Thread: Who needs regulations?

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.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

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.

Lol - I can't say anything lately without people getting upset or having a "mild level of insult at the jab."

Why would you even be mildly insulted? I never took a jab at the tea party at all - I said I wasn't one. If you were a libertarian and took offence to me calling them loopy I guess I could see it. I mean if you told me you weren't a *insert party here* - and I was a card carrying member I wouldn't be insulted.

Let's refrain from using words like 'tea bagger', ok?
We don't need to insult people just because they have a different political opinion.

I am a card carrying caffeine sieve. Is that all right?

Just one thought on regulations today,,,

Why do we have so many different Blends of fuel across the US ????

We all know that one blend, with one Federal regulation to burn this blend in all cars would lower the price of fuels but one State in particular and a few others that followed suit have added costs for all of us...

Why ???

Thinking of fuel today for a reason, as you can only buy ULSD including for offroad use, so I have to buy Red Diesel then add a "Slick Pack" to it so it doesn't burn up my Tractor's engine, which in turn adds all the pollutants back into the fuel, that I paid more for in the first place because it costs more to take them out when they make the stuff...

Yes this makes perfect sense

Glen

You had similar issues with engines during the switch over from leaded to unleaded gasoline happened. Unfortunately equipment such as your tractor is not replaced with modern new ones at anywhere near the rate that cars are so the problem will be around a lot longer in those applications. Reducing pollution levels cost money is about all it amounts to.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Glen

You had similar issues with engines during the switch over from leaded to unleaded gasoline happened. Unfortunately equipment such as your tractor is not replaced with modern new ones at anywhere near the rate that cars are so the problem will be around a lot longer in those applications. Reducing pollution levels cost money is about all it amounts to.

Bob

Not really a comparision, the major issue was the other way around, Leaded fuel could not go in an Unleaded vehicle, most older vehicles run fine on Unleaded there are a very few engines that might have cylinder head problems, with extended high speed highway driving...

The issues with runon etc: were solved with just minor timing adjustments, and later with better octane ratings of Unleaded fuel..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Just one thought on regulations today,,,

Why do we have so many different Blends of fuel across the US ????

We all know that one blend, with one Federal regulation to burn this blend in all cars would lower the price of fuels but one State in particular and a few others that followed suit have added costs for all of us...

Why ???

Thinking of fuel today for a reason, as you can only buy ULSD including for offroad use, so I have to buy Red Diesel then add a "Slick Pack" to it so it doesn't burn up my Tractor's engine, which in turn adds all the pollutants back into the fuel, that I paid more for in the first place because it costs more to take them out when they make the stuff...

Yes this makes perfect sense

Oh, it makes sense alright. In many of these instances where logic seems to have been cast aside, you can conclude that either those that are in a position of power either are complete idiots or that they have very different goals that they are pursuing. Regulation usually is agenda driven.

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube