Deregualtion, no regulation meme

[Magyar]

Ooh, utter gibberish alert!

So if it's such utter giberish, yo should have no problem in showing us a simple example of one.

Oh that's right you havent been able to do that have you! Instead all you can do is some lame name calling that doesnt address anything other than your inability to defend your position.

And again before you go off changing the goal posts. I did point out in my op that i am not talking about poorly written regulations which can have uninteded or even bad effects, we can discuss

But the notion that you and the gop right wing loon machine pushes about "over regulation" which i at least understand to mean no NEED for regualtion based on the rhetoric.

 

[Brainster]

But the notion that you and the gop right wing loon machine pushes about "over regulation" which i at least understand to mean no NEED for regualtion based on the rhetoric.

Apparently English is a second language for you. Over-regulation can certainly occur, even if some regulation is necessary. To give a simple example, let's consider gas station pumps. It would not be over-regulation for the state to sample every now and then to make sure that the pumps provided the stated number of gallons and the stated quality of fuel.

But suppose they decided to test every pump, every day. Can you perhaps acknowledge that might be over-regulation?

 

[blutoski]

Apparently English is a second language for you. Over-regulation can certainly occur, even if some regulation is necessary. To give a simple example, let's consider gas station pumps. It would not be over-regulation for the state to sample every now and then to make sure that the pumps provided the stated number of gallons and the stated quality of fuel.

But suppose they decided to test every pump, every day. Can you perhaps acknowledge that might be over-regulation?

I was involved in a good example a few years ago when the province was undertaking a major overhaul of pool safety regulations. The one I was asked to help review was the marking of water depth.

Ultimately, the regulation ended up being 'depth must be clearly marked at the deepest point, shallowest point, both ends, and at least once every ten meters of length.'

Previously, it was about ten thousand words about which colours contrasted with other colours, minimum and maximum sizes, materials that could be used &c. It was way too complicated and didn't reduce the amount of onsite judgement calls inspectors had to make anyway.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

You lost all credibility when you referred to the free market as "magical".

Agreed, only for different motives. I'd say they are merely fictitious.

If you are referring to the theoretical construct out of finance/econ, it is a useful abstraction derived under ceteris paribus conditions. So not magical.

At the same time, unlike in the physical sciences, it is an abstraction resulting from modeling, but it does not isolate a phenomenon as it exists outside the "lab" or in the raw data. Free markets are not magical, but they are fictitious.

As markets are the net result of the interplay of social actors acting according to preference, any normative application a priori of a goal to maximize a theoretical value independently of the actors in the market is not at all free, and actually not even good logic, as it mistakes theory for the actual data.

Translated: For example, if distorting taxes* are preferred by a majority, there is no "free" market principle being violated, nor is the situation sub-optimal in any sense other than in comparison to a theoretical construct. To make the goal any part of the construct itself (eg, price level, output level) is to deny the market its true preferences.

***
*Taxes change prices and so shift the supply and demand equilibrium output q from its untaxed value. Theoretically a distortion, in practice a free exercise of choice. What theoretical free or "pure" markets are good for is in helping determine the estimated cost of preferences in order to help choose among them.

 

[pharphis]

I cannot recall his name, but Hatch has a tag-team partner on the other side of the aisle. Neither are voting their beliefs, necessarily, but those of their donors. They both top the list of funds received from the supplements and magic potions lobbyists.

Let's not try to brand this solely a GOP problem. It's a money problem.

John Oliver covered this in some detail (as well as Oz *shudder*) in an episode of last week tonight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0wKeokWUU

 

[Francesca R]

So if it's such utter giberish, yo should have no problem in showing us a simple example of one.

Ha ha. it's your utter gibberish. You prove it. Why haven't you done that?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ha ha. it's your utter gibberish. You prove it. Why haven't you done that?

He needs to prove that you can prove your assertion?

 

[eeyore1954]

I happened to see this article from the Journal of Accountancy today. These are not politicians saying this.
Regulation remains top risk for 2015

Risks posed by regulation remain the top concern for company executives and directors in 2015, according to a new survey report ranking the top 10 business risks.

The pace of regulatory and legislative change can affect an organizations operating model..... That this risk remains top-of-mind suggests the cost of regulation and the influence of regulation on business models remain high in many industries.

 

[DavidJames]

Gee, corporations don't like regulations, well duh. Pollution, safety for workers, safety for consumers, fair trade practices, tsk tsk, damn regulations, they could be so much more profitable without them. Sun rises in the east, WOW

 

[eeyore1954]

Gee, corporations don't like regulations, well duh. Pollution, safety for workers, safety for consumers, fair trade practices, tsk tsk, damn regulations, they could be so much more profitable without them. Sun rises in the east, WOW

Do you think most of the people who responded to this questionnaire are not in fact also concerned about things such as the safety of their workers, consumer safety, etc?

 

[Beerina]

I have a problem with them saying it is medicine with absolutely no proof to support that claim.

I'm libertarian-ish, but I am very against fraud. These things have been around a long time, and with very rare exceptions, all are hooey.

Still, I'd rather see a test-and-ban/regulate after the fact than before as I think delaying good cures (from real pharmacological firms) outweighs lives saved from demanding 10 years and a billion dollars testing beforehand.

It's kind of sad. From the title I thought this would be a discussion of memes of too much regulation? Well no regulation at all leads to eating babies! I.e. discuss this leftest meme that appears any time someone suggests well over a trillion dollars of regulatory burden might be counterproductive en masse, e'en if every regulation individually was blessed by Jesus.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm libertarian-ish, but I am very against fraud. These things have been around a long time, and with very rare exceptions, all are hooey.

Still, I'd rather see a test-and-ban/regulate after the fact than before as I think delaying good cures (from real pharmacological firms) outweighs lives saved from demanding 10 years and a billion dollars testing beforehand.

So you support a system more like it was before the elixir sulfanilamide incident and very much like what happened with the whole Thalidomide thing in europe(it never passed FDA testing put in place after the first one).

So who pays for the flipper babies? The corporation that was created as a whole owned subsidiary but legally distinct LLC of the big one to eliminate risk?

 

[The_Animus]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ce-u-s-manipulation-probe-over-metals-pricing

 

[ponderingturtle]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ce-u-s-manipulation-probe-over-metals-pricing

Bets on how long it will take someone to blame that on regulation?

 

[Ladewig]

. As for punishment: for purposely misrepresenting what you're selling, a refund to everyone who bought it, and its on you to prove a claimant didn't buy it.

that is quite a burden.

I can easily imagine a case in which GNC opened a store on January 1 and on Febrary 1 there were found guilty of selling bottles of St. John's Wort that had no St. John's Wort. If their sales records showed they sold 200 bottles of the falsely-named product and 300 people show up claiming that they bought bottles (but paid cash and threw away the bottle and receipt), then GNC will be completely unable to prove which claimants are lying and which claimants have a valid claim.

Should GNC give all 300 people complete refunds? Should they give all 300 people 2/3 of a refund? Should they spend tens of thousands of dollars to determine which claimants are lying? Should they be required to do something else?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think most of the people who responded to this questionnaire are not in fact also concerned about things such as the safety of their workers, consumer safety, etc?

I don't think so. There was a reason unions formed and forced those relations.

 

[DavidJames]

Do you think most of the people who responded to this questionnaire are not in fact also concerned about things such as the safety of their workers, consumer safety, etc?

LOL - no, not really, you actually believe it's a legitimate question.

You don't need me to provide my answer, history will tell you the answer, learn from it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

LOL - no, not really, you actually believe it's a legitimate question.

You don't need me to provide my answer, history will tell you the answer, learn from it.

Hmm. Using your logic of "history will tell us the answer" one might conclude that nearly all white people in the US think that black people aren't human.

What people in the past used to believe is hardly evidence of current thought.

 

[eeyore1954]

Bets on how long it will take someone to blame that on regulation?

Or lack of regulations?

 

[eeyore1954]

LOL - no, not really, you actually believe it's a legitimate question.

You don't need me to provide my answer, history will tell you the answer, learn from it.

Yes I do. From my experience in business a large percentage are concerned. They are normal caring human beings like you or me.
Even from my times as a laborer. Strictly anecdotal I know.
Of course there are people who are not. To them most regulations would not matter.


The purpose of my posting this article was to show there are people running businesses who see regulations and keeping up with regulations as the major risk. That it is not just some meme as the OP suggested.