Too much regulation?

[BonzaiDuck]

If you want to understand our politics, you need to understand the concentrated industries in the economy which have various aspects of monopoly power. And you want to understand those industries with sufficient lobbying power to overwhelm the public interest with their corporate self-interest.

Regulations designed to protect the health and living standard of the largest number of people are good or necessary. Regulations designed to protect this or that industry at the expense of reasonable competition are bad. Unfortunately, I suspect that the political dimension of industrial influence opposes good regulations simply to keep excess profits high and discourage potential competitors.

Just as a footnote, because it occurred to me recently and I had no place to articulate it. Sarah Palin at one time demonized the idea of "incrementalism" in our political and governmental decisions. Without putting it in words, she was implying that the T-Party movement was a "revolutionary" insurgency with a patent and fixed ideology bent on upending everything at once. That is, Utopianism imposes costs of rapid and mistaken change on the public, according to some dimwit's idea of "how the world should be" as opposed to how it is.

It shows what a dimwit pinhead she is, because the Founders' intention was incrementalist.

I'm fine for taking a scalpel to regulations and agencies while avoiding situations that make government employees mentally ill. I'm against wholesale elimination of a regulatory and government regime because somebody got it into their heads that it would be better to recede to a time of three-corner hats, no matter whom it hurts, no matter what it costs.

It took more than a hundred years to put in place the various cabinet agencies. If you give someone the power to destroy them in 4 years, and they are actually intent on that sort of destruction, I'd be proud to put a cap in your brain.

 

[sactoking]

It's these statements that prove he has no idea what a regulation actually is and the public is too out of the loop to call him on it. Quantity of regulations is not a real problem, it is at worst a symptom.

A regulation is an enforcement agency's interpretation of an enabling law. A regulation cannot contravene the purpose of the enabling law and can only be issued when the agency is authorized to do so. Regulations are often a necessary evil as Congress is unwilling or unable to put thorough instructions into legislation. Example: The ACA mandates "guaranteed availability" of health insurance through statute in US Code. That term is not defined. Health and Human Services defined it by regulation through the CFR.

The flexibility of regulations is often desirable over legislation as regulations can be changed more readily and can better respond to changing circumstances. Too many regulations? Blame Congress for passing legislation lacking in clarity but be prepared to have more issues arise when you can't change those laws later. Eliminate two regulations to issue one? Might as well just say you either don't know or don't care what they actually do.

 

[agent00f]

I've been to conferences about mortgage compliance and heard the bigwigs at the CFPB go on about how sophisticated and well researched their new regs are, how wonderful it will be, and how smooth the implementation will be. No.

It cost the industry billions to implement and many smaller lenders shut down because the cost to them was simply to great. The risk of not getting a meaningless form absolutely perfect even though the borrower simply signs it without reading nor understanding the damned thing is too great, they could have an unsaleable loan and the risk of litigation from lawyers that hunt for this stuff and it's simply too much for them.

The big banks love it, they write the regulation anyways. Wells Fargo is the regulator for all intents and purposes. They have the cash and the clout and the army of lawyers to afford to comply with whatever the CFPB doles out, smaller banks and mortgage bankers don't, they line up their procedures with what WF says and have to rely on third party companies for all manner of things because it's far to much for them to handle on their own. That costs big money, and it puts people out of business.

Given you've basically admitted that much of finance is self-regulated anyway, it's a mystery why conservatives believe the government makes much of a difference.

 

[1prophet]

Regulation bad?
Hmmm why don't we ask Manhattan circa 1973

You're right, it's not worth the expense.

That's why you outsource your pollution, so you can be a self centered smug liberal social justice warrior enjoying your I-trash made under near slave/serf conditions while pointing your finger at the evil Trump Republican that threatens your clean air/water.

Air pollution in Beijing. One picture taken on a clear day, another on a smoggy day. This is the capitol city of China. This is the ugly side of outsourcing.

http://www.jasonmunster.com/tag/outsourcing/

As I wrote in the past, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs allows the US to push all the pollution in manufacturing into other countries while enjoying lower prices of goods manufactured by cheap labor. Thanks to Kate Wang for bringing a recent NYT article to me attention.

An early edition report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that a significant amount of pollution drifts from China to the west coast of the United States. The authors argue for a changing of attribution of the associated pollutants to the consuming countries, rather than China, the producing country. The authors gloss over any potential impacts this would have on world trade. Lead author Jintai Lin writes:

Atmospheric modeling shows that transport of the export-related Chinese pollution contributed 3–10% of annual mean surface sulfate concentrations and 0.5–1.5% of ozone over the western United States in 2006. This Chinese pollution also resulted in one extra day or more of noncompliance with the US ozone standard in 2006 over the Los Angeles area and many regions in the eastern United States. On a daily basis, the export-related Chinese pollution contributed, at a maximum, 12–24% of sulfate concentrations over the western United States.

In other words, goods manufactured in China and consumed by the United States directly cause pollution in the western United States. The upside is that the former heavy manufacturing centers in the Eastern United States have outsourced to China, cleaning up the air of the Eastern US. The article points out that, given the dense population of the east coast, this is a net win for the US, at slight expense of the west coast and great expense of pollutants in China.

 

[compuwiz1]

If you ask a true libertarian, they'll tell you pretty much any regulation is too much. From driving, to hunting and fishing, are natural given rights, which should require no licensing.

 

[agent00f]

If you ask a true libertarian, they'll tell you pretty much any regulation is too much. From driving, to hunting and fishing, are natural given rights, which should require no licensing.

Regulations are just rules by another name, in this case a particular term demonized for dumbshits who can't figure much beyond word association. It should be obvious to anyone with any life experience that any human endeavor without some ground rules tends to end poorly.

Generally speaking, the more complex the endeavor, the more rules need apply, which is why the most complex societies have the most rules. Or why the simplest minds lack much of any, nor see much use for them.

 

[sdifox]

Here's a few more:

1. Requirement have backup cameras in every new call sold. The government estimates is will save ~100 lives per year at $18m per life.

2. Dealer franchise laws that prevent car manufacturers from selling directly to customers in many states (requires an extra middle man that is notorious for ripping of consumers)

3. Ethanol standards for gasoline - bad policy all around

How did you come up with 18M per life?

 

[Thebobo]

Yes, there is too much regulation. Too much Fed, when regs should occur at state level, with few exceptions.

Water and air pollution knows no borders. It has to be handled by the feds.

Remember Acid rain it was a huge problem until regulations on coal emissions from the Clean Air act.

The story of acid rain from the 1970s is preserved in newspaper headlines, textbooks, and, it turns out, the soils of the northeastern United States. Forty years after humans first began tackling the problem, the impact of acid rain still lingers in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, according to a new study. But the research also shows the first signs of recovery.

At the height of the acid rain problem, sulfur dioxide from burning coal drifted into the atmosphere and lowered the pH of rainwater. When this acidic rain fell to the ground, it leached calcium from the soil, depriving plants of a key nutrient. Acid rain also dissolved aluminum-rich minerals, freeing the metal to further poison plants.

To combat the problem, the U.S. Congress imposed strict emission regulations on industry in 1970 through the Clean Air Act, which was strengthened in 1990. By 2003, sulfur dioxide raining down on the northeastern United States had decreased by as much as 40%. But were soils improving, too?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/acid-rain-thing-past

 

[the DRIZZLE]

How did you come up with 18M per life?

That was government's preliminary estimate.

http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/backup-camera-car-rule-costs-18m-per-saved-life-1.5540394

 

[Thebobo]

Here's a few more:

1. Requirement have backup cameras in every new call sold. The government estimates is will save ~100 lives per year at $18m per life.

2. Dealer franchise laws that prevent car manufacturers from selling directly to customers in many states (requires an extra middle man that is notorious for ripping of consumers)

3. Ethanol standards for gasoline - bad policy all around

1. I have no problem with.

2. I don't like either but that's a state or local level regulation.

3. is a good policy and has been with us for a while. If you are driving a classic car you could have some problems but for any car made in the last 10 to 15 years there are no problems as the engines were designed to use ethanol. And even if the regulation was removed the oil companies would still us it to boost their fuel octane, its cheaper then refining it all the way to 87.

http://blog.leithporsche.com/does-ethanol-really-cause-damage-to-your-engine/

 

[HomerJS]

Removing 2 regulations when 1 is added is idiotic.

So when the FAA issues a directive to correct a potential problem which 2 are you going to cut? Maybe inspections?

 

[bshole]

That's why you outsource your pollution, so you can be a self centered smug liberal social justice warrior enjoying your I-trash made under near slave/serf conditions while pointing your finger at the evil Trump Republican that threatens your clean air/water.

Air pollution in Beijing. One picture taken on a clear day, another on a smoggy day. This is the capitol city of China. This is the ugly side of outsourcing.

You blame it on the consumers and not the capitalists who bribed the politicians to allow them to move the jobs overseas. You may not have realized it but we during that time, American workers have also drawn noticeably closer to serf condition. All these years of people talking about evil socialism and yet now if you look at any chart for human well-being, many socialist countries are doing noticeably better than America.

Here is an interesting article detailing how socialist Denmark is an order of magnitude better place to live than America.
http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/

http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Here's how this Congress and President Trump can get rid of some of those useless regulations.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/draining-the-regulatory-swamp-1488328398?mod=e2two

"Yet the more scholars examine the law, which had only been used successfully once before this year, the clearer it is that the CRA gives Congress far more regulatory oversight than previously supposed."

 

[Thebobo]

Here's how this Congress and President Trump can get rid of some of those useless regulations.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/draining-the-regulatory-swamp-1488328398?mod=e2two

"Yet the more scholars examine the law, which had only been used successfully once before this year, the clearer it is that the CRA gives Congress far more regulatory oversight than previously supposed."

First don't link to sites you have to log on to read. Second name one "useless" federal regulation without looking one up.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

First don't link to sites you have to log on to read. Second name one "useless" federal regulation without looking one up.

OSHA regulation on requiring head gear in single family homes. It's an open link for me.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

That's why you outsource your pollution, so you can be a self centered smug liberal social justice warrior enjoying your I-trash made under near slave/serf conditions while pointing your finger at the evil Trump Republican that threatens your clean air/water.

Air pollution in Beijing. One picture taken on a clear day, another on a smoggy day. This is the capitol city of China. This is the ugly side of outsourcing.

http://www.jasonmunster.com/tag/outsourcing/

Actually, that's not true.

It had been shown over the last several decades that totalitarian or communist regimes had the biggest environmental degradation, because no grass-roots environmental movement was allowed to exist. Czechoslovakia is another example.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

You blame it on the consumers and not the capitalists who bribed the politicians to allow them to move the jobs overseas. You may not have realized it but we during that time, American workers have also drawn noticeably closer to serf condition. All these years of people talking about evil socialism and yet now if you look at any chart for human well-being, many socialist countries are doing noticeably better than America.

Here is an interesting article detailing how socialist Denmark is an order of magnitude better place to live than America.
http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/

http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/

My best reckoning of that derives from the economic time-series following Roosevelt. In the '50s, labor unions were strong, and a regulatory regime was in place to assure a more equitable distribution of business income. Eventually, by the mid-70s, corporations had discovered ways to circumvent all of it. Corporate profits soared exponentially from that time, while wages stagnated.

So a dimension of the regulatory problem might indicate that regulations need to be overhauled and renewed from time to time, as opposed to their complete elimination.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Given you've basically admitted that much of finance is self-regulated anyway, it's a mystery why conservatives believe the government makes much of a difference.

Where've I said finance is self regulated?

 

[agent00f]

Where've I said finance is self regulated?

The big banks love it, they write the regulation anyways. Wells Fargo is the regulator for all intents and purposes.

But in fairness you probably prefer the good ol' days before any regs when banks failed regularly.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not experienced in this area - however my mother works in the oil/gas industry involving the terminals and signing off on safety regulations. She is pretty damn liberal and even she has told me that plenty of the laws/rules in place are absolutely ridiculous and a waste of time/money.

 

[agent00f]

Not experienced in this area - however my mother works in the oil/gas industry involving the terminals and signing off on safety regulations. She is pretty damn liberal and even she has told me that plenty of the laws/rules in place are absolutely ridiculous and a waste of time/money.

It's certainly true there's a lot of reasons behind most all rules that many aren't aware the history of. Take team sports for example, many with a complex system of rules which laymen often consider "stupid".

 

[Tequila]

You blame it on the consumers and not the capitalists who bribed the politicians to allow them to move the jobs overseas. You may not have realized it but we during that time, American workers have also drawn noticeably closer to serf condition. All these years of people talking about evil socialism and yet now if you look at any chart for human well-being, many socialist countries are doing noticeably better than America.

Here is an interesting article detailing how socialist Denmark is an order of magnitude better place to live than America.
http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/

http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/

"I would like to make one thing clear," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said recently in a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

It is a mixed economy with a free market and big social safety net. Stop throwing the word socialist around because there are different definitions of it. Socialist Venezuela is a shit economy where the government controls everything. You even mention the term "free market" there and you will probably have spit thrown your way.

A good read where you will find the quote from Lars Rasmussen http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/ and more about Denmark.

Another quote from that article

"There is this idea that we are a heavily regulated society with a closed economy. The opposite is true," said Bo Lidegaard, the executive editor-in-chief of Politiken, one of Denmark's leading newspapers. "If by socialist you mean regulated, restrictive, the individual is not free to do what she or he wants, that is not what we have here. We have a society where the individual is perhaps freer than any other society because the government is securing the social contract so comprehensively."

 

[brycejones]

"I would like to make one thing clear," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said recently in a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

It is a mixed economy with a free market and big social safety net. Stop throwing the word socialist around because there are different definitions of it. Socialist Venezuela is a shit economy where the government controls everything. You even mention the term "free market" there and you will probably have spit thrown your way.

A good read where you will find the quote from Lars Rasmussen http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/ and more about Denmark.

Another quote from that article

"There is this idea that we are a heavily regulated society with a closed economy. The opposite is true," said Bo Lidegaard, the executive editor-in-chief of Politiken, one of Denmark's leading newspapers. "If by socialist you mean regulated, restrictive, the individual is not free to do what she or he wants, that is not what we have here. We have a society where the individual is perhaps freer than any other society because the government is securing the social contract so comprehensively."

To many of our conservative posters here safety net = socialist. Denmark having a more extensive social safety net than the US would be more socialist than the the US. Universal healthcare if single provider or single payer = socialist. Etc etc etc

 

[Thebobo]

OSHA regulation on requiring head gear in single family homes. It's an open link for me.

Are you talking about home construction headgear ie hard hats? Or Dental headgear?

 

[Tequila]

To many of our conservative posters here safety net = socialist. Denmark having a more extensive social safety net than the US would be more socialist than the the US. Universal healthcare if single provider or single payer = socialist. Etc etc etc

Universal healthcare doesn't mean you are socialist. A lot of countries have it but also a free market economy. You can slap any label on it. A lot of countries have universal healthcare and also total control over the rest of the economy and still call themselves socialist.

There is a big difference between a country that has universal healthcare + free markets + free press like Denmark, Canada, Japan vs those with universal healthcare + government control of your life like Cuba and Venezuela and the former USSR. You can't just lump them all together and call them socialist economies. Hell you could just as easily say Denmark is democratic capitalism.