Alert reader Bill sent
this WSJ article in. As you know, I am of the opinion that less regulation is ALWAYS better than more regulation. Government busy-bodies needlessly regulating the economy harm everybody......except the regulators who earn promotions, bonuses, and raises proportional to how much they depress the economy. In any market place, if something doesn't work economically, the people will see to it that it stops being done, by buying something else.
Briefly, a small wine maker wanted to see if Cabernet wine in bottles submerged in the sea, safely sealed, would age differently than in a climate-controlled warehouse. Sounds kind of gimmicky, but who cares what I think?
The ATF and FDA got wind of it and sent them a warning to stop.....before they had sold a single bottle. Why? Here are the possibilities:
-overpaid government regulators have God-complexes and believe they have to right/duty to regulate every human activity, regardless of how innocuous.
-any "new" economic activity must be regulated and taxed, even if it's not new at all, just different, using "safety" as the premise.
-the government sees an opportunity to tax "ocean related" economic activity so they must stop the activity as the figure out how to maximally tax it.
Sadly for the average American who might like to try sea-aged Cabernet, all of the above probably come into the decision to stop the winery from this activity.
What an awful government we have that feels that it must regulate literally every aspect of our lives. I think all regulatory agencies should have their budgets and staff slashed by 90% and only issue new regulations in response to a public health or safety crisis.