Over-regulated America

So the ECONMIST is calling for what exactly?


No regulations?

Nope.

They are calling for GOOD REGULATIONS/

Who can argue with that POV?
 
with Papa Obama in office

everyone knows that owning a small business is worth "zip"
:eusa_whistle:

Unless of course you are union and kick back to politicians
in return for projects

Ah the beauty of statism
 
Last edited:
Let me get serious,on another side of overregulation on business.
Im a commercial and residential contractor.
i dont run a union shop,never will.
as a business owner,i will pay for and compensate the most who works the most,proves to me,the greatest skill,efficiency,and value and value to my clients and business.
i dont need a gestapo to tell me to pay a slacker,whining,who cant pull their own weight.
my jobs are time sensitive,OSHA run,and have required skills.
i pay people well,if they earn it.
you slack,or cause a risk,or slack, i can your ass,plain and simple.
i dont need a union equating the same pay to my best employee to a slacker,whos dead weight.

Your post has nothing to do with the thread. It is just chest beating and big shots like you are usually all bluster. Now get back to the grill and flip those burgers.
 
Over rrgulation in the wrong areas is designed to cripple entrepraneurship and competitive markets at all levels.

No it's not, get serious.

Yes it is try being smart for a change. How you talk out of both sides of your ass is something for amusement.

One only has to point to Obamas pre election promise that he would regulate the coal industry into bankruptcy.

That promise and the subsequent regulations that followed certainly give his premise credit in my opinion.
 
Over rrgulation in the wrong areas is designed to cripple entrepraneurship and competitive markets at all levels.

No it's not, get serious.

Yes it is try being smart for a change. How you talk out of both sides of your ass is something for amusement.

Read that terribly spelled sentence again and explain why it is correct. It's based on the farcical idea that businesses are purposely over-regulated with the intention of making them fail, ludicrous.
 
From The Economist, Feb 18th 2012, this really says it all. IMHO it's worth the time it takes to read it.



AMERICANS love to laugh at ridiculous regulations. A Florida law requires vending-machine labels to urge the public to file a report if the label is not there. The Federal Railroad Administration insists that all trains must be painted with an “F” at the front, so you can tell which end is which. Bureaucratic busybodies in Bethesda, Maryland, have shut down children’s lemonade stands because the enterprising young moppets did not have trading licences. The list goes hilariously on.

But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.

Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions.

Hardly anyone has actually read Dodd-Frank, besides the Chinese government and our correspondent in New York (see article). Those who have struggle to make sense of it, not least because so much detail has yet to be filled in: of the 400 rules it mandates, only 93 have been finalised. So financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that is partly unintelligible and partly unknowable.

Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama’s health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system’s staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.

Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity.

The other force that makes American laws complex is lobbying. The government’s drive to micromanage so many activities creates a huge incentive for interest groups to push for special favours. When a bill is hundreds of pages long, it is not hard for congressmen to slip in clauses that benefit their chums and campaign donors. The health-care bill included tons of favours for the pushy. Congress’s last, failed attempt to regulate greenhouse gases was even worse.

Complexity costs money. Sarbanes-Oxley, a law aimed at preventing Enron-style frauds, has made it so difficult to list shares on an American stockmarket that firms increasingly look elsewhere or stay private. America’s share of initial public offerings fell from 67% in 2002 (when Sarbox passed) to 16% last year, despite some benign tweaks to the law. A study for the Small Business Administration, a government body, found that regulations in general add $10,585 in costs per employee. It’s a wonder the jobless rate isn’t even higher than it is.

Democrats pay lip service to the need to slim the rulebook—Mr Obama’s regulations tsar is supposed to ensure that new rules are cost-effective. But the administration has a bias towards overstating benefits and underestimating costs (see article). Republicans bluster that they will repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and abolish whole government agencies, but give only a sketchy idea of what should replace them.

America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.

More important, rules need to be much simpler. When regulators try to write an all-purpose instruction manual, the truly important dos and don’ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is strictly necessary to achieve them. Legislators should pass simple rules, and leave regulators to enforce them.

Would this hand too much power to unelected bureaucrats? Not if they are made more accountable. Unreasonable judgments should be subject to swift appeal. Regulators who make bad decisions should be easily sackable. None of this will resolve the inevitable difficulties of regulating a complex modern society. But it would mitigate a real danger: that regulation may crush the life out of America’s economy.

United States' economy: Over-regulated America | The Economist

Didn't read it. Didn't have to.

Anyone saying we need less regulation on the very people who caused the Great Recession is not thinking with his head.
 
No it's not, get serious.

Yes it is try being smart for a change. How you talk out of both sides of your ass is something for amusement.

Read that terribly spelled sentence again and explain why it is correct. It's based on the farcical idea that businesses are purposely over-regulated with the intention of making them fail, ludicrous.

Before you blow a cork, you might want to consider how these tax breaks and picking winners and losers by Government plays into this.

Try being a citizen and not a fucking hack.
 
No it's not, get serious.

Yes it is try being smart for a change. How you talk out of both sides of your ass is something for amusement.

Read that terribly spelled sentence again and explain why it is correct. It's based on the farcical idea that businesses are purposely over-regulated with the intention of making them fail, ludicrous.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RevRZaZQpk]Obama says he will bankrupt the Coal Industry - YouTube[/ame]
 
Holy shit. Before you claim that Obama is regulating businesses into failure......you have to establish that he has, in fact, overseen an increase in the scope and number of regulations on businesses.

The OP dicusses Dodd-Frank.....which regulates a particular industry.....one which has fucking flourished since the damned thing was passed.

The attempts to scream "ocerregulation" into some new reality have not worked on thinking people.
 
Last edited:
Learn how to spell your talking points, dummy.

If Obama had his way, we'd have single payer and the burden of health care would be lifted from businesses entirely.

Obamacare regulates a particular industry....one that has fucked both you and me over for decades.

Try again.
 
Learn how to spell your talking points, dummy.

If Obama had his way, we'd have single payer and the burden of health care would be lifted from businesses entirely.

Obamacare regulates a particular industry....one that has fucked both you and me over for decades.

Try again.

"Fucked over" while being highly regulated by the State and the Feds
Why how can that be?
:eusa_whistle:

There is no free lunch in Economics
If you think health care is expensive now
just wait until it is "free"
:lol:


Really you need better sources than crazy left wing websites or the MSM
You may be better off staying with core left subjects like hating Bush and the new condom issue the
Left is talking about now


Perhaps if the gov't was in the proper place of promoting true competition
and not crony capitalism, things would be better
Then again you may think secret deals with Big Pharma and Papa Obama is a good thing


We understand your confusion

life is hard in the land of

Never Never Blame Obama land
obama-unicorn.png
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top