Came across an interesting article in today’s NY Times on whether product regulation is a cost to business. Some choice excerpts:
Unfortunately, they ignore a vital point: health and safety agencies rarely impose new costs on society when we issue safety regulations. We simply re-allocate who pays the costs.
Anyone who insists that regulations necessarily impose new costs on society shouldn’t be taken seriously. The costs are already there, in the form of deaths and injuries — and are often as much of a drag on our economy as any safety rule. So the real issue is who should bear the costs.
Not all regulation is bad, nor is it always more costly. And one of the ways to ensure that our safety rules are cost-effective is to use thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.
HT to Stefano Soro for finding the article.
Our official office Twitter account has attracted some attention from people who don’t like the EU. Fair enough. However, I’m not going to engage with this level of debate:
@EUlondonrep I hate Barrosso! Who voted for the cunt? Answer:No one! How can we vote the cunt out? Answer: We can’t! EU = fascist state
@EUlondonrep = voice of the occupier. We will never surrender, never forgive and we will never forget. Fuck off, you’re not welcome here.
@EUlondonrep @derekvaughan we will never accept the occupation of Britain by EU SCUM.We will NEVER forgive, NEVER forget and NEVER surrender
@EUlondonrep we will never accept the occupation of Britain by EU SCUM. We will NEVER forgive, NEVER forget and we will NEVER surrender
Can’t help thinking someone needs a holiday…
I’m at an event today organised by the World Food Programme on Social media for humanitarian change. Some interesting speakers from the worlds of humanitarian assistance and social media. Hoping to hear about how people are using social media to affect change. If there’s anything exciting I will blog it, or you can also follow #sm4change on Twitter.
Can I point out a few things?
1) The EU rules can regulate how things are put on the market, but not how they are used in the home. So they recommend supervision for use of balloons etc that children could choke on, but don’t ban children from using them.
2) 25000 British kids are taken to A&E every year after choking on something. I think doing something to try to reduce those numbers is to be commended.
3) The US has similar rules on toys that constitute a choking hazard.
4) There is no change in the rules – this requirement has existed since 1988.