Why do People think Regulations on Consumer Protection Increases Prices (death, Obama)
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.
Why do people insist that regulations such that as consumer protection automatically increase the prices for goods and services? I don't get it and continue to scratch my head when I hear people put that idea forth behind lack of regulations or deregulation.
Why do people insist that regulations such that as consumer protection automatically increase the prices for goods and services? I don't get it and continue to scratch my head when I hear people put that idea forth behind lack of regulations or deregulation.
Sometimes regulation affects the price of a product, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the regulation. Obama said in 2008 his coal regulations would necessitate electric rates to skyrocket. Trump wants to pull back on excessive and expensive regulation.
"The CPP appears to be more of an excuse to fundamentally transform the nation’s electrical generating system from a reliable and affordable one to one that burdens Americans with costly and unreliable energy, consistent with President Obama’s promise to make “electricity prices necessarily skyrocket.”"
Sometimes regulation affects the price of a product, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the regulation. Obama said in 2008 his coal regulations would necessitate electric rates to skyrocket. Trump wants to pull back on excessive and expensive regulation.
"The CPP appears to be more of an excuse to fundamentally transform the nation’s electrical generating system from a reliable and affordable one to one that burdens Americans with costly and unreliable energy, consistent with President Obama’s promise to make “electricity prices necessarily skyrocket.”"
Part of this is to say to the coal workers they may get their jobs back when politicians really for care about that. That is nothing new.
Part of this is to say to the coal workers they may get their jobs back when politicians really for care about that. That is nothing new.
It's not just coal workers, but almost all commerce. Some regulation is good, for some things like radioactive materials a lot of regulation may be good. For a farmer digging a ditch, one shouldn't need to file forms with the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
It's not just coal workers, but almost all commerce. Some regulation is good, for some things like radioactive materials a lot of regulation may be good. For a farmer digging a ditch, one shouldn't need to file forms with the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
I agree some of the EPA regulations are excessive but why worry about decreasing government when we should just make it effective. Choosing puddles are wetlands isn't effective but preventing the use of say DDT is.
Why do people insist that regulations such that as consumer protection automatically increase the prices for goods and services? I don't get it and continue to scratch my head when I hear people put that idea forth behind lack of regulations or deregulation.
How can increased government regulations not increase costs? Consider, for example, automobiles. Let's say that it costs "A" amount of dollars to produce a very basic, but functional car. Now, the government mandates that all cars must have seatbelts. These cost "B" dollars to install. Then, the government mandates that all cars must have impact-resistant crumple zones. Add "C" more dollars. Then, airbags are required. "D" more dollars. Back-up cameras? That's "E" more dollars. And so on.
I'm not saying that these are bad things to have in cars, and I'm not saying that the costs of installing them may well be less than the money saved by reduced injuries due to safer cars. And it's certainly true that many consumers would want some or all of these things to be there, and be perfectly willing to pay for them. What I am saying is, none of these things are strictly necessary to make the car actually be able to drive from Point A to Point B. They are there because the government said they had to be there.
Do you think that the auto manufacturers are just going to say, "Hey, we make enough money, we'll just throw in the seatbelts and airbags and so on and eat the costs ourselves"? I am quite certain that you aren't that naïve. Companies exist to make money, and if the government requires them to spend more money to manufacture their product, they will recoup those costs from the consumers.
How can increased government regulations not increase costs? Consider, for example, automobiles. Let's say that it costs "A" amount of dollars to produce a very basic, but functional car. Now, the government mandates that all cars must have seatbelts. These cost "B" dollars to install. Then, the government mandates that all cars must have impact-resistant crumple zones. Add "C" more dollars. Then, airbags are required. "D" more dollars. Back-up cameras? That's "E" more dollars. And so on.
I'm not saying that these are bad things to have in cars, and I'm not saying that the costs of installing them may well be less than the money saved by reduced injuries due to safer cars. And it's certainly true that many consumers would want some or all of these things to be there, and be perfectly willing to pay for them. What I am saying is, none of these things are strictly necessary to make the car actually be able to drive from Point A to Point B. They are there because the government said they had to be there.
Do you think that the auto manufacturers are just going to say, "Hey, we make enough money, we'll just throw in the seatbelts and airbags and so on and eat the costs ourselves"? I am quite certain that you aren't that naïve. Companies exist to make money, and if the government requires them to spend more money to manufacture their product, they will recoup those costs from the consumers.
Well if they don't do the airbags and seatbelts, they would not recoup from the increased amount of customers who are killed from car wrecks...
Government regulations almost always increase prices of the goods or services affected. If nothing else, there are always compliance costs associated with regulations.
The real question is whether the regulation provides a specific benefit that outweighs the cost. Consider a regulation against using lead paint on children's toys. No one wants to poison his/her child, so only certain people, usually theoretical purists, would see such a regulation as unnecessary.
And yes, I am certain that there are some regulations that fail to provide enough of a benefit and need to be discontinued.
New laws and the regulations that implement those new laws not only increase the prices of goods and services in the private sector in ways some have previously mentioned but new laws also require an expanded government workforce to regulate and/or enforce those new regulations. This normally translates to higher taxes which are added to the costs of goods and services.
Unfortunately, while politicians may weigh the risks and benefits of their policy making, they are not likely to place public risks and benefits above their own political risks and benefits.
Less Regulation = More Suffering and Death, but larger profits.
Sure, you can find exceptions to this rule, but this has proven to be the truth throughout modern industrialism.
It may take a second longer for a machine with a safety shield - for example, when a worker is bending metal in a large brake. I have a friend who toured a metal working factory in the south - he was amazed at the lack of safety equipment - and, sure enough, some workers were missing fingers, etc.
Business, left to it's own devices, would have children chained to the machines (which is actually part of history). The ONLY reason this stopped was because of public outcry and the resulting unions and laws. Business then often sent the same work overseas so they wouldn't have to bother with such "crazy" regulations.
So when Trump talks about removing regulations - what he is really saying are tens of thousands of people should be exposed to dirtier air, water, land and products which are less safe.
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.
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.
