Members banned from this thread: splansing


Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 106
Thanks Tree79Thanks

Thread: Too Much Regulation

  1. #21
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    41,198
    Thanks
    19163

    From
    Depends on what year....
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    enough to keep us reasonably safe.. not put us in a air tight plastic bubble.
    That statement, like the phrase "too much," purports to quantify but does not actually do so. What would really have to happen would be to review various regulations and determine their propriety, rather than deal with "too much" (or even "too little," an equally nebulous phrase).
    Thanks from cable2

  2. #22
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    19,392
    Thanks
    17007

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Or dihydrogen monoxide. Nasty stuff.
    Well, we CAN use it to torture folks. It's called water-boarding.
    Thanks from cable2 and April15

  3. #23
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    19,392
    Thanks
    17007

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There are, however, people who do believe there is "too much regulation," but none of them can articulate how to determine the appropriate number of regulations, or how they should be apportioned.
    Cost-benefit analysis is the right approach, at least theoretically, for determining if any particular regulation is appropriate. But easier said than done. In some cases, an accurate cost-benefit analysis may be nigh well impossible. Or, there may be significant scientific disagreements on just how dangerous some particular pollutant is, for example.
    Thanks from cable2 and bajisima

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    36,853
    Thanks
    21886

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Cost-benefit analysis is the right approach, at least theoretically, for determining if any particular regulation is appropriate. But easier said than done. In some cases, an accurate cost-benefit analysis may be nigh well impossible. Or, there may be significant scientific disagreements on just how dangerous some particular pollutant is, for example.
    Its also another issue subject to perception. The average person doesn't know or understand the intricacies of regulations and how they work. Many as you said are at the state level and subject to silly local rules and politics. Like states where tattoo artists have less regulation than a florist. That's just nuts. But people are aware of silly stuff like that and scream bloody murder. They don't know the hows or whys but just run with too much regulation instead of something more along the lines of common sense regulation.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  5. #25
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    41,198
    Thanks
    19163

    From
    Depends on what year....
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Its also another issue subject to perception. The average person doesn't know or understand the intricacies of regulations and how they work. ... They don't know the hows or whys but just run with too much regulation instead of something more along the lines of common sense regulation.
    That is the problem, though ... if a person does not understand, then how can he have an opinion? Is it a case of a person being too ignorant to understand that he does not know what he is talking about?
    Thanks from cable2

  6. #26
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    36,853
    Thanks
    21886

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    That is the problem, though ... if a person does not understand, then how can he have an opinion? Is it a case of a person being too ignorant to understand that he does not know what he is talking about?
    This is the problem we face unfortunately. There seemed to be a time when people made an effort to at least figure out some things and then decide who to vote for based on that. I recall as a kid hearing relatives or people around me say "I am not voting this time because I don't know enough about the people running or the issues." That doesn't happen anymore. Now it seems we read something online or see something on a Facebook and run with it. Its staggeringly dumb and I think its only going to get worse. When the majority of people think what Kanye West says holds more validity than anything else where does that take us?
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and BigLeRoy

  7. #27
    Senior Member Sparta's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,297
    Thanks
    7524

    From
    Connecticut
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    You know what we have? Too much regulation in this country. It hurts businesses. That's bad, mkay.

    Google Dallas Pension. This is what happens over and over and over and over.... when you let sharks babysit your wealth, allow them to regulate themselves, vote yourselves into the palms of your economic betters.

    I'm so nauseated by the never-ending capacity of American idiots to vote against their own economic interests, I don't even have words anymore. HO BAD DOES IT HAVE TO GET? Before people will wake up and realize they're literally giving away their freedom one dollar at a time? I really, really do not get it.
    We're way past that.

    Uber built a billion dollar corporation by defying regulators who at the same time suppressed small businesses, they've reduced an industry to less than part-timers who're out to make an extra $20. Now they just put an autonomous vehicle on the road without even trying to conform to California's regulations regarding registration of a driverless car.

    Meanwhile regulated taxi cabs receive punitive measures from regulators for having a dome light out or not answering the phone with the correct greeting.

    I agree with you in theory but at least in this case regulations have been used to strong arm the companies who were trying to follow the rules
    Thanks from April15

  8. #28
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,410
    Thanks
    1473

    From
    Switzerland
    At government level the big thing is how to master complexity. A company faces complexity but much less than an administration because it has a logical aim, which is to make money selling services or products and compete with others to be successful. At the level of an administration it is much more complicated because you need there to deal with many more parameters which often contradict one another. It is why politics is often an agenda in which, through compromises, politicians try to implement their projects and have to consider other politicians projects and try to set priorities. Adn when you have complexity you need regulations, because everything cannot be done at the same time. The risk when you have not enough regulation is like when you put too much in a funnel which stops up. Traffic is a good example and you need regulations there,but if you have too many of them it can lead to traffic jams. Finally it is too short to consider that regulation is only evil and to promote the free fox in the free hen-house, because with that there will be no hen anymore...
    Thanks from April15

  9. #29
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,797
    Thanks
    813

    Corporate welfare doesn't offend GOP types because they believe that the corporations, allowed to prosper as much as possible, will give us poor slobs (you know, people) jobs, and then we can kiss their asses forever...or they can take away our jobs. Essentially the crux of the argument is this: a corporation can reward someone with a job and with pay because they deserve it, or because the corporation feels like it, freely. Using tax dollars to provide welfare or anything else to people is morally wrong because we can't all choose whether or not to participate.

    It's not fair! <stamps foot>

    I like to point out that Monopoly is completely fair. Everyone starts with the same money, the same dice, the same board. And every single time, the same thing happens. Before too long, somebody has so much property and wealth that they cannot be beaten. The game ends when money stops circulating. The different between reality and Monopoly is, that is actually the object of Monopoly. If the wealth concentration gets too great in reality, we don't start over. You do not win. What happens is, we're all fucked.

    Taxes are the answer to our problems. Progressive tax rates that top 90%, as they did in the 1950's, are the only way to prevent wealth concentration from destroying our society. It is the only mechanism that effectively counteracts the effects of wealth on our political system, by limiting how concentrated wealth can become. Concentrated wealth IS concentrated power. They are the same thing. Concentrated wealth, therefore, is anathema to democracy.

    Our economy and government exist to make our lives better. Americans have lost sight of that. Government is supposed to have a PURPOSE. And it isn't as simple as making sure people follow the rules. It's to SERVE CIVILIZATION. To make us stronger, to promote growth-- REAL growth --and development. To provide a mechanism for resolving disputes and making decisions, so we can live together without killing each other.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  10. #30
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    19,392
    Thanks
    17007

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Corporate welfare doesn't offend GOP types because they believe that the corporations, allowed to prosper as much as possible, will give us poor slobs (you know, people) jobs, and then we can kiss their asses forever...or they can take away our jobs. Essentially the crux of the argument is this: a corporation can reward someone with a job and with pay because they deserve it, or because the corporation feels like it, freely. Using tax dollars to provide welfare or anything else to people is morally wrong because we can't all choose whether or not to participate.

    It's not fair! <stamps foot>

    I like to point out that Monopoly is completely fair. Everyone starts with the same money, the same dice, the same board. And every single time, the same thing happens. Before too long, somebody has so much property and wealth that they cannot be beaten. The game ends when money stops circulating. The different between reality and Monopoly is, that is actually the object of Monopoly. If the wealth concentration gets too great in reality, we don't start over. You do not win. What happens is, we're all fucked.

    Taxes are the answer to our problems. Progressive tax rates that top 90%, as they did in the 1950's, are the only way to prevent wealth concentration from destroying our society. It is the only mechanism that effectively counteracts the effects of wealth on our political system, by limiting how concentrated wealth can become. Concentrated wealth IS concentrated power. They are the same thing. Concentrated wealth, therefore, is anathema to democracy.

    Our economy and government exist to make our lives better. Americans have lost sight of that. Government is supposed to have a PURPOSE. And it isn't as simple as making sure people follow the rules. It's to SERVE CIVILIZATION. To make us stronger, to promote growth-- REAL growth --and development. To provide a mechanism for resolving disputes and making decisions, so we can live together without killing each other.
    Hey, I give this post an A+. I salute you, sir!
    Thanks from April15

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What advocates of regulation don't get...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 24th November 2013, 01:09 PM
  2. Name That Regulation!
    By arock0627 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 16th October 2013, 12:30 PM
  3. Why we need MORE regulation of the mortgage lenders, not less..
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd September 2011, 12:44 AM
  4. Not all EU regulation is bad
    By caffeine in forum World Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 22nd July 2010, 05:38 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed