Regulations are a really big drag on US growth

[Northwestie]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

[GuitarStv]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

I thought that's why we outsource most of our labour overseas now?  :P

[2buttons]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

Have you been drinking? 

[partgypsy]

This is an article, in US cancer deaths rose during the last downturn, especially for treatable cancers, because people lost their jobs and their health insurance. I think we should have universal health care. Many studies have found that it is less expensive per person as well as providing better care. Too many private industries and lobbyists with deep pockets in the US to make that happen, yet.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160525220027.htm

I work in research, and the number of regulations has grown. Sometimes the increase in paperwork does not correspond to an increase in safety. But I wouldn't paint all regulations with the same brush.

[partgypsy]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

I thought that's why we outsource most of our labour overseas now?  :P

Yeah if you don't have any children in developing country, why should you care if it increases profit, right?

[Tyson]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

I thought that's why we outsource most of our labour overseas now?  :P

Yeah if you don't have any children in developing country, why should you care if it increases profit, right?

And if you wonder why the jobs are going overseas in the first place, you can thank "free trade agreements".  Without those in place, we don't have the mass exodus of jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs.  On the flip side, prices for goods would be higher.  Whether that trade off is worth it is up to you, I guess.

[OneDollarAtATime]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

I thought that's why we outsource most of our labour overseas now?  :P

Yeah if you don't have any children in developing country, why should you care if it increases profit, right?

And if you wonder why the jobs are going overseas in the first place, you can thank "free trade agreements".  Without those in place, we don't have the mass exodus of jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs.  On the flip side, prices for goods would be higher.  Whether that trade off is worth it is up to you, I guess.

Now we get both...jobs overseas and higher prices (minimum wage increase).

[2buttons]

https://youtu.be/UrOZllbNarw

[bobechs]

I think if we did away with child labor laws some of my stock portfolio would show some better returns and I could retire earlier.

That's okay for you ultra-libertarians.  For me, I think we should require child labor.  I know, I know; just more government regulation, dragging the economy down, etc., ad nauseum...

But I'm old enough to remember when the draft was in full swing, and in those days Army bases never looked better.  Grass mowed before it needed it, parking lots meticulously striped (with reserved parking for all  the ranking ranks!), no tobacco scraps to be seen and so on.  There is a lot to be said for slave or semi-slave labor, even if it is not considered the uttermost jot of efficiency.

The world would be a better place if more people were chained to their workplaces.

[Fireball]

The world would be a better place if more people were chained to their workplaces.

That just made me throw up a little. :)

[EnjoyIt]

The world would be a better place if more people were chained to their workplaces.

That just made me throw up a little. :)

He may be correct. Society as a whole would be better off if everyone was employed and productive.  Individual lives would suck.

[matchewed]

How so? I'm pretty sure a better society could be imagined that doesn't meet that criteria.

[GuitarStv]

The world would be a better place if more people were chained to their workplaces.

That just made me throw up a little. :)

He may be correct. Society as a whole would be better off if everyone was employed and productive.  Individual lives would suck.

What you mean to say is that jobs we don't currently value enough to bother having someone do them would likely be done simply as make work.

There's a common mistaken tendency to believe that society is somehow separate from the people who make up that society.  If the individual lives in your society suck, then your society sucks.

[Northwestie]

Oppps - straying into philosophy now.

The prime example for this issues is:  suppose there is a young child chained in a basement who never gets to see the light of day but is fed and allowed to be alive in this meager existence.   However, the rest of society is happy and healthful.  If this child is taken out of the basement then the rest of society will suffer the ills of normal human existence.

Is it moral to keep this child in such a condition because it benefits the larger society?

[Tyson]

That's institutional privilege.  Some benefit (the majority) at the cost of others (the minority).  That's the exact argument used to justify slavery.

[EnjoyIt]

That's institutional privilege.  Some benefit (the majority) at the cost of others (the minority).  That's the exact argument used to justify slavery.

Isn't that the same as progressive taxation?

Tax the higher income earner (minority) to benefit the unemployed or low wage earner (majority)

[Northwestie]

That's institutional privilege.  Some benefit (the majority) at the cost of others (the minority).  That's the exact argument used to justify slavery.

Isn't that the same as progressive taxation?

Tax the higher income earner (minority) to benefit the unemployed or low wage earner (majority)

Absolutely not.  The idea of taxation from a society is that we are striving to build a more civilized society for the greater good and that the relatively small contribution given by individuals leads to that greater good - education, social welfare, public use infrastructure.

Equating that minor monetary "harm" to something that is clearly morally wrong - such as slavery, is silly.

[Northwestie]

That's institutional privilege.  Some benefit (the majority) at the cost of others (the minority).  That's the exact argument used to justify slavery.

Correct.

[zephyr911]

Whenever I see a thread like this, all I can think of is stuff like this:



Substitute: OSHA, minimum wage, etc., as needed, but recognize that there were also costs to not having the regs we do, and that those costs are conveniently ignored by most of these blatantly self-seeking "research" projects.

[Northwestie]

It's a model from the Hobbs school of philosophy that societies and thinking individuals quickly tossed on the trash heap and the extreme example of "individual liberty".  BS.

[Yaeger]

I love how a discussion of "We might have too many regulations" turns into an impassioned defense of all regulations... because of the children. Or because they're somehow inherently necessary so all regulations must be justified. Or that bearing an overly oppressive regulatory burden is somehow a necessary part of society.

I think you are all off your rocker. Reducing your stance to an ad hominem, like Zephyr insinuating that people against over-burdensome regulations somehow want child labor. Backpedaling to defense of the children is a sign that you need an appeal to emotion to somehow support your weak argument.

[Northwestie]

Well - the original premise falls pretty much in line with the Hobbs generalization.  Are regulations a drag on the economy - I'm not sure if it was a troll but it's pretty vague and broad-brushed, thus so were the replies.  No reason to get hysterical about it.

[Tyson]

I'm curious, Yeager, which regulations (exactly) do you feel are a drag on the economy?  And which ones do you feel are good and necessary? 

[Yaeger]

I'm curious, Yeager, which regulations (exactly) do you feel are a drag on the economy?  And which ones do you feel are good and necessary?

I don't know. Nobody really knows and that's the point. No CBA is ever done for the millions of smaller regulations. There's no process that standardizes an analysis for ALL of the economic effects of even the large regulations. There's no sunset time period for regulations to expire, or be reanalyzed for effectiveness.

But to say, without analysis, that you can defend the need for the regulations based only on the perceived good, while the bad remains largely a (?) is irresponsible and dangerous. People change their behavior in response to laws and restrictions, and not only in the ways you'd expect. Nobody here should care about the good intentions of government intervention - only the result. Regulation reform should be something actively pushed by both sides of the political spectrum as well as a smaller, easier to control, analyze, and more efficient regulatory system.

[Northwestie]

One could ask the question the opposite way - what regulations don't we have in place that are affecting environmental and social well-being?  -- and it would be just as meaningless.

[Tyson]

I'm curious, Yeager, which regulations (exactly) do you feel are a drag on the economy?  And which ones do you feel are good and necessary?

I don't know. Nobody really knows and that's the point. No CBA is ever done for the millions of smaller regulations. There's no process that standardizes an analysis for ALL of the economic effects of even the large regulations. There's no sunset time period for regulations to expire, or be reanalyzed for effectiveness.

But to say, without analysis, that you can defend the need for the regulations based only on the perceived good, while the bad remains largely a (?) is irresponsible and dangerous. People change their behavior in response to laws and restrictions, and not only in the ways you'd expect. Nobody here should care about the good intentions of government intervention - only the result. Regulation reform should be something actively pushed by both sides of the political spectrum as well as a smaller, easier to control, analyze, and more efficient regulatory system.

This is actually what Process Analysts do for private businesses.  It helps to have someone from the outside come in and break the cycle of "this is how we've always done it" mentality that hardens a lot of business' internal processes.  In fact Yeager, I do agree with you on this - I think it does make sense to have an annual or simi-anual effectiveness review.  But good Process Analysts are not cheap, who should pay for them?  And it also occurs to me that a lot of the regulations that would need to be reviewed are state and local, not necessarily Federal (national), so we'd have to repeat the process at least 50 times (for each state) and probably hundreds and hundreds of times to cover each city and municipality.  That's gonna be freaking expensive....

[EnjoyIt]

I'm curious, Yeager, which regulations (exactly) do you feel are a drag on the economy?  And which ones do you feel are good and necessary?

I'll start. How about all regulations on our school system which is actively dumbing down our smarter children in the hopes of educating those don't don't care to be educated? Federal government regulations are imposed on local schools. Todays teachers have regulatory burdens they must comply with adding more work with no pay increase.

[Prairie Stash]

A big part of regulations is to address "Tragedy of the Commons". While its in an individual companies best interest to not have regulations in the short term the entire system can recognize where the end result ends up, a failure for everyone. Look at the superfund sites, BP gulf spill and other major catastrophes that happen in the absence or ignoring of regulations.

In the US there are still grazing regulations to address the problem of over grazing, its not just a metaphor. In the short term every rancher know they'll make more money by over grazing, they also know that in the long term they'll all make less (over grazed land has lower long term production). While it's true the removal of regulations will increase short term growth, what about long term growth? How do regulations drag on growth once you factor the proven tragedy of the commons?

[Northwestie]

I'm curious, Yeager, which regulations (exactly) do you feel are a drag on the economy?  And which ones do you feel are good and necessary?

I'll start. How about all regulations on our school system which is actively dumbing down our smarter children in the hopes of educating those don't don't care to be educated? Federal government regulations are imposed on local schools. Todays teachers have regulatory burdens they must comply with adding more work with no pay increase.

Such as..........?  There are federal regulations in place to keep kids from getting salmonella from school lunches, but I doubt you're talking about that.  That's the problem with generalities.

[obstinate]

That's institutional privilege.  Some benefit (the majority) at the cost of others (the minority).  That's the exact argument used to justify slavery.

Isn't that the same as progressive taxation?

Tax the higher income earner (minority) to benefit the unemployed or low wage earner (majority)

As a member of the 1%, I can tell you definitively that my life is nothing like that of a child chained in a basement.

[EnjoyIt]

Who said that it is. I just showed a similarity between two posts.

[Frs1661]

I respectfully suggest the 'taxation is slavery' argument stay in the previous thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?topic=53741.0

I agree that some regulations are a net positive, others a net negative, even with all externalities properly accounted for. Overall, I think the US has done a good job balancing over vs. under regulation compared to the international community. There seem to be many under-regulated countries in the developing world, that are trading environmental and human costs for GDP growth, and over-regulated countries (especially Western Europe) where the nanny state mentality has perhaps taken things too far. 

Are there other countries that either side feels would be a good example for the US to follow, in regard to regulations? What have they done differently, and what can we learn from them?



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Frs1661]

- Extrapolated into a 25% reduction in the size of the U.S. economy in 2012, or an economy that was $4 trillion smaller (nearly $13,000 per American) than it would have been in the absence of regulatory growth.

I found it surprising that the growth of regulations is responsible for a loss of $13,000 per capita in annual wages of economic growth since 1980. Also, assuming that our current trend towards increasing regulations continue, we're probably looking at a greater reduction in economic growth and increased poverty. Which ultimately yield less opportunity, more inequality, etc.

How do you think this will effect your FIRE plans in the long term?

Let's accept their numbers at face value, but put them in context.

Since 1990, real household median income has stayed about the same while per capita GDP has more than doubled. Would an additional change in per capita GDP be much more likely to go to the majority of Americans? I think it's unlikely to affect most people's take-home pay. Since we don't know what the world would look like without regulations, it's hard to say whether eliminating them would be a net benefit.

So, no, it doesn't affect my FI plans at all and I'm pretty unconcerned about it.

There is a relevant MMM article: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/

--
http://www.statista.com/statistics/200838/median-household-income-in-the-united-states/
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

This is an important point against the argument that the costs of regulation are keeping the poor poor by reducing GDP growth. Buttons copy-paste from investopedia is in agreement; if real wages have not gone up, but GDP has, the GDP gain is simply being pocketed as corporate profits. Which is great for investors in these corporations (like us), but it does not benefit the poor.

I think the poor workforce is better served by regulations protecting their health and well being than by increased profits for their employer, which history suggests will not 'trickle down' anyway.

[Tyson]

Whatever our regulations, it certainly has not slowed down our productivity, which is ever and ever higher.  If only pay had kept up....

[Yaeger]

Whatever our regulations, it certainly has not slowed down our productivity, which is ever and ever higher.  If only pay had kept up....

I don't think you're looking at the graph correctly. Also, you're not looking at the influences to that, specifically the ECI (Employment Cost Index) and how it eats wages as your employer pays more on your behalf. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-wages-vs-benefits-since-2001-2011-4

[EnjoyIt]

Although productivity is up, the cost of regulations has gone up as well, which affects wages.  Just an example.

20 years ago a physician could run an office with just the doc and a nurse/secretary combo.  Today the same doctor needs a separate secretary, a separate nurse, a separate biller and coder and compliance manager, as well as someone to manage his IT. All of this is forced upon the physician by an ever increasing regulatory system. Now the physician needs to see more patients to just maintain his office and pay all those people.  Do you think the nurse/secretary is being paid a similar wage as compared to 20 years ago (inflation adjusted?) Also, the doc now needs to see more patients a day to make ends meet therefor cuts the amount of time given to each patient.  Who suffers? The employees and the patients.

Another example.  My hair dresser due to regulations needs to do continuing education to keep her license.  She needs to take an extra day off work to go take a class, pay for the class, travel to the class, and then pay for her license to be renewed.  End result is a $1K+ expenditure in lost wages and costs for something completely useless and non productive with minimal no social or personal benefit.

Both of my examples lead to lower wages.  I'm sure each and every one of you has a regulation at work they think is nonsense, a complete waste of time, and costs way too much money to be in compliance.

I think it is really sad that the only response we have is about child labor and polution.  I do not think a single person on this thread thinks all those regulation need to go away.  I do think we need to re-evaluate our regulatory system and discard much of the nonsense we see today that is drowning our society in waste.

[matchewed]

Although productivity is up, the cost of regulations has gone up as well, which affects wages.  Just an example.

20 years ago a physician could run an office with just the doc and a nurse/secretary combo.  Today the same doctor needs a separate secretary, a separate nurse, a separate biller and coder and compliance manager, as well as someone to manage his IT. All of this is forced upon the physician by an ever increasing regulatory system. Now the physician needs to see more patients to just maintain his office and pay all those people.  Do you think the nurse/secretary is being paid a similar wage as compared to 20 years ago (inflation adjusted?) Also, the doc now needs to see more patients a day to make ends meet therefor cuts the amount of time given to each patient.  Who suffers? The employees and the patients.

Another example.  My hair dresser due to regulations needs to do continuing education to keep her license.  She needs to take an extra day off work to go take a class, pay for the class, travel to the class, and then pay for her license to be renewed.  End result is a $1K+ expenditure in lost wages and costs for something completely useless and non productive with minimal no social or personal benefit.

Both of my examples lead to lower wages.  I'm sure each and every one of you has a regulation at work they think is nonsense, a complete waste of time, and costs way too much money to be in compliance.

I think it is really sad that the only response we have is about child labor and polution.  I do not think a single person on this thread thinks all those regulation need to go away.  I do think we need to re-evaluate our regulatory system and discard much of the nonsense we see today that is drowning our society in waste.

Are you seriously going to dump IT, used to run things more efficiently and keep up with an ever increasingly complicated system of communications not due to regulation at the feet of regulation?

You may think it's sad but it's a valid point why not engage it? How about food regulation? Or regulation of power companies that are near monopolies? Or that you car isn't a death trap? Can you so casually write off valid regulations as sad while broadly stating so much things as "nonsense" and "wasteful" without actually talking about specific regulation that is such? You've provided generalized regulations without talking about specifics of those regulations.

Regulation of radio signals to ensure that companies have a fair(ish) shot in communications. Regulations in all sorts of industries that are just there to protect public interest... these should be discarded in favor of what exactly? GDP? Your definition of wasteful?

[Yaeger]

Are you seriously going to dump IT, used to run things more efficiently and keep up with an ever increasingly complicated system of communications not due to regulation at the feet of regulation?

You may think it's sad but it's a valid point why not engage it? How about food regulation? Or regulation of power companies that are near monopolies? Or that you car isn't a death trap? Can you so casually write off valid regulations as sad while broadly stating so much things as "nonsense" and "wasteful" without actually talking about specific regulation that is such? You've provided generalized regulations without talking about specifics of those regulations.

Regulation of radio signals to ensure that companies have a fair(ish) shot in communications. Regulations in all sorts of industries that are just there to protect public interest... these should be discarded in favor of what exactly? GDP? Your definition of wasteful?

Why do so many people think companies don't have incentives towards preventing harm to their customers and what makes you think government has your best interests at heart?

You're probably one of the hypocrites that praises the FDA for thoroughly testing and vetting new pharmaceuticals, then turn around and blast Pharma companies for the charging high drug prices to offset that higher cost.

[matchewed]

Are you seriously going to dump IT, used to run things more efficiently and keep up with an ever increasingly complicated system of communications not due to regulation at the feet of regulation?

You may think it's sad but it's a valid point why not engage it? How about food regulation? Or regulation of power companies that are near monopolies? Or that you car isn't a death trap? Can you so casually write off valid regulations as sad while broadly stating so much things as "nonsense" and "wasteful" without actually talking about specific regulation that is such? You've provided generalized regulations without talking about specifics of those regulations.

Regulation of radio signals to ensure that companies have a fair(ish) shot in communications. Regulations in all sorts of industries that are just there to protect public interest... these should be discarded in favor of what exactly? GDP? Your definition of wasteful?

Why do so many people think companies don't have incentives towards preventing harm to their customers and what makes you think government has your best interests at heart?

You're probably one of the hypocrites that praises the FDA for thoroughly testing and vetting new pharmaceuticals, then turn around and blast Pharma companies for the charging high drug prices to offset that higher cost.

Because history? While government does not always have my best interests in heart when it comes to certain things they perform better with regulation historically than the companies that end up getting regulated. Food, drugs, power plants, guns, cars, hospitals, air travel, radio and television communication, labor...etc.

There is no need to call people names now, please try to keep your posts polite. If your claim is that high drug prices are a direct function of FDA trial requirements then please feel free to provide evidence.

Again in light of several regulations which historically were put in place because these companies did a poor job or no job of self regulation why do you assume these companies are going to magically fall in line? You claim incentives, they do have competing incentives do they not? You're painting it as if they only have one incentive which will always be altruistic in some manner when that is clearly not how the world works.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

FDA regulations are easy cake. You can probably find a dozen relevant posts here:
http://marginalrevolution.com/?s=FDA
However, the FDA absorbs relatively little blame, and instead the blame is hoisted on the private sector for behaving in an economically rational manner.
A good example is the Ebola case. There's no damn money in an Ebola vaccine. So we've never tested it.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/ebola-and-the-fda.html
Clearly this is the fault of money-grubbing companies refusing to service the public good. We obviously need to nationalize them.

Also See: Shkreli. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli

I don't blame Yaegar for his frustration. The mentality of a left-leaning statist blames private sector actors almost reflexively, rather than thinking about what mistakes the government may have made. This is particularly the case for the recent financial crisis. Government f'd up big-time, especially a lot of state governments that did a crap job supervising their small banks. Instead all we get is lectures about how evillllll Wall Street is.
AIG is a particularly good example. AIG was poorly regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, an agency so incompetent the Dodd-Frank bill simply abolished it.

Regulatory overkill is, however, a known issue increasingly under review. Obama appointed Cass Sunstein to review federal regulations and signed an executive order giving him some authority. My impression is Sunstein made almost zero progress, but at least awareness is a start.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/cass-sunstein-on-how-government-regulations-could-be-a-lot-simpler/
His book is on my list, but I have a lot of books on my list.
But it's still new, and a lot of agencies have no formalized "look-back" process. So when we say we don't know how much regulations cost the economy, we really don't know, and a major factor is the government. They aren't actually doing cost-benefit analyses and look-backs and complete reviews that give the public a good idea of the cost of regulation. That's a major government failure.

They are STARTING to improve, but there's a lot of ground left to cover.

If you want blunt-force laissez-faire, Canada demands one regulation be cut for every one regulation added to the books. Link more for proof of existence and ideological neutrality than actual evaluation:
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape-could-it-work-in-the-u-s


This is definitely a topic for review. Western governments have only extensively regulated for the past several decades. We've built up an impressive paper thicket and haven't reviewed it yet. Hopefully we don't fall behind in that, though the under-funding and politicization of our federal bureaucracy probably means this won't become a major priority, either.

[EnjoyIt]

Although productivity is up, the cost of regulations has gone up as well, which affects wages.  Just an example.

20 years ago a physician could run an office with just the doc and a nurse/secretary combo.  Today the same doctor needs a separate secretary, a separate nurse, a separate biller and coder and compliance manager, as well as someone to manage his IT. All of this is forced upon the physician by an ever increasing regulatory system. Now the physician needs to see more patients to just maintain his office and pay all those people.  Do you think the nurse/secretary is being paid a similar wage as compared to 20 years ago (inflation adjusted?) Also, the doc now needs to see more patients a day to make ends meet therefor cuts the amount of time given to each patient.  Who suffers? The employees and the patients.

Another example.  My hair dresser due to regulations needs to do continuing education to keep her license.  She needs to take an extra day off work to go take a class, pay for the class, travel to the class, and then pay for her license to be renewed.  End result is a $1K+ expenditure in lost wages and costs for something completely useless and non productive with minimal no social or personal benefit.

Both of my examples lead to lower wages.  I'm sure each and every one of you has a regulation at work they think is nonsense, a complete waste of time, and costs way too much money to be in compliance.

I think it is really sad that the only response we have is about child labor and polution.  I do not think a single person on this thread thinks all those regulation need to go away.  I do think we need to re-evaluate our regulatory system and discard much of the nonsense we see today that is drowning our society in waste.

Are you seriously going to dump IT, used to run things more efficiently and keep up with an ever increasingly complicated system of communications not due to regulation at the feet of regulation?

You may think it's sad but it's a valid point why not engage it? How about food regulation? Or regulation of power companies that are near monopolies? Or that you car isn't a death trap? Can you so casually write off valid regulations as sad while broadly stating so much things as "nonsense" and "wasteful" without actually talking about specific regulation that is such? You've provided generalized regulations without talking about specifics of those regulations.

Regulation of radio signals to ensure that companies have a fair(ish) shot in communications. Regulations in all sorts of industries that are just there to protect public interest... these should be discarded in favor of what exactly? GDP? Your definition of wasteful?

Have you read my entire post? I never said anything about cutting all regulations and made the point that there are plenty of good ones.

Yes, having IT is good. Forcing someone to use it against their will is not. Instead of allowing economic factors incentive a company to create an infrastructure that is user friendly and improves process. Instead these inferior products were shoved down our throats by government regulation. These products are utter rubish and kill productivity. This regulation even forced some physicians to retire and close their doors and letting go their support staff. How about the loss of productivity forced on us by this regulation? Today doctors and nurses spend more time on the computer instead of direct patient care. How does this benefit the patient?

How is it you can't get it through your head that not all regulations are good. Our government and our regulatory bodies are not perfect.

[matchewed]

Because I never made the statement that all regulation is good. Tell me where I said that.

[Lagom]

OK, so both "sides" now admit that some regulations are good and some are bad. What are we arguing about again? Because if we want to debate whether a particular regulation is good, pretty much every one of them would be worth its own thread.

[EnjoyIt]

OK, so both "sides" now admit that some regulations are good and some are bad. What are we arguing about again? Because if we want to debate whether a particular regulation is good, pretty much every one of them would be worth its own thread.

I find it very interesting that whenever someone brings up an issue that is not entirely on the liberal left's agenda, that same liberal left responds with allegations that push on our emotions. For example:

We should revaluation regulations = hell no, I like clean air and am against child labor
We should discuss taxes = hell no, I like having roads and we need to curb poverty

Although regulations and taxes have their benefits, cutting some regulations and cutting taxes will not all of a sudden create wide spread poverty, make our roads undrivable, or have kids working in factories.

I will make my stance again.
1) We have way too many regulations on the books that stifle wages and growth (yes there are good ones also.)
2) The US doesn't have a taxation problem, it has a spending problem. The US wastes too much money on useless regulations (yes, there are beneficial regulation,) foreign policy, war, beurocracy, corporate welfare, etc.) By cutting waste we would find a massive surplus. Eventually taxes would be cut once the debt burden decreases.

Don't get me wrong the republican right is no better with their big government nanny state and pro war/globalization agenda.

[GuitarStv]

OK, so both "sides" now admit that some regulations are good and some are bad. What are we arguing about again? Because if we want to debate whether a particular regulation is good, pretty much every one of them would be worth its own thread.

I find it very interesting that whenever someone brings up an issue that is not entirely on the liberal left's agenda, that same liberal left responds with allegations that push on our emotions. For example:

We should revaluation regulations = hell no, I like clean air and am against child labor
We should discuss taxes = hell no, I like having roads and we need to curb poverty

Although regulations and taxes have their benefits, cutting some regulations and cutting taxes will not all of a sudden create wide spread poverty, make our roads undrivable, or have kids working in factories.

Absolutely.

I will make my stance again.
1) We have way too many regulations on the books that stifle wages and growth (yes there are good ones also.)
2) The US doesn't have a taxation problem, it has a spending problem. The US wastes too much money on useless regulations (yes, there are beneficial regulation,) foreign policy, war, beurocracy, corporate welfare, etc.) By cutting waste we would find a massive surplus. Eventually taxes would be cut once the debt burden decreases.

Don't get me wrong the republican right is no better with their big government nanny state and pro war/globalization agenda.

1)  When you speak in generalities, people can misinterpret what you mean.  There are greatly beneficial regulations that stifle wages and growth, and people are concerned that you're trying to do away with them.  Which regulations in particular do you want to get rid of to get rid of?  What is your poster child of a wage/growth stifling regulation that shouldn't exist?

2)  I don't disagree that there are areas of government that are wasteful.  If you look hard enough at any big organization there will be some excess that can be cut in the name of efficiency.

A concern of mine though, is that often people who make the 'trim the fat' argument tend to be unsatisfied with just the fat.  They often really want to make structural changes that deeply damage some of the good things that the government does.  We're still recovering in Toronto from four years of a 'trim the fat' mayor who set our public transit back by years, tried to close our libraries, and cut firefighters (worsening response time in the city) . . . after getting several reports that showed there really wasn't as much fat to trim as he'd originally expected.

Sometimes a closer look reveals that what was thought to be 'fat' is actually pretty important stuff, and exists for a reason.

[gaja]

I totally agree there are a lot of strange and unnecessary regulations in my country, and probably in most other countries too. My objections are to the "stifle wages and growth"-part. I do not agree that this should be the main aspect to determine which regulations we need, and which are a waste of time and money. There are plenty of regulations that are simply stupid, superfluous or completely outdated. If we started with these, I think we could get rid of enough dead weight to attack the rest of them with a logical mind instead of feelings or political prejudice.

[matchewed]

OK, so both "sides" now admit that some regulations are good and some are bad. What are we arguing about again? Because if we want to debate whether a particular regulation is good, pretty much every one of them would be worth its own thread.

I find it very interesting that whenever someone brings up an issue that is not entirely on the liberal left's agenda, that same liberal left responds with allegations that push on our emotions. For example:

We should revaluation regulations = hell no, I like clean air and am against child labor
We should discuss taxes = hell no, I like having roads and we need to curb poverty

Although regulations and taxes have their benefits, cutting some regulations and cutting taxes will not all of a sudden create wide spread poverty, make our roads undrivable, or have kids working in factories.

Absolutely.

I will make my stance again.
1) We have way too many regulations on the books that stifle wages and growth (yes there are good ones also.)
2) The US doesn't have a taxation problem, it has a spending problem. The US wastes too much money on useless regulations (yes, there are beneficial regulation,) foreign policy, war, beurocracy, corporate welfare, etc.) By cutting waste we would find a massive surplus. Eventually taxes would be cut once the debt burden decreases.

Don't get me wrong the republican right is no better with their big government nanny state and pro war/globalization agenda.

1)  When you speak in generalities, people can misinterpret what you mean.  There are greatly beneficial regulations that stifle wages and growth, and people are concerned that you're trying to do away with them.  Which regulations in particular do you want to get rid of to get rid of?  What is your poster child of a wage/growth stifling regulation that shouldn't exist?

2)  I don't disagree that there are areas of government that are wasteful.  If you look hard enough at any big organization there will be some excess that can be cut in the name of efficiency.

A concern of mine though, is that often people who make the 'trim the fat' argument tend to be unsatisfied with just the fat.  They often really want to make structural changes that deeply damage some of the good things that the government does.  We're still recovering in Toronto from four years of a 'trim the fat' mayor who set our public transit back by years, tried to close our libraries, and cut firefighters (worsening response time in the city) . . . after getting several reports that showed there really wasn't as much fat to trim as he'd originally expected.

Sometimes a closer look reveals that what was thought to be 'fat' is actually pretty important stuff, and exists for a reason.

Or that fat trimming is used as an excuse to cut things a particular party may not like.

[EnjoyIt]

GuitrSTV,
I have alluded to many regulations in this thread that stifle wages and a burden to society.
I would even go so far as to say the entire department of education needs to be dismantled and funding should go directly to the states allowing states to dictate their education. The one size fits all education process is failing our youth.

Matchewed,
I completely agree with you. My thoughts are not about political parties. Both democrats and republicans are destroying this country (the US) through wasteful spending, debt, and war.  Our country needs to be more mustachian. We need to stop living beyond our means. We do need to trim the fat off our budget (no, I do not mean polluting our air or destroying the police department.)

One senator puts out a regular government waste report.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-rand-paul-unveils-the-waste-report-

Gaia,
Lower wages and stifled growth is a byproduct of over regulation. No one here is saying let's put toxic waste in the Mississippi River to create jobs. The discussion is to evaluate and amend or cut the wasteful regulations on the books today. Unfortunately once the government creates a new regulation it takes a lot of effort to remove it.

[GuitarStv]

I would even go so far as to say the entire department of education needs to be dismantled and funding should go directly to the states allowing states to dictate their education. The one size fits all education process is failing our youth.

OK, finally we've got a concrete answer as to what you want to change.

Can you explain how changing education from the federal level to the state level impacts regulation?  Why will state governments be more efficient at providing the same service?  How much will this change improve US growth?

Given that state legislation has a track record of making poor educational decisions (pretending that Christian religious ideas like creationism are science for example), how do you minimize the growth risk caused by having non-standard education across the country?  Will someone be able to transfer between schools in different states, given that they will have totally different curriculum?  Since some states will be better than others at education, how will you level the playing field regarding employment so that people who graduate from the good states aren't always preferentially treated for job offers . . . or will people born in the bad states just forever be lower earners?

[Gin1984]

GuitrSTV,
I have alluded to many regulations in this thread that stifle wages and a burden to society.
I would even go so far as to say the entire department of education needs to be dismantled and funding should go directly to the states allowing states to dictate their education. The one size fits all education process is failing our youth.

Matchewed,
I completely agree with you. My thoughts are not about political parties. Both democrats and republicans are destroying this country (the US) through wasteful spending, debt, and war.  Our country needs to be more mustachian. We need to stop living beyond our means. We do need to trim the fat off our budget (no, I do not mean polluting our air or destroying the police department.)

One senator puts out a regular government waste report.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-rand-paul-unveils-the-waste-report-

Gaia,
Lower wages and stifled growth is a byproduct of over regulation. No one here is saying let's put toxic waste in the Mississippi River to create jobs. The discussion is to evaluate and amend or cut the wasteful regulations on the books today. Unfortunately once the government creates a new regulation it takes a lot of effort to remove it.

You have not supported this enough to be able to state that as a known and you have not defined over regulation vs needed regulation.