Thread: Who needs regulations?

Regulation has the effect of law. Call it a policy if you like, but if said policy has the effect of law, it's a regulation.

Originally Posted by earcutter

You got that all wrong. The great depression lasted so long because the new deal policies weren't put in place fast enough! Moreover - that's not a regulation. Were the SEC (which was created after the great depression and does regulate) to have been in place and effective before the 20's - there is a strong argument that the great depression would not have occurred.

You are confusing economic stimulus with regulation there.

I got it All wrong? Wow, must eat more for breakfast from now on. Well good for you getting it all right.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Agreed! But some would say that's the point of it all...

Well, yes and no. If carried to the extreme, we may be there already, I would say it is pretty pointless and not enriching your or your families life any. I can on the other hand tell you who it is handsomely enriching.

Bob

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

OUR ECONOMIC PAST

With freer markets, balanced budgets, and lower taxes, Wood was right. Unemployment was only 3.9 percent in 1946, and it remained at roughly that level during most of the next decade. The Great Depression was over.

That was a great read! Thanks. Of course I am assuming that in the last paragraph lies what you are trying to say, "With freer markets..." Am I making the right assumption?

Originally Posted by honedright

This makes the assumption that consumers are stupid, have no standards, and will buy anything regardless. I don't believe that for a second. On the other hand, government regulation often carries with it unintended consequences. For example, insurance companies recently predicted premium increases of 100 - 400% as a result of the still not fully implemented ACA that was supposedly intended to make medical insurance MORE affordable. There are many examples where the government stepped in to cure a problem with regulation, and ended up creating more problems. A study done not long ago indicated that The Great Depression was prolonged by approximately seven (7) years due to New Deal policies. Organized crime during the mid twentieth century was funded from black market sales due to government prohibition of alcohol. Todays war on drugs is doing essentially the same. Government CAFE standards mean lighter, smaller cars full of plastic and less safe during an accident.

You did read the first part of this series right? Where cars made by the same manufacturers but without these regulations are UNSAFE. This starkly refutes the first and last lines of your argument. I don't dis-agree that the new insurance regulation may be bringing up costs, but think about it. If you are an insurance salesman what are you going to do right now? Now is the perfect time to inflate your prices and increase your margin. Everyone will blame it on the new regulation and you will smile all the way to the bank. My bigger point is that regulation needs a balance point. Consumers aren't dumb... They are LAZY. Point in proof. I live in Maryland and they recently enacted a law I think was overstepping. They now make all menus at restaurants list the calorie count, even on the menus above the fast food counters. Now that I have more information I HAVE changed what I order even though I don't like that it was regulated. I wish the restaurants would have done that on there own accord but that would lose them sales! Cheap high-calorie items make them the most money!

Originally Posted by honedright

I got it All wrong? Wow, must eat more for breakfast from now on. Well good for you getting it all right.

Sorry - I am used to being in school where that kind of talk isn't considered confrontational but rather encouraged. Thoughtless on my part.

Originally Posted by honedright

"Take out regulations and you wouldn't even know corn was in the product."

This makes the assumption that consumers are stupid, have no standards, and will buy anything regardless. I don't believe that for a second. On the other hand, government regulation often carries with it unintended consequences. For example, insurance companies recently predicted premium increases of 100 - 400% as a result of the still not fully implemented ACA that was supposedly intended to make medical insurance MORE affordable. There are many examples where the government stepped in to cure a problem with regulation, and ended up creating more problems. A study done not long ago indicated that The Great Depression was prolonged by approximately seven (7) years due to New Deal policies. Organized crime during the mid twentieth century was funded from black market sales due to government prohibition of alcohol. Todays war on drugs is doing essentially the same. Government CAFE standards mean lighter, smaller cars full of plastic and less safe during an accident.

Govt regulation of Alcohol? it was those certain folks in certain parts of the country that pushed the ban on alcohol for moral reasons even though the majority of Americans were against it. (sound familiar). The Govt was only enforcing the amendment which is their job. You could end the drug war tomorrow but who would stand in the way of doing that? Cars are safer now than they have ever been. Big heavy finned dinosaurs from the 1960s and 70s? Get into an accident with them and you the dummy (not you personally) became a projectile, went through the windshield, shredded you face on the glass, got impaled on the steering column and got roasted by the fire that ensued and crushed when the top collapsed. Not to mention when you hit your head on the steel dash and doors flew off the car with you following.

Do away with regs and that's what you get? Is that what you want to drive around in?

As to the health increases that estimate came from the insurance industry. Think there is an impartial analysis there. it's already been discredited.

Originally Posted by earcutter

That was a great read! Thanks. Of course I am assuming that in the last paragraph lies what you are trying to say, "With freer markets..." Am I making the right assumption?

Well yes....to an extent. But more important is refuting the notion that the New Deal helped end the Depression. And more important is dispelling the notion that government spending, meddling in the markets, and diverting the economy's resources is a productive tool toward increasing the standard of living. There is a need for govt regulation. Unfortunately that regulation is usually designed NOT to fine tune the economy but to push an agenda. We can debate the economy of 60 or 70 years ago but all we need is recent history to see the folly of govt regulation in the wake of the last economic meltdown. None of the main culprits were even recognized, never mind regulated - ensuring that we are bound to repeat the same disaster. Govt regulation has failed us but the evidence has not yet surfaced. As is often the case when considering the inefficiency of govt, you have to ask yourself if you want more of it or less? The New Deal was an example of govt wasting our resources, regulating prices, spending insane amounts of money, only to keep the economic distress alive and well longer than it should have been. And only through the suspension of those programs does the economy rebound. And yet 70 years later we repeat these so called remedies yielding similar results with the promise that things would have been worse if we didn't take these similar, ineffective measures. And why? To further political agendas.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Well yes....to an extent. But more important is refuting the notion that the New Deal helped end the Depression. And more important is dispelling the notion that government spending, meddling in the markets, and diverting the economy's resources is a productive tool toward increasing the standard of living. There is a need for govt regulation. Unfortunately that regulation is usually designed NOT to fine tune the economy but to push an agenda. We can debate the economy of 60 or 70 years ago but all we need is recent history to see the folly of govt regulation in the wake of the last economic meltdown. None of the main culprits were even recognized, never mind regulated - ensuring that we are bound to repeat the same disaster. Govt regulation has failed us but the evidence has not yet surfaced. As is often the case when considering the inefficiency of govt, you have to ask yourself if you want more of it or less? The New Deal was an example of govt wasting our resources, regulating prices, spending insane amounts of money, only to keep the economic distress alive and well longer than it should have been. And only through the suspension of those programs does the economy rebound. And yet 70 years later we repeat these so called remedies yielding similar results with the promise that things would have been worse if we didn't take these similar, ineffective measures. And why? To further political agendas.

Thanks! Great insights!


Well in my world - so long as the Fed and Government continue to believe in Keynesian Economics, then I am not sure anything is going to change. And though history does prove its weaknesses, it does show some incredible strengths as well - and generally speaking, every person alive has benefited from it. Alas, the only way to cure a Keynesian "hangover" is to drink more, and that'll age anyone lol. Eventually it'll crumble. That's my take on that - there is just no middle ground. You're all in, or you are all out.

I am not 100% sure I buy in to everything you are saying with respect to the New Deal - some of the models I have seen seriously imply the infusion of gov works and moneys via the New Deal did provide the basis for the recovery. Of course no model (yet) can account for anything and speaking in absolutes makes one vulnerable to looking like an idiot. So I'll take some time and revisit some of my assumptions.

Though I am not the biggest fan of the system as it is - I am no Tea Bagger and think Libertarians are loopy lol - so note that when I say what I do.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Thanks! Great insights!


Well in my world - so long as the Fed and Government continue to believe in Keynesian Economics, then I am not sure anything is going to change. And though history does prove its weaknesses, it does show some incredible strengths as well - and generally speaking, every person alive has benefited from it. Alas, the only way to cure a Keynesian "hangover" is to drink more, and that'll age anyone lol. Eventually it'll crumble. That's my take on that - there is just no middle ground. You're all in, or you are all out.

I am not 100% sure I buy in to everything you are saying with respect to the New Deal - some of the models I have seen seriously imply the infusion of gov works and moneys via the New Deal did provide the basis for the recovery. Of course no model (yet) can account for anything and speaking in absolutes makes one vulnerable to looking like an idiot. So I'll take some time and revisit some of my assumptions.

Though I am not the biggest fan of the system as it is - I am no Tea Bagger and think Libertarians are loopy lol - so note that when I say what I do.

As a Tea Party guy myself, I take a mild level of insult at the jab. And why is the Tea Party such villains? Because they want Constitutional govt, fiscal responsibility, reduced taxation, smaller govt, and court justices that recognize original ism as the only reliable basis for administering law? In short, they are a threat to a growing, out of control, and unrepresentative govt that is Washington. A govt that is evolving into the very form of govt that we fought a revolutionary war to break free of.