Do people on the Left at least concede that Regulation bring about some BAD side effects? (Dodd, revolution)
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.
i happen to believe that bureacracy is the biggest job killer we have.
Bureacracy is not a job killer, it's a job creator.
Inefficient and unnecessary bureacracy is money wasted.
I spent too much time in government to say that there aren't lardbricks. There damn sure are, and they annoyed me every day.
But they aren't the ones making decisions and actually doing things that benefit the public. There are a lot of people in government who really are capable and dedicated civil servants, and they don't deserve derision just because they are employed by the state and have to sit in a cubicle next to a lardbrick, doing all of their work.
Quote:
sure, if you think that paying a bureacrats out of money you would've spent into your loacl economy is helpful then so be it. what you don't consider is the damage all their red tape does
Those bureacrats pay taxes too, you know. I'm perfectly fine with paying them as long as they are good bureacrats.
i happen to believe that bureacracy is the biggest job killer we have.
Well that is patently ridiculous. It wasn't regulation that destroyed $17 trillion in personal wealth. It wasn't regulation that caused 23 million Americans to lose their jobs and damn sure wasn't regulation that has thrown the entire developed world into an economic death spiral. If anything, it was the ABSENCE of regulation that has been the biggest job killer over the last 20 years!
Quote:
if you think that paying a bureacrats out of money you would've spent into your loacl economy is helpful then so be it. what you don't consider is the damage all their red tape does
It appears that you refuse to consider that we haven't had new Love Canal; the Cuyahoga River no longer breaks out in flames; that native species have been brought back from the brink of extinction; that cars are safer and more fuel efficient than they ever have been; that thousands of handicapped Americans can go to the bathroom, access businesses and services and become productive citizens; and a list that I could go for another couple of days if I had the time.
When i refer to the left, i mean the big govt crowd from both parties. (ie Dubya was very left wing, he implemented no child, prescription drugs, he policed the world, said deficits didn't matter and regulated heavily with sarbanes oxley. these are all progressive principles)
now i know george dubya bush was so concerned about the welfare of the common man that he signed this onerous legislation (sarbanes-oxley) into law. remember, he did it to protect you the little guy! are there some people out there who maybe think he did this to give the big banks and big corporations a leg up?
any one else consider that other regulations might do the same?
what are your thoughts?
i agree, regulation is rife with unintended consequences.
so is deregulation.
when regulations are flawed, i typically prefer fixing them, not eradicating them completely.
I work in education (for-profit, international campuses with the majority in the U.S) - a lot of the federal regulations (SOX) we have to comply with are designed to protect our students - privacy, financial loans, etc. All for the benefit of students. Though it costs us a lot of overhead having to comply with them, it's a big positive in my book that they exist.
it costs you a lot of overhead? let me guess, you guys don't pass that additional cost onto the students! i mean education is so cheap these days what's a little extra for students to pay for?
all of those things were improving before the regulators came along. cars from the 60's were safer than those from the 30's, and that had nothing to do with regulations, the market demanded it! airbags were a market creation, so were seatbelts for that matter. long before seatbelts were mandatory, cars had them. the regulators just jumped to the front of that parade and took all the credit
You actually believe that don't ya, yes the big auto makers have our best interests at heart, how sweet
Well that is patently ridiculous. It wasn't regulation that destroyed $17 trillion in personal wealth. It wasn't regulation that caused 23 million Americans to lose their jobs and damn sure wasn't regulation that has thrown the entire developed world into an economic death spiral. If anything, it was the ABSENCE of regulation that has been the biggest job killer over the last 20 years!
you are wrong! the free market economists predicted the housing collapse and the resulting depression. many of them even predicted govt responses to that action. free market economists were quite clear that credit expansion brought on by the federal reserve and govt entities such as fannie and freddie along with legislation like the cra were responsible for the mess.
nobody else saw it coming and they even accused free marketers of being kooks and crackpots. well, tshtf and everyone who didn't predict it or didn't understand how their blue eyed policies backfired, all of a sudden had all the solutions.
i will concede that had leverage limits not been deregulated the collapse would have been less severe. the banks would've been only a little insolvent instead of very insolvent, but insolvent they'd still be!
what i find incredibly frustrating is that everywhere they are now calling on banks to lend money to small business. i mean do they never learn? if you are going to dictate who banks lend to, what the terms and conditions of the lending are and the remedies in the case of default, then you have to underwrite their bad debts. that is a recipe for bailouts ad infinitim
I'm not really understanding the reasoning behind continuing deregulation. That's like if after the 9/11 attacks it was discovered that airport security was too lax. But when politicians then make policies for greater airport security, you don't support them because it might decrease some incentive to fly.
A panel of Harvard economic experts in examining the causes for the recession deemed deregulation was one of the major factors. How can solve a problem without going to its roots? David S. Scharfstein, professor of Finance and Banking at Harvard Business School said one fo the reasons for the recession was "We did not adapt a regulatory system to deal with that new form of banking" or "Shadow Banking" as he calls it. He also says that the Dodd-Frank reforms are an important first step in creating a regulatory regime that can begin to police banks more strictly.
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.
