Bam... smack! :Clete: Rocketman knocks it out of the park!
:first:Oh? Except I know when complying with standards, very frequently equipment needs to be installed and someone has to make that equipment and install it. I've watched it happen over and over.
Oh! and no business has either closed the doors or moved out of the country because they couldn't afford to comply. Do you really think that this creates/saves jobs? Really?
Republican candidates are the ones talking about eliminating the EPA. Environmental regulations seem to be top on the list. Problem is if you remove those regulations those costs get shifted elsewhere, to more asthma attacks for example. Many regulations exist to take into account factors that the market does not ordinarily include. But that's basic economics. Those real world business people, of course, want to push their costs onto someone else so they can make more money.
I have heard Democrats make the same assertion, the EPA has done it to themselves. The EPA is a great example of a regulatory agency that started off for the betterment of society and has become a labyrinth of over regulation for business and private citizens alike. I don't think that they should be disbanded but, that there mission and power should be subject to debate. No agency should have absolute power over the people.
You may call this extreme but it's happened in the USA within the last 30 years. In fact it still happens. Forgotten about upper big branch mine and BP's Deepwater Horizon spill? Both caused by poorly enforced regulations.
So any accident that happens shows the need for regulation? If you examine the findings of both accidents you will find it was not the lack of regulations but, companies not following their own safety procedures. Will more regulations make these business' comply? Maybe more safety inspectors would suffice but, more redundant regulation would accomplish what?
You SAY the cause is "extreme over regulation" but you provided no evidence to back it up. You linked a blog posting that repeated your assertion and said businesses were leaving california. Okay if they are leaving at a greater rate than other states (not addressed in the posting), why are they leaving?
O.K. Alate fair enough, here is a study on the effects of over-regulation on business from the CA State University system. I'll show the highlights here for the edification of all the readers who prefer not to read it all:
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study measures and reports the cost of regulation to small business in the
State of California. It employs an original and unique approach using a general
equilibrium framework to identify and measure the cost of regulation as measured by
the loss of economic output to the State’s gross product, after controlling for variables
known to influence output. It also measures second order costs resulting from
regulatory activity by studying the total impact – direct, indirect, and induced. The study
finds that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is
almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross
product. The total cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs
which is a tenth of the State’s population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all
employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost
is borne almost completely by small business. The general equilibrium framework
yields the following results:
• The direct cost of the regulatory environment in California is $176.966 billion in
lost gross state output each year. The direct cost does not account for second
order costs.
• The total loss of gross state output for California each year due to direct, indirect,
and induced impact of the regulatory cost is $492.994 billion.
• In terms of employment this total output loss is equivalent to the loss of 3.8
million jobs for the state each year. A loss of 3.8 million jobs represents 10% of
the total population of California. In terms of labor income, the total loss to the
state from the regulatory cost is $210.471 billion. Finally the indirect business
taxes that would have been generated due to the output lost arising from the
regulatory cost is $16.024 billion.
• The total regulatory cost of $492.994 billion is four to four and a half times the
total budget for the state of California, and almost five to six times the general
fund alone. Further, given the total gross state output of $1.6 trillion for California
in 2007, the lost output from regulatory costs is almost a third of the gross state
output.
• The indirect business taxes lost could have helped fund many of the state’s
departmental budgets. As an example, the indirect business taxes lost are 60
times the budget of the Office of Emergency Services, and would have paid for
almost half the budget of the Department of Education.
• The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in
2007, labor income not created or lost was $57,260.15 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $4,359.55 per small business,
and finally roughly one job lost per small business.
• The total regulatory cost of $492.994 billion translates into a total cost per
household of $38,446.76 per household, or $13,052.05 per resident. The total
cost per household comes close to the median household income for California.
This study provides the most comprehensive and complete analysis of the total
regulatory burden in California. The study and findings have implications for policy-
makers and those in charge of the regulatory environment. The results also suggest
that future research should attempt to understand how to minimize the intended and
unintended costs of regulation. Since small businesses are the lifeblood of California’s
economy constituting 99.2% of all employer businesses, efforts to make the regulatory
environment more attractive will make California a more attractive state for doing
business. This in turn will improve the state’s output, employment, labor income,
indirect business taxes, economic climate, quality of life, living standards, and growth
prospects.
http://www.sba.ca.gov/Cost%20of%20Regulation%20Study%20-%20Final.pdf
I'm not talking about government or societal structure (though China is less communist by the day) I'm talking about environmental status, you might have noticed the picture I linked. We used to have smog like that. Can you guess why we don't now? It has nothing to do with deregulation or free markets.
So, it is your contention that any release of the over-regulation stranglehold will end this way? So there is no way to balance the two? It is only black and white and no middle ground in your opinion?
You really think academia is some vacuum? Here the classic conservative hatred for any hint of intellectualism rears it's ugly head again. The problem is the USA has NOT been listening to the experts. The video I linked before was from before the mortgage crash, and she accurately predicts the problems that continue to dog us now. How dare we as a society ask someone that might actually study statistics and use science to inform our decisions. Gotta keep shooting from the hip like a good old boy. That's what's gotten us where we are now . . .
Wow! I guess I hit a nerve there...My entire family are educators from my father all the way to every sibling I have being in academia, and I absolutely know they agree with me. I also have no hatred for intellectualism when it is unbiased and actually uses data & logic not opinion to reach it's conclusions. You have the right to be offended though my comments were not intended to offend you but, to enlighten you to the effects that over-regulation has on people that work outside of academia(and yes, it is a vacuum). You have the luxury of commenting on your utopian idea of how the business world should operate without having to work within it, which makes you an outsider looking in, a very comfy place in which to criticize something you know little about. Do you own a business? Do you work for a corporation? Have you ever been responsible for the employment of others? If not than you live in a vacuum that is insulated from problems of government over-regulation of business.
So you've decided to attack me personally, typical. I've worked in industry and as a minimum wage worker. I know what the American worker wants because I have been one, and I still am. People in academia want basically the same things and only a few of us actually have ivory tower job security. (Hint I'm not one of those people)
Attack you personally? hardly. I have simply attacked the logical fallacy that you have proposed here. Again, the choice to be offended is your own I have not taken aim at you personally.
You've provided no evidence (like Knight or another of the others in this thread) that deregulation and tax cuts will actually increase employment.
Read the study above, there are plenty more where that comes from.
Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. We know the stimulus created jobs, but Republicans will keep screaming at the top of their lungs that it didn't until everyone believes them. It's no wonder our society is so broken.
I agree socialists/liberals and their ideals are insane yet they still think they will work. Obama had 7.2% unemployment before the stimulus it now stands at 9.8% possibly higher so, I ask you where are all those jobs you speak of? Hmm...Thats what I thought another logical fallacy, who do you think your fooling here? :idunno:
