[thisIsNotMikey]

The problem with the FDA is it usurps liability from the manufacturer and responsibility from the consumer. Most Americans will grant more time to a free app review, than to a nutrition label. We have a false sense of security that food and drugs are FDA "approved." This same problem exists in banking because of the FDIC. How many people know what's on their bank's balance sheets?

[acdha]

How many consumers are capable of evaluating drug safety and have time to do so? This is a real problem requiring time from a limited number of highly skilled professionals and easy proposed solutions are naive.

[thisIsNotMikey]

The consumers directly don't. But as a consumer I don't know how to evaluate an automobile, a smart-phone, or other products. But there is a market that provides the relevant data to consumers. Before I buy a car, I check out USNews, or Edmunds; before I buy any product I check out the relevant resources. Because of the way the FDA is structured, not much non-FDA research and reviews are being done. Lol. I didn't propose a solution.

[acdha]

… and those markets have a long history of being gamed despite enjoying much larger numbers of people who can check the work. The drug market is huge and extremely lucrative which ensures that any successfully started review service would be under attack from multiple fronts – lawsuits, attempts to hire people away or buy influence, setting up “competing” groups which try to sound legitimate but exist only to attack the other group’s claims, etc.

Read the history of what happened with say the financial ratings companies during the 2000s for one side (regulatory capture) and the tobacco or fossil fuel industry for the dirty tricks version. There's no reason to think that wouldn't keep happening, all of which dramatically increases the cost and likelihood of failure.

[bduerst]

FDIC insurance exists so you do not need to keep checking in on your bank's integrity. It is set up this way by design. Should the bank run with your money or fold, you get your money back.

How you extrapolate FDA regulations and faith in it to banking is a bit beyond me, because if you get diabetes the FDA is not insurance you can use to treat it.

[thisIsNotMikey]

Moral hazard. It is a simple concept.

[hueving]

Not simple enough for you to understand I suppose. For a bank to get FDIC insurance, it needs to follow a lot of regulations. Even during the financial crisis, look how many times the FDIC insurance was triggered. It worked exactly as intended and kept banks from messing with depositor money.

[thisIsNotMikey]

The moral hazard is the FDIC, which arguably helped perpetuate the crisis. Banks are insured by the fed, lender of last resort, and individual accounts are insured by FDIC. Insurance, or assurance in the case of the FDA, is the moral hazard which causes risky behavior.

[hueving]

Nope. The FDIC made sure they didn't do the crap they did with depositor money. It's the reason the FDIC insurance wasnt massively triggered during the crisis. The accounts that got screwed were investment accounts which were not insured by the FDIC.

[thisIsNotMikey]

Moral hazard is an objective term. From the FDIC website, https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/international/guidance... All you have to do is read the first sentence. And "The FDIC made sure they didn't do the crap they did" is nonsensical. Not to mention, I never once referred to the economic crisis.

[bduerst]

So simple it doesn't apply. This isn't automobile insurance.

You're no less risky with your money because the FDIC backs your bank account - in fact, you're more likely to leave it there with less risk.

[thisIsNotMikey]

Banks are more risky. Your right, this isn't a simple concept for some.

[bduerst]

Banks are not more risky because there is corporate governance to curtail moral hazard.

I'm sorry for assuming you knew this, but as you say, it isn't simple for some.

[thisIsNotMikey]

The moral hazard is introduced by the insurance. So yes they are more risky. Corporate governance, as you said, helps curtail the moral hazard, but without the insurance, the moral hazard would not exist in the first place. Go troll somewhere else. Your just wrong!

[tomaskafka]

You could say that they purposefully created a single point of failure - just like every other agency with monopoly over some area.