U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-28-2019, 02:09 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 541,738 times
Reputation: 3853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm View Post
Here's an interesting look at the growth in federal regulation over the years. The numbers are a little staggering.



https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats
Yikes!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2019, 02:28 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 541,738 times
Reputation: 3853
Quote:
Originally Posted by HitmanGFX View Post
I do feel like I'm caught in a strange position. I want to see less government involvement overall and I generally support free market capitalism, but then I see Amazon and other big tech firms totally destroying entire brands, sectors and industries, as well as the corporate dependence on the likes of China and cheaper labor from outside the country and I'm like, "...hold it just one darn minute!".
The USA and the EU have very different views on competition (in the US, its typically called anti-trust). Overly simplistically:
  • In the USA, we ask "is the existence of <insert tech titan here> good for consumers? That is, do customers see prices lower than they otherwise would be and more products & services available than there otherwise would be?"
  • In the EU, they ask "is the existence of <insert a US tech titan here> bad for other companies and competitors? That is, is the existence of <insert a US tech titan here> cause fewer competitors? Does it make it overly difficult for new competitors to form? Does it excessively squeeze supply chains and distribution chains? Does it end up in fewer total jobs available?"

Frankly, I don't think economic theory has quite caught up with the modern digital world. Once Napster hit the scene, economists didn't have a very good response for a marketplace with zero manufacturing costs and zero prices. I think they still don't. But I suspect we'll see more and more John Bates Clark Medals and Nobel Prizes addressing the economic markets where Google, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Snap, YouTube and other such services exist. There will be more examination of the economic consequences of Metcalf's Law focused on such digital markets, enabled by Moore's Law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2019, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Elkton, Maryland
26 posts, read 7,009 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
We are our own worst enemies. While we break up our great companies, or threaten to break them up and so turn them into meek, timid giants afraid to really compete, the Japanese and the Chinese know that large corporations that dominate an industry are the way to go.

What a bunch of wimps we have become! While we fine and prosecute our largest tech companies for being too successful, Huawei has grown into a global giant that we had to actually ban from doing business with. It's time that we stopped being afraid of success and go back to the era of great American companies that weren't afraid to compete hard and dominate their fields.



If the Democrats would stop trying to impeach and investigate him over nothing, and instead try working with him, just imagine what we could get done over the next couple of years!

I agree with so much here. I'm fine with cracking down on China and firms like Huawei, not to mention the tariffs overall. They cheat, plain and simple. Amazon is TOO big and they're branching into too many industries. It's bad for the consumers (lack of choice) and bad for the workers (fewer places to work, fewer jobs).



I'm terrified to put either a neo-lib or a neo-con back into power. Trump is imperfect in so many ways, but his message on globalism and US trade is spot-on. It's one of the few things Bernie Sanders is mostly correct on as well (shame the rest of his platform is busted).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2019, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,627 posts, read 3,037,542 times
Reputation: 12878
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Yikes!
You think 60 or so rules a year is hair-raising?

Lop off those charts at the essentially pre-regulation era, around 1978 or so, and they're not nearly as dramatic. I'd bet a chart of cars in Washington DC, beginning at 1900, would have a similiarly Yikes! curve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2019, 04:04 PM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,623 posts, read 2,579,257 times
Reputation: 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
You think 60 or so rules a year is hair-raising?

Lop off those charts at the essentially pre-regulation era, around 1978 or so, and they're not nearly as dramatic. I'd bet a chart of cars in Washington DC, beginning at 1900, would have a similiarly Yikes! curve.

It's a combination of the number of rules and the complexity of rules. There were about 190,000 pages of CFRs in 2017. The graph looks like the side of a ski jump.


I would also argue that the pre-regulation era ended about 1969-73, with the passage of Medicare, AMT, SSI, HMO Act, NEPA, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, ERISA, OSHA and more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2019, 06:46 AM
 
8,314 posts, read 9,076,885 times
Reputation: 6683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
You think 60 or so rules a year is hair-raising?

Lop off those charts at the essentially pre-regulation era, around 1978 or so, and they're not nearly as dramatic. I'd bet a chart of cars in Washington DC, beginning at 1900, would have a similiarly Yikes! curve.
The long running average number of "rules changes + new rules" is a shade under 6,500 per year.

There are well over one million "restrictions" buried within The CFR and that number grows virtually every year.

ETA - Direct costs related to just Sarbanes - Oxley are in the billions, related indirect and opportunity costs are staggering. S-O has proved to be both expensive and generally ineffective per its stated goals.

Last edited by EDS_; 05-29-2019 at 07:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2019, 07:44 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 541,738 times
Reputation: 3853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
You think 60 or so rules a year is hair-raising?

Lop off those charts at the essentially pre-regulation era, around 1978 or so, and they're not nearly as dramatic. I'd bet a chart of cars in Washington DC, beginning at 1900, would have a similiarly Yikes! curve.
Others have pointed out it isn't 60 - you're off by a couple orders of magnitude.

One thing to note: in general, it appears the end of any presidential administration is accompanied by a spike in new regulations. This is true for administrations of both parties. Why?

Could it be that towards the end of any administration, political appointees focus on their next gig so no one is watching the store and hence career bureaucrats & and mandarins are free to regulate with abandon?

Or could it be that towards the end of any administration, political appointees focusing on their next gig are even more subject to lobbying to implement new regulations that help protect incumbents and special interests from new competition, just as Facebook is now seeking regulation to cement its own incumbency and prevent a new competitor from emerging out of left field?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2019, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,627 posts, read 3,037,542 times
Reputation: 12878
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Others have pointed out it isn't 60 - you're off by a couple orders of magnitude.
The chart presented quite clearly hovers around 50 or 60 rules per year, with a few dips and spikes.

That other charts show x thousand number of pages in the regulatory books is another figure, and one of questionable interpretation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2019, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,627 posts, read 3,037,542 times
Reputation: 12878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm View Post
It's a combination of the number of rules and the complexity of rules. There were about 190,000 pages of CFRs in 2017.
So... how many pages of regulations (which include added material every time a regulation is challenged or other facets of interpretation or enforcement are added) do you think the US needs?

Just "fewer" and "because"? Or do you have some firm guidelines about regs per capita, or such?

Quote:
The graph looks like the side of a ski jump.
Have you looked at, say, a US population or GNP graph for the same period? Or, say, for my silly example of the number of cars in DC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2019, 10:33 AM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,623 posts, read 2,579,257 times
Reputation: 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
So... how many pages of regulations (which include added material every time a regulation is challenged or other facets of interpretation or enforcement are added) do you think the US needs?

Just "fewer" and "because"? Or do you have some firm guidelines about regs per capita, or such?

Have you looked at, say, a US population or GNP graph for the same period? Or, say, for my silly example of the number of cars in DC?

It's not the number of rules, or even the number of pages of CFRs, that are critical. Neither population nor GNP is an the appropriate measure. The measure needs to the level of spending required to comply with the rules, the level of complexity imposed on everyone's daily activities that adherence and interpretation of the rules requires, and whether or not the benefit of the rule is measurable and/or reflective of the cost of not having that rule. There's no definitive number that is right or wrong. But, as a nation, neither Congress nor the President appears interested in looking at the overall framework of regulations or their effect on our society and our economy.



Here is one attempt to measure the impact, an estimate that federal regulation costs the US public $1.9 trillion a year.
https://cei.org/content/costs-and-bu...ch-19-trillion


Maybe 20 years ago, an AUSA told me that every person unknowingly violates 2-3 federal laws or regulations everyday. I can't imagine what that might be today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top