http://www8.nationalacademies.org/…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dietary Supplements for Horses, Dogs, and Cats Need Better Regulations and

An Improved System to Report Adverse Health EffectsThe growing use of animal dietary supplements has raised several concerns, including the safety of specific supplements and the approaches taken to determine their safeness.  A new National Research Council report, requested by the Center for Veterinary Medicine of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, assesses whether the addition of three dietary supplements — lutein, evening primrose oil, and garlic — to the diets of horses, dogs, or cats may cause significant adverse health effects.

The report stresses that clear and precise regulations need to be established so “only safe animal dietary supplements are allowed on the market.”

Funny, man has been able to survive hundreds of thousands of years without the FDA telling them what was safe to eat and using the threat of force to keep people from selling or consuming unsafe food. Not that they do a great job. I suppose it makes sense then that they would attempt to regulate animals too since we’ve only been interacting with them for tens of thousands. If we can’t handle feeding ourselves how could we possibly handle feeding our pets?

http://www.economist.com/…

A LIFELONG libertarian, Alan Greenspan does not ordinarily advocate giving the government more power. But he does so in a new epilogue to the paperback edition of his memoir, parts of which were made available to The Economist. The crisis of the past year has convinced him it is the lesser evil. Better someone else be in charge of bail-outs, he argues, than the Federal Reserve, which he led for 18 years.

Mr Greenspan says a high-level panel of American financial officials should be given broad power to seize any financial institution whose failure threatens the entire economy, bail out its creditors and close it down. “We need laws that specify and limit the conditions for bail-outs” and do so transparently with taxpayers’ money, “rather than circuitously through the central bank, as was done during the blow-up of Bear Stearns,” he writes in “The Age of Turbulence”. (Penguin is to release the paperback on September 9th.)

If that means the government has to wade in, so be it. “Our country has long since abandoned the notion that we should leave crises to be resolved solely by the marketplace,” he says. “The critical need…is to formalise…the procedures improvised in the case of Bear Stearns. This should ensure that in the future, government financial assistance to lending institutions does not impact the Federal Reserve’s balance-sheet and monetary policy.”

He says a standby panel, empowered by Congress, should determine if an institution’s failure is dangerous enough to require taxpayer support. It would then form a vehicle to take the firm into “conservatorship”, wipe out the equity, preferably impose a “haircut” on its debts before guaranteeing them, and then sell its assets. Mr Greenspan’s model is the Resolution Trust Corporation (on whose board he served), created in 1989 to take over failing thrifts, sell their assets, then close itself down. He pours cold water on a proposal by Hank Paulson, America’s treasury secretary, to give the Fed broad responsibility over market stability.

Mr Greenspan’s proposal may be politically difficult. For years Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America’s mortgage giants, resisted the creation of a regulator that could close them down. With other large institutions—be they investment banks, hedge funds or insurance companies—there might be even more of a fuss. And the Fed is not yet ready to bow out. “Unless I hear from Congress that I should not be responding to a crisis situation, I think that it’s a long-standing role of the central bank to use its lender-of-last-resort facilities,” Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan’s successor at the Fed, said last month.

Just because the man used to hang out with Ayn Rand and was apparently a libertarian Objectivist doesn’t mean he continues to be one. Anyone who advocates aggression is not by definition a libertarian. But what better way to destroy a movement then by redefining the words? Eric Arthur Blair would be proud. It was done at around the turn of the 20th century with ‘liberal.’ In economics ‘inflation’ has been redefined. Now a concerted effort appears to be being made to change the meaning of ‘libertarian.’ People like Glenn Beck and Neil Bortz nationally claim to be libertarians. Advocating government manipulation of the market and money bailouts, immigration control and war with people who pose no threat is NOT libertarian.

Isn’t it more like Wall Street was slipped some PCP? Between the Federal Reserve, Congress and the executive branch we’ve got inflation, wars, deficit spending, subsidies, regulation, artificially low interest rates and other interventionist policy. All of which distort market reality and now we are in the comedown and it sucks a lot more then a hangover.

Find more on the bill here.

Record prices have prompted a slew of bills to curtail the role of investors, but traders say they could backfire:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Fed up with soaring oil prices and a chorus of people blaming Wall Street speculators, Congress is considering a host of rules aimed at limiting the inflow of investor money into oil contracts.

But oil traders urge caution. While more disclosure is a good thing, they say making it harder for speculators to invest in oil futures could have the opposite effect intended, and send prices higher.

In light of oil’s phenomenal climb from under $50 a barrel to nearly $140 in less than 18 months - and the public belief that Wall Street traders were behind the rise - Congress is awash in bills that attempt to limit the role of speculators. Several have bipartisan support and could soon become law.

“In two days, the price of oil rose $16,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., at a joint hearing of two Senate panels on oil speculation Tuesday. “Did I miss something, was there some war in the Middle East?”

Read More…