Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I 'm an Rs - and I KNOW we need less regulation - so our economy can go faster

Posted 8 years ago on May 20, 2012, 1:15 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why won't those stupid Democrats get on board?



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

All the regulations in the world are useless unless the government actually enforces them. Cut backs in government funding is a form of deregulation. Agencies have less resources to enforce the codes.

Regulations were in place during this last fiscal crisis. Many regulators were in league with those that needed regulating.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 8 years ago

The regulations are themselves a significant part of the problem. They are often poorly written, vague, confusing recursive obsolete, irrelevant, irrational, way too long and just plain stupid. They are also often the result of political stupidity of various kinds by the Congress that somehow has to get turned into regulatory requirements. Sit down sometime and have a read of the US tax code. Those are the instructions that tell people and businesses what they are supposed to do, and they could not be more dense and obstruse, or less useful if that had been the intent.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

Tax code is a separate issue than FTCC, SEC, EPA, or other regulatory agencies. That some regulations could be revamped, no doubt.

To declare that the regulations themselves are the problem is idiotic.

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 8 years ago

I'm talking about a great many of them besides the tax code. That was only an example. I work with the regs from a number of agencies on a regular basis, and I can tell you from long personal experience that they're a quagmire.

I'm not saying that regulations are per se bad. To the contrary, they're very important. But a lot of the regs in force today are incompetently conceived and badly written, and that's part of the whole problem. If you want them to work, they have to be clear and concise, and they have to be designed to accomplish specific, achievable, real-world outcomes, in response to real and addressable problems. A lot of regs don't meet those tests. That's part of why things are the way they are.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 8 years ago

Good point. Regulator is a thankless job. All political parties pledge to shrink government while it should instead be growing to service an increasing population and respond to problems of increasing numbers and complexity.

Regulation has been necessary even before the industrial revolution came along. There were plenty of regulations by combination of royal decree or papal edict. Until the 1530s, the Church in England , as in the rest of Western Europe, was under the final authority of the Pope, and its doctrine and worship were Catholic. When Henry VIII failed to persuade Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he had himself declared Supreme Head of the Church in England and closed down all the monasteries—though he continued to regard himself as a Catholic. Fast forward to the 20th century and we see there is a need for more regulation not deregulation.

Enron Scandal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I12UcHwUPaY [right click]

Worldcom Scandal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g_d-phoUrU [right click]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQtq77RQRf0 [right click]

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiZe1KSkYYY [right click]

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

It's called regulatory capture. What's amusing about this is that it was JP Morgan himself that was behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System. The banks want to be "regulated". That's how they enforce their cartel.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

I'm familiar with the term regulatory capture.... which takes place in many industries, oil is famous for it. The revolving door between Goldman Sachs (and other large firms), the Treasury, and Federal Reserve has to stop or the regulations won't be worth the paper that they are written on

[+] -4 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

That's my point. Regulation is worse than useless, it's how the 1% controls the economy. This has got to stop. The way to do it is abolishing regulation in favor of a free market.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

A free market is probably the most evil thing ever invented. No rules, no fairness, no ethics, just greed. It's bad enough with regulations, now you want to make it a real street fight. Go back to CATO or AEI or wherever you come from.

[-] -2 points by GilPender (-5) 8 years ago

Isn't OWS about anarchy? So why would they want to regulate things with rules and laws?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

OWS is about democracy.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

Oh what a fabulous idea. Lets put our children to work as wage slaves so we can compete with China!

Clean air, clean water, rules in the financial markets - who needs it.

Free market capitalists wouldn't dream of polluting the air and water. They're angels! And they would never destroy their own financial institutions and the economy, in the process of making a quick buck for themselves. They always put shareholder interests ahead of their own personal greed. They're angels! They always take into consideration the interests of the good of society. They're angels!

You're right. What do we need regulation for anyway.

Wait. What? They're not angels?? Oh, I see. As soon as we get rid of all that regulation - they'll magically turn into angels.

You're seriously dangerous.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

April & Geo,

There are plenty of free market mechanisms to control things like pollution. The history of govt is to allow their industrial buddies to pollute & use environmental regulation to stifle competition.

"It's bad enough with regulations, now you want to make it a real street fight."

The failure of regulation proves that regulation doesn't work. It doesn't prove that the free market has failed. This seems like some basic logic. I'm amazed that more people don't get it.

Lastly, it is your way, the way of a govt controlled economy, that will put kids back in sweatshops.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

Nope sorry. You confuse crony capitalism (enabled by a money driven political system) with the kind of healthy capitalist system that Adam Smith envisioned. And attempt to say that because we have bad campaign finance laws (lack of) which enables crony capitalism, and regulatory capture, (revolving doors) the solution is to get rid of government regulation. Instead of addressing the cause of crony capitalism. Campaign contributions. Sorry. You're logic is seriously flawed.

The cause of crony capitalism is a money driven political system. Not regulation. Poorly conceived business regulation is a byproduct of crony capitalism, used as weapons and favors. The government is encouraged to make more or less regulation, as favors, because it brings them campaign contributions. Get rid of that, and the cronyism goes with it. And the necessary regulations will be more reasonable and effective. Rather than being used alternately as weapons and favors.

Any failure of regulations proves that crony capitalism doesn't allow for good effective regulations that are necessary to prevent abuses of capitalism that are harmful to society. It doesn't prove that regulation is a failure.

Adam Smith believed in a certain amount of government regulation, government intervention, and government providing certain public services for the benefit of society, like infrastructure, education and social services.

''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''

And he believed in progressive tax rates - "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

But go ahead. You don't like Adam Smith? If you're some kind of anarcho-capitalist or libertarian, go ahead and vote for Romney. Right wing neo-liberal economic policies are not that far off from anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism.

Have you heard of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? It helped to end the employment abuses of that time! It didn't cause them!! It helped to end people and children being abused by their employers. That were being taken advantage of because it was either that, or starve completely. Where was your utopian perfect free market control mechanisms in 1938? Or was it government's fault somehow that children were being abused by employers? The government made employers abuse children as wage slaves. Because capitalists are angels. And the government is the root of all evil. This is your logic.

Are you deranged? Think about what you are saying. It's dangerous and your logic is seriously flawed.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

"If you're some kind of anarcho-capitalist or libertarian, go ahead and vote for Romney. Right wing neo-liberal economic policies are not that far off from anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism."

Your confusion is so obvious that no reply is needed. Romney the libertarian LMAO!

As to the rest, crony capitalism is enabled by regulation. It is the regulators that are ultimately the targets of the money spent on politics.

"Where was your utopian perfect free market control mechanisms in 1938?"

Destroyed by the New Deal. Thanks for pointing out that it wasn't working.

[-] 0 points by GilPender (-5) 8 years ago

It seems you don't like rules. Are you an anarchist in OWS? One of the founders?

Perhaps regulations were put in place because a purely free market doesn't work. I'm not sure If I share your love of anarchy.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

Revolving door.

[-] 4 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

LMAO, good sh!t

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

Is that Mitt's cat on the windshield?

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 8 years ago

Florida repealed its helmet law. The number of motorcycle decapitations went way up.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

and the number of stupid motorcyclists went down

by almost exactly the same number !

coincidence ???

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 8 years ago

Most true. I wish the same could be said about the effect of deregulating banking laws.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

if we are to keep our current numbing systems,

banks need to be heavily regulated

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 8 years ago

The argument against regulation is that non-regulation accelerates Natural Selection.

Same for profit-driven medical services.

Same for allowing governments and media moguls generate their own wars.

Without regulation, only the strong and/or massively paranoid survive.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

The term strong is subjective, and always relative to circumstances.