2:31PM|#
I don't blame Mattell here, do you guys? After all, the buck stops with the government - they are the ones who ultimately dictate how much influence they are willing to sell.
|8.31.09 @ 2:35PM|#
MOTHER fuckers.
We just became a Mattel-free house.
I don't blame Mattell here, do you guys?
Yes. Mattel largely created the mess to begin with and then found a
way to get themselves exempted. Fuck them.
Fuck the CPSI too, but that's a different ball of wax.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Yes. Mattel largely created the mess to begin with and then found a way to get themselves exempted. Fuck them.
Ah, so Mattell is to blame for the actions of the government now. I
see.
|8.31.09 @ 2:48PM|#
TAO:
no, they're just complicit. but your point is that the pols are the
primary dicks? correct.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 2:57PM|#
that's not even my point, ransom. Mattell is exercising its First Amendment rights, and doing so rationally as well. Face it, if the government said that there was a list of 100 people getting drafted, wouldn't you do your best to get off of the list? Setting aside the fact that the draft deserves violent revolution, so far as I am concerned, I don't think that makes you "complicit" in the draft.
robc|8.31.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Mattell is to blame for the actions of the government now. I
see.
They paid for it, unlike the second "l" you keep trying to give
them.
Why cant I blame BOTH Mattel and the government? Is there some rule
against spreading blame around?
robc|8.31.09 @ 3:08PM|#
TAO,
As I always argue, there are correct means to follow. Bribery
(usually) or rent-seeking (always) are not moral means. Draft
dodging or civil disobedience of violent overthrow could be moral
means.
robc|8.31.09 @ 3:09PM|#
TAO,
Okay, not really complicit, but also behaving improperly. The draft
is still the fault of the congress. If I bribed officials to have
you drafted, I would be complicit.
The 2nd is closer to what Mattel did.
|8.31.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Ah, so Mattell is to blame for the actions of the government
now. I see.
No, but they are responsible for their shitty QA standards that
allowed their toys to be such a neon sign for the pols to act and
pass the CPSI.
Mattell is exercising its First Amendment rights, and doing so
rationally as well.
Hey, ADM is just excercising the right to redress when they
petition the state for an corn-fed ethanol mandate that fucks all
of us with higher food prices and shitty gas, and that lines their
pockets with higher profits, merely by conincedence.
The 1st Amendment makes rent-seeking OK. Gotcha.
|8.31.09 @ 3:11PM|#
TAO:
i see your point, and can't really argue it.
still, ya wanna hold the rent seekers at least partially
accountable. i guess that's freedom of association, and the proper
method. don't use govt. but use $ and ridicule to punish
them...
|8.31.09 @ 3:15PM|#
i don't think he's saying it's moral, but rational.
it's a weird area, like conspiracy.
if you help plan a crime are you guilty? what is you offense?
i have trouble w/ conspiracy as an prosecutable offense.
JB|8.31.09 @ 3:19PM|#
I don't blame Mattell here, do you guys?
Yes, I do. They and everyone who works there are rent-seeking
whores.
A company like Mattel can do the right thing and not try to rig the
market in their favor. They can issue a statement saying "we could
lobby to get special exemptions, but we provide quality products at
a good price and we do not fear competition as it only makes us
stronger."
Here is a story from one fancy restaurant I went to. Waiter comes
over and we put in a drink order. He ids my friend and I (both 28
at the time), but she doesn't have her passport on her. He declines
to serve her. I ask for the manager and state that we are both 28
years old.
The manager says that he understands, but he can't serve her and
that they didn't make the law. I ask him if his restaurant has ever
done anything to address the stupid law (letter to the lawmakers
which frequent his establishment, etc.). He replied no and then I
told him not to offer platitudes to his customers and instead do
something about a law which he finds stupid. He went away
chastened, and needless to say I've never been back to that
restaurant.
robc|8.31.09 @ 3:22PM|#
ransom,
There action is rational and constitutional, but I can still blame
them.
|8.31.09 @ 3:23PM|#
i don't think he's saying it's moral, but
rational.
All sorts of things that we would consider to be rational can also
be amoral or unethical.
A violent criminal will still have a sense of self-preservation,
despite his crime, and will shoot back when cornered. That doesn't
make it right. (No, I'm not comparing Mattel to a violent
criminal...)
Yes, the feds are the ones passing this idiotic law. I already said
to fuck them for that. They are also doing it because Mattel's
actions allowed a media hysteria to form, which drove the
legislation.
I can't boycott the guvmint, but I can boycott Mattel for their
stupidity, culpability in creating a HUGE burden for smaller
competitors, and now their chicken-shit behavior.
robc|8.31.09 @ 3:29PM|#
I can't boycott the guvmint
You can, but that falls into the irrational category.
moosecat|8.31.09 @ 3:39PM|#
sometimes you just have to "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system"
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 3:46PM|#
At the end of the day, the Congressperson is the one who presses
the "yes" or "no" button. Like I said, it is on their heads however
much influence they want to make salable. Mattel is not the whore
here: Mattel is just battening down the hatches and giving itself
the best position it can in a bad situation.
A company like Mattel can do the right thing and not try to rig the market in their favor. They can issue a statement saying "we could lobby to get special exemptions, but we provide quality products at a good price and we do not fear competition as it only makes us stronger."
Earth to JB - please come back from the Planet Fantasia.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 3:52PM|#
they are responsible for their shitty QA standards that allowed their toys to be such a neon sign for the pols to act and pass the CPSI.
"Aw, did you see that slutty skirt on her? She was asking to be
raped! She wanted it!"
|8.31.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"Aw, did you see that slutty skirt on her? She was asking
to be for all the other women to be raped too! She
wanted it! And then she held down the other women while they were
raped! And then she laughed at them while she made out with the
rapists and made them order her drinks!"
FTFY
Joe M|8.31.09 @ 4:01PM|#
The manager says that he understands, but he can't serve her
and that they didn't make the law. I ask him if his restaurant has
ever done anything to address the stupid law (letter to the
lawmakers which frequent his establishment, etc.). He replied no
and then I told him not to offer platitudes to his customers and
instead do something about a law which he finds stupid. He went
away chastened, and needless to say I've never been back to that
restaurant.
They can be shut down for breaking the law. The amount of resources
they would need to change that law, versus the financial gain of
removing the law, are totally out of proportion.
As for the rest of it, I have to agree with TAO: Mattel didn't
lobby for the standards and then get out of following them. They
just tried to protect themselves. In the former case, they would
really be bastards for using the government as a club. In the
latter case, they are merely rational actors.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 4:53PM|#
no, JW, you didn't "Fix that for me". Perhaps you're a little out of your intellectual depth here too.
mark|8.31.09 @ 5:09PM|#
TAO, so in the absence of intervention, would there be any legal remedies for parents whose kids' brains were damaged from the lead paint? Could Mattell argue that they never said there was NOT any lead paint in their toys, so caveat emptor, bitches? What am I supposed to say to people I work with, who are directly affected by this law, and hate the competitive advantage now attained by Mattell, but nonetheless think it's a "good thing" that government is "making sure" that children's toys are lead free?
Joe M|8.31.09 @ 5:11PM|#
The government isn't the only agent that can testify to a product's efficacy and/or safety.
|8.31.09 @ 5:50PM|#
ChicagoTom | August 31, 2009, 11:12am | #
All the people railing against capitalism need to understand this story and exactly what it means.
That the capitalists with the most money get to play by different rules than their poorer counterparts?
Yes, ChiTom, that's exactly what happens when govt sticks its
regulatory finger into the free market pie. Thus, one who wants to
level the playing field for the poor vs. the rich should oppose
govt regulation.
|8.31.09 @ 6:00PM|#
TAO,
The politicians who voted for the bill were acting rationally, too.
If they voted against it their election opponents would run ads
saying they wanted to kill your children with poisoned Asiatic
toys. If you want to find someone who was actually acting
irrationally, look at the electorate who set up such perverse
incentives in the first place by being so damned ignorant and
gullible. But it's hard to boycott the electorate,
unfortunately.
But the larger point is that acting rationally in one's own
self-interest does not make those actions automatically moral and
blameless. (Heresy, I know, to an Objectivist, but keep an open
mind, brother.) Apple is acting totally in their rational
self-interest when they deny my claim under their extended warranty
due to an obscure provision displayed in 4 point type on page 22 of
the warranty agreement. Does that mean I have to applaud their
rationality and buy a bunch more stuff from them? Nope.
Indeed, if enough people boycott them for their rent-seeking
behavior, it will make such actions irrational. That's
kind of the point.
JB|8.31.09 @ 6:20PM|#
Earth to JB - please come back from the Planet
Fantasia.
There are plenty of companies which do not hire whores (lobbyists)
to suck off Congresscritters for special exemptions. Actually that
is the majority of companies in this country.
JB|8.31.09 @ 6:27PM|#
The amount of resources they would need to change that law,
versus the financial gain of removing the law, are totally out of
proportion
Did I say otherwise?
However for how many times they say things like 'we don't like it,
but it's the law' they could have taken 15 minutes to write a
letter to Congress. So the next time they have to deal the issue
they could say 'we don't like it, and have complained to the morons
that run this country'.
As for getting shut down, that's not likely to happen and it was at
their discretion to serve us. They were playing Cover Their Ass
with a bullshit law they have done nothing to oppose. And I
question any sort of restaurant who hires people that cannot tell
the difference between a 19 and a 28 year old.
|8.31.09 @ 6:31PM|#
That the capitalists with the most money get to play by
different rules than their poorer counterparts?
Yup. Every time.
And the funny thing is, that somebody gets special treatment any
time any power is exercised by any government, anytime, anywhere.
Even in shithole countries without any real capitalists around, or
totalitarian hellholes with definitely no capitalists
allowed.
It almost makes you think the real inherent problem here, the thing
we should be trying to minimize, is government power.
Holly Jahangiri|8.31.09 @ 6:54PM|#
Many of us have written to and called Congress, only to be met with platitudes, outright nonsense, or silence.
|8.31.09 @ 6:58PM|#
R C Dean, it's the power of money that is the problem. If hyperinflation comes to us as some predict, then Obama will have done his part to lessen the power that money wields.
|8.31.09 @ 7:06PM|#
If hyperinflation comes to us as some predict, then Obama
will have done his part to lessen the power that money
wields.
That will only affect the poor schlubs whose assets are
dollar-denominated, not possessors of capital and huge ... tracts
of land ...
ie, not the people who are throwing chips around in the high-stakes
poker game that our federal government has become.
Bronwyn|8.31.09 @ 8:21PM|#
Mattel certainly did lobby for the provisions in this law prior
to its passage. They are absolutely to blame for the spate of
lead-laden toys that hit the market and prompted the media hysteria
and set the congressbeasts into Do Something Mode.
These laboratories of theirs were certainly in place before the
CPSIA and we all know how effective they were. Now they are
managing to maintain the status quo for themselves while their
lobbyists ensured that the rest of us get raped up the ass with
regulatory requirements with which we can't possible comply.
And JW's correction of your rape metaphor was closer to the mark
than you know, TAO.
mark|8.31.09 @ 9:55PM|#
In other product safety news, the Feds are cracking down on eBay and garage sales because selling a recalled product is a crime. Discuss.
The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 10:20PM|#
And JW's correction of your rape metaphor was closer to the mark than you know, TAO.
No, actually, it was not. JW directly blamed Mattel's lead fiasco
on Congress passing a law. That is wholly analogous to "getting
what you deserve for setting up an attractive target".
|9.1.09 @ 7:55AM|#
No, actually, it was not. JW directly blamed Mattel's lead
fiasco on Congress passing a law. That is wholly analogous to
"getting what you deserve for setting up an attractive
target".
Way to completely miss the point.
Mattel was culpable in CPSI passing in that their sloppy
manufacturing standards were the match that lit the fuse. They
didn't pass the bill, but their behavior was instrumental in
crafting it.
Now, they don't want to bear the burden for the consequences of
their behavior after being the primary instigator. That's the
chicken-shit part and what pissses me off the most.
Being rational doesn't make it right by default. That they had a
hand in the language of the bill doens't surprise me at all. The
passage was a forgone conclusion, so in their view, "lying back and
enjoying it," knowing their competitors would be hamstrung more by
govt action and aiding that process was a strategic decision, one
that begs to be punished by market forces.
"In late August 2007, Mattel, the largest toymaker in the world, hired a new lobbying firm, Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart, to lobby on the bill. One of their lobbyists on this issue was Sheila Murphy, recently the legislative director for Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic member of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs subcommittee. Klobuchar became a cosponsor of the bill in late September 2007.
Hasbro, the world's No. 2 toymaker, had never had a Washington lobbyist, according to federal lobbying filings, before October 2007, when the company hired the Duberstein Group, headed by Ken Dubertstein, the former White House Chief of Staff under Ronald Reagan. Since then, Hasbro has spent $500,000 on lobbying.
But these industry giants weren't resisting regulation-they were embracing it. Carter Keithley, president of the Toy Industry Association-of whom Mattel is the biggest member-told this columnist "we were early proponents of adopting mandatory laws to require toy testing."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/Washington-toy-story-shows-why-regulation-helps-the-big-guys38690727.html
|9.1.09 @ 9:02AM|#
A thought experiment on TAO's rationality standard being the get
out of jail free card.
Let's say that you live in a rural community. Your family has had
the town's only well for drinking water and has so for several
generations. This is in Libertopia, so the family has been selling
the water rights to the town at a reasonable market price. It was
an amicable arrangement.
Now, say you are the current owner of the well. It's operated
safely for about 100 years, but suddenly, you discover, it's become
contaminated with arsenic and other metals at a level that could be
toxic. You can't trace the source of the contamination, but let's
assume that it's natural and no foul play is at work. Complicating
matters is that the town has found other water recently, but it
will cost too much money to tap this source and the owner of this
water wants twice that of what you currently charge.
The problem is that this well is your only source of income and you
have no marketable skills otherwise. You have a large family and
saw no need for other skills as the well has operated efficiently
and profitably for a century. It's not a life of leisure, but it's
comfortable.
You do have an online for-fee, fetish porn site you operate on the
side that no one, I mean NO ONE, in the community knows about,
certainly not your family, but it's small and not generating all
that much income. The income is certainly not enough to live on,
it's only been spending money, and this is a very conservative
community you live in. Your site is popular in decedent
Shelbyville, but nowhere else.
People are starting to get sick, presumably because of the well
water contamination. No one has died and probably won't because the
levels aren't at a concentration that would be fatal, but half the
town feels like shit and are losing work as a result. No one
suspects that the water is the source of the illnesses.
Do you tell the townsfolk? If you do, they'll stop buying water
from you and there goes your family's source of income. If you
don't, nothing really bad will happen, other than some sick people,
and your family continues to be fed and clothed and your porn site
stays secret. You decide to say nothing and work on finding the
source of the contamination in the meantime. There's no way of
knowing if you will find it nor if the contamination will
worsen.
Rational self-interest or unethical weasel-baggery?
|9.1.09 @ 9:40AM|#
JW, unless you have the skills to test for and determine what
contaminants are present, you had a lab do it. If you did it
yourself, at home, you have other marketable skills. If you had a
lab do it, you are screwed because now their is a dated paper trail
for the lawyers to follow when they sue your ass for makin the
folks sick. Your other marketable skill is web site design and
operation from your experience wuth the porn site.
You have lots of marketable skills from your business ventures and
risk losing everything if you continue to sell the sickness causing
water. and a douchebag to boot.
|9.1.09 @ 10:26AM|#
ben--Assume that a lab did test the water, as it did every year,
and this year it found the contamination. What a test won't tell
you is where the contaminator comes from.
Any anyone can set up a porn site. Making money on it, that's
another story. Don't tell me you *pay* for your porn!
Also assume that if his wife found out about his side job, that
would be the end of his marriage. It's a very conservative
community. Somebody has to be the black sheep.
You have lots of marketable skills from your business ventures
and risk losing everything if you continue to sell the sickness
causing water. and [are] a douchebag to boot.
Sure, that's my view as well, but he is acting in rational
self-interest in preserving his income stream for now. And yes, he
is taking a BIG chance by not divulging this information. However,
the question remains, is rational self-interest enough to absolve
him of his liability?
|9.1.09 @ 3:02PM|#
"However, the question remains, is rational self-interest enough
to absolve him of his liability?"
If your only moral tenet is rational self-interest, there is no
"liability" to speak of other than toward YOURSELF. So, I guess if
you do whatever preserves you - be it offering a broader range of
porn on your site, or hoping your community is deformed by the
water enough to go TRULY balls-out on the fetishism - any decision
that keeps you in the green is the "right" one.
sex toys|9.2.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Mattel certainly did lobby for the provisions in this law prior
to its passage. They are absolutely to blame for the spate of
lead-laden toys that hit the market and prompted the media hysteria
and set the congressbeasts into Do Something Mode.
These laboratories of theirs were certainly in place before the
CPSIA and we all know how effective they were. Now they are
managing to maintain the status quo for themselves while their
lobbyists ensured that the rest of us get raped up the ass with
regulatory requirements with which we can't possible comply.
And JW's correction of your rape metaphor was closer to the mark
than you know, TAO.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245