What, specifically, do you think Obama has done wrong in terms of the economy?

[editec]

FWIW, I think the economy appears to be slowly improving but there are swords of Damacles hanging over not only our economy, but the world's economy.

The EU problems we all know about.

China is also now apparently having a RE meltdown.

How that will play out I cannot say with any confidence, but I am confident that it won't be good.


The fact that our government is STILL having to recapitalize the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks both here in the USA and in Europe is a VERY bad sign.


OPh incidently?

Those of you who are bitching about the inflating money supply?

That is because we are reconsituting our banksters. The current amount given to the banksters to date is $26 TILLION dollars in loans that they turn over once they come due.

Nice work if you can get it, eh?

Borrow from the FED at 0.035% interest, invest the same in T bills at 3.0 % interest and POCKET the difference?!?

Welfare for the BANSTERS, much?

Bet your ass it's welfare, kiddies.

 

[WillowTree]

Why do YOU blame (or don't blame) Obama for the high unemployment rate? What policies of his (or lack thereof) have been detrimental in your opinion?

Support your answer with outside sources. Otherwise, don't waste your time answering. The same ole Republican/Democratic rhetoric isn't going to fly this time. I want hard data and analysis.

 

[Big Black Dog]

What, specifically, do you think Obama has done wrong in terms of the economy? EVERYTHING.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Increasing government debt. Inflating the dollar. Obamacare. Preventing the pipeline. Increasing regulation.

Increasing government debt: yes. Inflating the dollar: he had a miniscule contribution to this. Obamacare has been both costly and beneficial.

The pipeline? Come on. I feel like that is the go-to criticism for Obama these days. You Obama haters have run out of things to complain about so you keep bringing this up.

There is no evidence that Obama's regulations have hindered economic growth:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

Well, yes a nice article but it completely ignores WHY regulation is a job killer and the underlying facts that would make it very rare for a company to actually cite regulation as the factor that caused layoffs. Regulation also does not really cause layoffs but rather stops growth. Here is what I am talking about:
Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars. Now, while I could sell 1000 widget at 50 dollars because it was a nifty product I might only be able to sell 100 because, let's face it, my widgets were not that cool. Well, WHY do I not open the factory then?

DEMAND, of course. The lack of demand for a product at a given price point is going to generally be cited as the driving force for not opening that factory. The is because that is the real issue that the company faces. The fact is, though, that demand was greatly influenced by the regulations that drove the price of that product up. The business is generally going to roll that right into the operating costs and not look at that as a general reason that they make any decision. Instead, the face of the problem, demand, will most likely be cited. The same goes for cost of labor though that cost is more readily separated.


In the end, every regulation costs jobs, that is a given. Some of those regulations are worth the jobs that are lost. Having the proper safety equipment available in the workplace along with the proper training with that equipment might cost a few jobs but the vast majority of people are far safer and better off with those items available and understood. Essentially a net gain. Regulating the exact carpet that is allowed inside an aircraft costs jobs and brings nothing to the table, a net loss. There are many regulations, some good and some bad. The issue that we face today is in the sheer number and scope of regulations has grown to a point that is becoming crushing to growth. Again, this will rarely be cited as a reason not to grow as demand is cited because the demand for a product at a particular price point influenced by regulation and a thousand other factors is not there. Raw data is nice. Understanding with raw data is better.

You've said a lot. Unfortunately, you have relied on a purely hypothetical example in your attempt to demonstrate "understanding". How's about finding a real-life example. There MUST be many.

 

[FA_Q2]

Increasing government debt: yes. Inflating the dollar: he had a miniscule contribution to this. Obamacare has been both costly and beneficial.

The pipeline? Come on. I feel like that is the go-to criticism for Obama these days. You Obama haters have run out of things to complain about so you keep bringing this up.

There is no evidence that Obama's regulations have hindered economic growth:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

Well, yes a nice article but it completely ignores WHY regulation is a job killer and the underlying facts that would make it very rare for a company to actually cite regulation as the factor that caused layoffs. Regulation also does not really cause layoffs but rather stops growth. Here is what I am talking about:
Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars. Now, while I could sell 1000 widget at 50 dollars because it was a nifty product I might only be able to sell 100 because, let's face it, my widgets were not that cool. Well, WHY do I not open the factory then?

DEMAND, of course. The lack of demand for a product at a given price point is going to generally be cited as the driving force for not opening that factory. The is because that is the real issue that the company faces. The fact is, though, that demand was greatly influenced by the regulations that drove the price of that product up. The business is generally going to roll that right into the operating costs and not look at that as a general reason that they make any decision. Instead, the face of the problem, demand, will most likely be cited. The same goes for cost of labor though that cost is more readily separated.


In the end, every regulation costs jobs, that is a given. Some of those regulations are worth the jobs that are lost. Having the proper safety equipment available in the workplace along with the proper training with that equipment might cost a few jobs but the vast majority of people are far safer and better off with those items available and understood. Essentially a net gain. Regulating the exact carpet that is allowed inside an aircraft costs jobs and brings nothing to the table, a net loss. There are many regulations, some good and some bad. The issue that we face today is in the sheer number and scope of regulations has grown to a point that is becoming crushing to growth. Again, this will rarely be cited as a reason not to grow as demand is cited because the demand for a product at a particular price point influenced by regulation and a thousand other factors is not there. Raw data is nice. Understanding with raw data is better.

You've said a lot. Unfortunately, you have relied on a purely hypothetical example in your attempt to demonstrate "understanding". How's about finding a real-life example. There MUST be many.

Every single product that exists. What is so hard to understand? This is how it works. Every business fids a product, estimates its costs, projects the demand for the product at various price points, determines the greatest price/profit margin and makes decisions based on that. ALL products work in this manner.

Want a real world example? Why in the hell do you thing the Chinese make so much of our disposables? Simple, they can be made at a cheaper price, lowering end product price just enough to outpace the competition and maximize the company's profits. Why does regulation suddenly work differently?

 

[Psychoblues]

Increasing government debt: yes. Inflating the dollar: he had a miniscule contribution to this. Obamacare has been both costly and beneficial.

The pipeline? Come on. I feel like that is the go-to criticism for Obama these days. You Obama haters have run out of things to complain about so you keep bringing this up.

There is no evidence that Obama's regulations have hindered economic growth:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

Well, yes a nice article but it completely ignores WHY regulation is a job killer and the underlying facts that would make it very rare for a company to actually cite regulation as the factor that caused layoffs. Regulation also does not really cause layoffs but rather stops growth. Here is what I am talking about:
Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars. Now, while I could sell 1000 widget at 50 dollars because it was a nifty product I might only be able to sell 100 because, let's face it, my widgets were not that cool. Well, WHY do I not open the factory then?

DEMAND, of course. The lack of demand for a product at a given price point is going to generally be cited as the driving force for not opening that factory. The is because that is the real issue that the company faces. The fact is, though, that demand was greatly influenced by the regulations that drove the price of that product up. The business is generally going to roll that right into the operating costs and not look at that as a general reason that they make any decision. Instead, the face of the problem, demand, will most likely be cited. The same goes for cost of labor though that cost is more readily separated.


In the end, every regulation costs jobs, that is a given. Some of those regulations are worth the jobs that are lost. Having the proper safety equipment available in the workplace along with the proper training with that equipment might cost a few jobs but the vast majority of people are far safer and better off with those items available and understood. Essentially a net gain. Regulating the exact carpet that is allowed inside an aircraft costs jobs and brings nothing to the table, a net loss. There are many regulations, some good and some bad. The issue that we face today is in the sheer number and scope of regulations has grown to a point that is becoming crushing to growth. Again, this will rarely be cited as a reason not to grow as demand is cited because the demand for a product at a particular price point influenced by regulation and a thousand other factors is not there. Raw data is nice. Understanding with raw data is better.

You've said a lot. Unfortunately, you have relied on a purely hypothetical example in your attempt to demonstrate "understanding". How's about finding a real-life example. There MUST be many.

There are none. It's an old rightwing trick to make assumptions, dress them up with official sounding words, even add in a few complete falsehoods and tell it all for the gospel. I would be shocked if you get any of the real life examples that you're asking for.

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars.

Every single product that exists. What is so hard to understand? This is how it works.

Because you've trailed off there. You've presented a hypothetical in which production costs increase by 140% due to "etc." It would be helpful to take an actual product and walk through all the relevant regulations, offering realistic estimates of the costs and benefits of each. There isn't much point to an in-depth example that lacks depth.

Nevermind, it's much more enlightening to hear for the thousandth time generalities about how regulations (etc.) are awful, useless, and costing a kazillion dollars.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do YOU blame (or don't blame) Obama for the high unemployment rate? What policies of his (or lack thereof) have been detrimental in your opinion?

Support your answer with outside sources. Otherwise, don't waste your time answering. The same ole Republican/Democratic rhetoric isn't going to fly this time. I want hard data and analysis.

No, you said in another thread: the stimulus created jobs. So everything is really OK. What you see on the news is just right wing spin. Right?

Obama has been the most anti business president in history. From his demonizing BP, to subverting the rule of law in the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies, to his Health Dept going after insurers for speaking the truth his administraiton has shown itself no friend of business. All of that has a chilling effect. WHo wants to hire more employess when the bill to do so is unknown? Who wants to expand when environmental regs will suddenly change and put the company out of business? Who wants to be the next guy highlighted by the WH for "special treatment" because he made one bad decision?
The result of all of these, plus other policies and laws, has been to make business hunker down and wait for better times. Thus job creation is miserable. This is the worst recovery on record since the Depression.

 

[Sallow]

he turned down the Canadian oil pipeline.
Thousands of jobs, here, and a reduced need for oil from the ME.

Shovel ready jobs were not as shovel ready as we thought, hahaha....Pres obama

The money wasted on cash for clunkers.

Passed over 112,000 pages of new regs that will have to be followed.

Ask your buddy rdean to verify this; obamacare cost his company 250k this year. There well over 65k companies. if just 10 percent have the same cost....

I do not think those examples good enough. Obama's policies have created about 3 million jobs. There is also no evidence that government regulations have significantly slowed down economic growth during his presidency.

3 million jobs created and yet UE still went up.

just more left wing blather

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

official UE; 13.2 million
actual UE; 23.9 million

It went up because of budget cuts. You cut the budget..you lose government employees.

But hey..you should be applauding that.

 

[Sallow]

Why do YOU blame (or don't blame) Obama for the high unemployment rate? What policies of his (or lack thereof) have been detrimental in your opinion?

Support your answer with outside sources. Otherwise, don't waste your time answering. The same ole Republican/Democratic rhetoric isn't going to fly this time. I want hard data and analysis.

No, you said in another thread: the stimulus created jobs. So everything is really OK. What you see on the news is just right wing spin. Right?

Obama has been the most anti business president in history. From his demonizing BP, to subverting the rule of law in the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies, to his Health Dept going after insurers for speaking the truth his administraiton has shown itself no friend of business. All of that has a chilling effect. WHo wants to hire more employess when the bill to do so is unknown? Who wants to expand when environmental regs will suddenly change and put the company out of business? Who wants to be the next guy highlighted by the WH for "special treatment" because he made one bad decision?
The result of all of these, plus other policies and laws, has been to make business hunker down and wait for better times. Thus job creation is miserable. This is the worst recovery on record since the Depression.

BP killed 11 Americans.

 

[Sallow]

Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars.

Every single product that exists. What is so hard to understand? This is how it works.

Because you've trailed off there. You've presented a hypothetical in which production costs increase by 140% due to "etc." It would be helpful to take an actual product and walk through all the relevant regulations, offering realistic estimates of the costs and benefits of each. There isn't much point to an in-depth example that lacks depth.

Nevermind, it's much more enlightening to hear for the thousandth time generalities about how regulations (etc.) are awful, useless, and costing a kazillion dollars.

This kinda gets me. For the most part, companies loathe modernizing and do so only when forced. But the results of that..are usually better methods of production and cost cutting due to newly found efficiencies.

All thanks to regulations.

 

[Full-Auto]

No, actually. You can attribute a lot of this growth to the stimulus package.

You can attribute nothing but spin doctor prayers that people don't look close enough at those failures.

They were an epic failure on par with putting band-aides on bullets holes.

get over it, you've been had.

Nonsense. Check this out.:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

the comedy of desperation. You are the full package.

I will ignore that the white house itself conceded the stim was a failure.

But have another glass of kool-aid.

 

[Jackson]

He depended on big government to solve the problems instead of encouraging private businesses to expand through deregulations and didn't curb our trading deficits.

 

[WatertheTree]

Why do YOU blame (or don't blame) Obama for the high unemployment rate? What policies of his (or lack thereof) have been detrimental in your opinion?

Support your answer with outside sources. Otherwise, don't waste your time answering. The same ole Republican/Democratic rhetoric isn't going to fly this time. I want hard data and analysis.

I CANT BELIEVE YOU REALLY WANT TO GO HERE.

How about the fact that his policy's have zero difference from shitbag Bush? Ya know Bush was the first to start bailing out corporate power with taxpayer dollars.

Short list for people who do not pay attention or have memory spans of goldfish:
-Bailouts
-Refusal to address Federal Reserves role in fiasco
-Refusal to hold any accountability for damaged caused when he took office.
-Refusal to change policy regarding economic failure
-Expanding government to create yet another regulating agency at the expense of the tax payer
-Participating in the outright fraud and theft of the population by taxation through inflation
-Continuation of bubble causing policy's such as home buyer subsidization, artificially low interest rates, expansion of welfare into current markets and into new markets
-Theft of social security funds by reducing the amount collected. Essentially paying for tax cuts from an already insolvent entitlement system
-Refusal to end military economy
-Continuation of unfunded Bush regime programs such as tax relief for the rich, prescription drug programs, and war.
-Use of American money on forien aid, even helping forien banks.


This is ofcourse just scratching the surface of the subject as an entire book could and should be written on how much of a fraud this man is. As where many of his predecessors. Thats why the president was intended to have limited power.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do YOU blame (or don't blame) Obama for the high unemployment rate? What policies of his (or lack thereof) have been detrimental in your opinion?

Support your answer with outside sources. Otherwise, don't waste your time answering. The same ole Republican/Democratic rhetoric isn't going to fly this time. I want hard data and analysis.

No, you said in another thread: the stimulus created jobs. So everything is really OK. What you see on the news is just right wing spin. Right?

Obama has been the most anti business president in history. From his demonizing BP, to subverting the rule of law in the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies, to his Health Dept going after insurers for speaking the truth his administraiton has shown itself no friend of business. All of that has a chilling effect. WHo wants to hire more employess when the bill to do so is unknown? Who wants to expand when environmental regs will suddenly change and put the company out of business? Who wants to be the next guy highlighted by the WH for "special treatment" because he made one bad decision?
The result of all of these, plus other policies and laws, has been to make business hunker down and wait for better times. Thus job creation is miserable. This is the worst recovery on record since the Depression.

BP killed 11 Americans.

Bullshit.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why do YOU blame (or don't blame) Obama for the high unemployment rate? What policies of his (or lack thereof) have been detrimental in your opinion?

Support your answer with outside sources. Otherwise, don't waste your time answering. The same ole Republican/Democratic rhetoric isn't going to fly this time. I want hard data and analysis.

I wouldn't count on in depth analysis from this crowd, Billy.

But I'll chime in.

I believe of the things that this admin failed to do was make the stimulus large enough to have the impact it might have had.

$780 billion minus about 40% of it which came in form of tax breaks, just wasn't enough money to have a signficcant impact a fibrilating 14 trillion dollar GDP.

I agree with all that you said here.

Well there you go, son. You didn't want facts and supported opinion, you wanted people to tell you that obama has worked wonders and would have everything all fixed up if it weren't for those damned Republicans.

 

[Sallow]

No, you said in another thread: the stimulus created jobs. So everything is really OK. What you see on the news is just right wing spin. Right?

Obama has been the most anti business president in history. From his demonizing BP, to subverting the rule of law in the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies, to his Health Dept going after insurers for speaking the truth his administraiton has shown itself no friend of business. All of that has a chilling effect. WHo wants to hire more employess when the bill to do so is unknown? Who wants to expand when environmental regs will suddenly change and put the company out of business? Who wants to be the next guy highlighted by the WH for "special treatment" because he made one bad decision?
The result of all of these, plus other policies and laws, has been to make business hunker down and wait for better times. Thus job creation is miserable. This is the worst recovery on record since the Depression.

BP killed 11 Americans.

Bullshit.

Memorial service honors 11 dead oil rig workers - USATODAY.com

Memorial service honors 11 dead oil rig workers
Attendees leave Tuesday's memorial service at the Jackson Convention Center in Mississippi.



DEEPWATER HORIZON VICTIMS

Jason C. Anderson, 35, Midfield, Texas, father of two.

Aaron Dale Burkeen, 37, Philadelphia, Miss., married, father of two (14-year-old daughter Aryn and 6-year-old son Timothy), died four days before his 38th birthday.

Donald Clark, 49, Newellton, La., married to Sheila Clark.

Stephen Ray Curtis, 39, Georgetown, La., married and had two teenagers. Taught his son to hunt and play baseball and was active in his church.

Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, Jonesville, La., married to Courtney Kemp.

Karl D. Kleppinger Jr., 38, Natchez, Miss., U.S. Army veteran of Operation Desert Storm, enjoyed NASCAR and cooking barbecue. Married with one son, Aaron.

Gordon L. Jones, 28, Baton Rouge. Wife Michelle Jones was nine months pregnant with their second son when he died.

Keith Blair Manuel, 56, Gonzales, La., father of three (Kelli Taquino, Jessica Manchester and Ashley Jo Manuel). Engaged to Melinda Becnel. Had season tickets to Louisiana State University baseball and football games.

Dewey A. Revette, 48, State Line, Miss., married with two daughters. Had been with Transocean for 29 years.

Shane M. Roshto, 22, Liberty, Miss., married to Natalie Roshto, father of 3-year-old Blain Michael.

Adam Weise, 24, Yorktown, Texas. During time off, the former high school football star spent time with his girlfriend, hunted deer and fished from his boat.


Sources: Transocean, Associated Press, (Opelousas, La.) Daily World

By William M. Welch and Chris Joyner, USA TODAY
JACKSON, Miss. — They sometimes seem to be forgotten victims as the nation focuses on efforts to stop the massive oil spill fouling the Gulf of Mexico.
But the 11 men who died in the rig explosion off the Louisiana coast were remembered Tuesday in a somber memorial service here, where hundreds of family and friends gathered.

Guess it's not something you really care about.

 

[Ernie S.]

He's been in charge for three years, for two years he had a majority in both houses

He did nothing for the economy and nothing for UE.

Why? I could conjecture to amuse myself, but I'd like to hear your reasons for his failures.

And please none of this party of no bs, that's been debunked by obama on 60 minutes.

Obama's hyper-diplomatic approach with Republicans has been costly. I also blame the inaction on the democrat controlled congress in the first two years. That being said, I think Obama has made a genuine effort to improve the economy. He was just a little misguided. How this has affected the UE is unclear, but there is no denying that there has been steady (although slight) economic growth in the past 9 months.

Although the Dems had both houses for two years they could never break the abuses of the filibuster rules by the repubs. There are plenty of graphs and articles available that indicate a spiraling down of our economy and a spiraling up of unemployment numbers at the time the Prez took office. As those same graphs and articles and other indicators run it is without doubt that all the spiraling was reversed within a few months of the Prez taking office and the stimulus being implemented. When it comes to economic shifts and forecasts I've heard all that gives astrology a good name. I'm inclined to agree with that.

Look at where the spiral began. If you are honest with yourself, you'll see that we were in pretty good shape until the Dems took over Congress.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well, yes a nice article but it completely ignores WHY regulation is a job killer and the underlying facts that would make it very rare for a company to actually cite regulation as the factor that caused layoffs. Regulation also does not really cause layoffs but rather stops growth. Here is what I am talking about:
Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars. Now, while I could sell 1000 widget at 50 dollars because it was a nifty product I might only be able to sell 100 because, let's face it, my widgets were not that cool. Well, WHY do I not open the factory then?

DEMAND, of course. The lack of demand for a product at a given price point is going to generally be cited as the driving force for not opening that factory. The is because that is the real issue that the company faces. The fact is, though, that demand was greatly influenced by the regulations that drove the price of that product up. The business is generally going to roll that right into the operating costs and not look at that as a general reason that they make any decision. Instead, the face of the problem, demand, will most likely be cited. The same goes for cost of labor though that cost is more readily separated.


In the end, every regulation costs jobs, that is a given. Some of those regulations are worth the jobs that are lost. Having the proper safety equipment available in the workplace along with the proper training with that equipment might cost a few jobs but the vast majority of people are far safer and better off with those items available and understood. Essentially a net gain. Regulating the exact carpet that is allowed inside an aircraft costs jobs and brings nothing to the table, a net loss. There are many regulations, some good and some bad. The issue that we face today is in the sheer number and scope of regulations has grown to a point that is becoming crushing to growth. Again, this will rarely be cited as a reason not to grow as demand is cited because the demand for a product at a particular price point influenced by regulation and a thousand other factors is not there. Raw data is nice. Understanding with raw data is better.

You've said a lot. Unfortunately, you have relied on a purely hypothetical example in your attempt to demonstrate "understanding". How's about finding a real-life example. There MUST be many.

There are none. It's an old rightwing trick to make assumptions, dress them up with official sounding words, even add in a few complete falsehoods and tell it all for the gospel. I would be shocked if you get any of the real life examples that you're asking for.

Yes. Stating the obvious is an old right wing trick.
Citing an academic study conducted by PHD's who wouldn't know a widget from a wombat is the old LEFTwing trick.

 

[Ernie S.]

Let's say that I can make a widget for 50 dollars out the door. Now this widget is a nice item that many people want and the demand for a 50 dollar widget would be 1,000 units per year. Not a bad business decision to open up a local factory and create many jobs for producing those widgets but wait, I have several regulations that I need to follow. Minimum wages, the type of paint I use, union concessions, EPA regulations ect. All that increases the cost of my widget to 120 dollars.

Every single product that exists. What is so hard to understand? This is how it works.

Because you've trailed off there. You've presented a hypothetical in which production costs increase by 140% due to "etc." It would be helpful to take an actual product and walk through all the relevant regulations, offering realistic estimates of the costs and benefits of each. There isn't much point to an in-depth example that lacks depth.

Nevermind, it's much more enlightening to hear for the thousandth time generalities about how regulations (etc.) are awful, useless, and costing a kazillion dollars.

The authors find that drilling on private land in Wyoming costs about $900,000 per well, while drilling on federal land costs about $1.1 million per well. Over their sample period (1987-99), just over 1400 wells were drilled in this area, roughly 600 on federal land and 800 on private land. Thus, the added costs of the wells drilled on federal lands amounted to about $120 million. It is worth emphasizing that these added costs represent only the extra costs of drilling on federal lands due to the extra stringency of the regulations as applied to federal lands. The authors make no attempt to estimate the total costs of federal regulations for the oil and gas industry.

ARTICLE