"Deregulation"

[Astaroth]

Especially in the US talking about "deregulation" seems to be the thing to do. "Govt regulations are impeding business! Stop hurting the economy!"

Where does this obsession come from? Why do people have this belief that "regulations" are some evil, abstract tool that the fed govt uses because it hates business owners?

(Most) regulations exist for a good reason.

Do you really think businesses should be just allowed to throw their trash into a river, to pollute the air, to put poisonous stuff everywhere and so on? Really?

Of course there might be some silly regulations (in b4 someone comes and posts a sensationalist Foxnews article about a "ridiculous" regulation), but what is wrong with regulations in general?

Regulations don't exist because people are bored or want to annoy business owners, regulations (usually) were created due to problems that existed beforehand.

[flonky]

Regulations sure do exist for a reason, but they are really insanely complicated nowadays, and insanely long. For example in the EU a recent regulation on the sale of cabbages, yes, cabbages, was 27,000 words long! The real issue isn't always the regulations themselves, it's the increasing amount of man-hours, and therefore money, that businesses have to spend to abide by the law. Regulations have to be somehow simplified so as not to disencourage entrepreneurs.

[Astaroth]

Regulations sure do exist for a reason, but they are really insanely complicated nowadays, and insanely long. For example in the EU a recent regulation on the sale of cabbages, yes, cabbages, was 27,000 words long! The real issue isn't always the regulations themselves, it's the increasing amount of man-hours, and therefore money, that businesses have to spend to abide by the law. Regulations have to be somehow simplified so as not to disencourage entrepreneurs.

Do you know why regulations are that long and complicated?

Actually, businesses are partly "to blame" for that. People always try to find loopholes in regulations and to exploit them; therefore, all eventualities have to be covered.

The other main reason is that life is complicated. You cannot hope to adequately regulate most aspects of life on a few pages. Longer regulations might be more complicated and annoying, but they are often also more accurate and fair.

@Rolling Thunder: but that cannot be changed. Regulations have to exist, that much is obvious. Unfortunately, regulations also have to be complicated and try to cover all loopholes, otherwise they will be exploited.

So really, there are three choices:

1. No regulations -- leads to mass pollution etc. They exist for a reason, not much else to say.
2. Simplified/easier/shorter regulations -- problem #1: they will be exploited and essentially be useless; problem #2: they will be too "general" and lead to countless (expensive) lawsuits etc.
3. The current regulations.

Of course sometimes regulations could be simplified and shortened a bit, but certainly not in a truly significant way...

[flonky]

[*]Simplified/easier/shorter regulations -- problem #1: they will be exploited and essentially be useless; problem #2: they will be too "general" and lead to countless (expensive) lawsuits etc.[/LIST]
Of course sometimes regulations could be simplified and shortened a bit, but certainly not in a truly significant way...

There is some truth in what you say, however I think that the language of regulations could at least be changed to make it comprehensible to the general public (though, of course for some industries like finance this isn't really possible). Requiring a lawyer to be able to understand regulations and therefore abide by the law is a huge barrier to small businesses starting up. True, this could lead to loop holes, but I'm sure there is a way of streamlining regulations to lower their cost without compromising their effectiveness.

Edit: An example! Huzzah! This is regards the new financial Dodd-Frank law in the US from the Economist:

SECTIONS 404 and 406 of the Dodd-Frank law of July 2010 add up to just a couple of pages. On October 31st last year two of the agencies overseeing America’s financial system turned those few pages into a form to be filled out by hedge funds and some other firms; that form ran to 192 pages. The cost of filling it out, according to an informal survey of hedge-fund managers, will be $100,000-150,000 for each firm the first time it does it. After having done it once, those costs might drop to $40,000 in every later year.

Two pages of law that requires 192 pages of forms and thus a ton of money to abide by it. Nuts.

[Rolling Thunder]

Do you know why regulations are that long and complicated?

Actually, businesses are partly "to blame" for that. People always try to find loopholes in regulations and to exploit them; therefore, all eventualities have to be covered.

The other main reason is that life is complicated. You cannot hope to adequately regulate most aspects of life on a few pages. Longer regulations might be more complicated and annoying, but they are often also more accurate and fair.

@Rolling Thunder: but that cannot be changed. Regulations have to exist, that much is obvious. Unfortunately, regulations also have to be complicated and try to cover all loopholes, otherwise they will be exploited.

So really, there are three choices:

1. No regulations -- leads to mass pollution etc. They exist for a reason, not much else to say.
2. Simplified/easier/shorter regulations -- problem #1: they will be exploited and essentially be useless; problem #2: they will be too "general" and lead to countless (expensive) lawsuits etc.
3. The current regulations.

Of course sometimes regulations could be simplified and shortened a bit, but certainly not in a truly significant way...

And if we do attempt to regulate all aspects of life and commerce then we are going to strangle it. So unfortunately, #2 is the only viable long-term solution if we wish to see any kind of prosperity at all, as you forget - #3 is not a static paradigm. Every motherer and their brother seems to want to regulate this, control that, enforce these rules on what can and can not be bought or sold, and if you continue to do that you will simply come to the point where it is not efficient to sell any more.

[Astaroth]

There is some truth in what you say, however I think that the language of regulations could at least be changed to make it comprehensible to the general public (though, of course for some industries like finance this isn't really possible). Requiring a lawyer to be able to understand regulations and therefore abide by the law is a huge barrier to small businesses starting up. True, this could lead to loop holes, but I'm sure there is a way of streamlining regulations to lower their cost without compromising their effectiveness.

Edit: An example! Huzzah! This is regards the new financial Dodd-Frank law in the US from the Economist:
Two pages of law that requires 192 pages of forms and thus a ton of money to abide by it. Nuts.

That example actually shows what I mean pretty well. The new law is very "general" in its scope so it is actually not as long (as it could be); yet this makes it even harder to abide by it. So you either have incredibly long laws that cover all eventualities by themselves OR a shorter law that is open to interpretation and, again, many eventualities. Especially the financial business has just become too complicated to regulate it in layman's terms.

Also, making some (especially financial) regulations understandable for the general public would be essentially impossible without losing much of the content...

And if we do attempt to regulate all aspects of life and commerce then we are going to strangle it. So unfortunately, #2 is the only viable long-term solution if we wish to see any kind of prosperity at all, as you forget - #3 is not a static paradigm. Every motherer and their brother seems to want to regulate this, control that, enforce these rules on what can and can not be bought or sold, and if you continue to do that you will simply come to the point where it is not efficient to sell any more.

You are wrong. Economies can grow perfectly well, even if there are many regulations (see Germany, the US etc.). Also, do you want brown rivers?

[Rolling Thunder]

You are wrong. Economies can grow perfectly well, even if there are many regulations (see Germany, the US etc.).

Indeed, and just think how much further growth - and thus, more wealth, more employment, and thus higher standards of living - could be achieved with more streamlined and sensible regulation. Cabbages, for example. Who needs more than a hundred pages on cabbage regulation? What purpose does it serve?

Also, do you want brown rivers?

Kindly stop bringing up this ridiculous strawman: I happen to live near the river Tyne, a river which, if you dredged it's bottom would probably bring up higher concentrations of lead, phosphate, manganese and other heavy metals than most hazardous waste disposal sites. We are not saying "Lol deregulate EVARYTHING", so kindly do not persist in addressing so stupid and imaginary an argument.

Dumping regulation is pretty simple. It outlines "It is an offense to place
[list of chemicals] in a water source, river or non-accredited disposal site" and then outlines the penalties for doing so, which happen to include significant civil penalties if harm is provable.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Regulations sure do exist for a reason, but they are really insanely complicated nowadays, and insanely long. For example in the EU a recent regulation on the sale of cabbages, yes, cabbages, was 27,000 words long! The real issue isn't always the regulations themselves, it's the increasing amount of man-hours, and therefore money, that businesses have to spend to abide by the law. Regulations have to be somehow simplified so as not to disencourage entrepreneurs.

Your claim about the cabbage regulation is a myth.

Government regulation is created by economists to achieve the desired result with minimal economic impact, and often it achieves this.

It is not a rational question if you assume that the other side want to kill kittens for fun ?

That's not the assumption about those who are regulated. It's that they are uninformed and apathetic about the consequences of their actions, which is far more realistic than the converse view about regulation.

Absolutely what SLN445 said. The main problem is that regulation usually imposes a (small, but significant) marginal cost onto businesses, which thus makes them marginally less profitable, and affects their ability to produce, employ and deliver returns by that small factor. However, when you consider the effect of multiple regulations and taxes (multiple marginal costs), in terms of bookeeping, in terms of payroll tax, in terms of VAT, et cetera, then it does begin to have a serious effect on the ability of firms to produce (and thus, employ, and thus, make a profit) and expand.

You are correct, and sometimes regulation could achieve its aim with lesser economic impact if it were put in practice differently. However the whole point of regulation is that we are valuing something else more than a business's profits. Bills are passed by legislatures despite openly admitting they will knock economic groth down a few percentage points, because they think whatever they are protecting with regulation is more valuable than that economic growth. It may even contribute to overall economic growth that would have been lower without the regulation. For example regulation of fishing is absolute necessity to avoid a tragedy of the commons.

What about letting start-ups (and maybe small businesses?) ignore certain regulations for a time, until they are better able to afford the costs with abiding by them etc.

Well firstly you would have to say what specific regulation you are talking about. Secondly that would probably nullify the effects of the regulation. And thirdly that opens a gigantic loophole over what constitutes a "new" or "small business". Without a doubt large corporations would be establishing plenty of small new businesses and giving them money to get around regulation.

[flonky]

Your claim about the cabbage regulation is a myth.

Yeah, I realised when I looked into it a little deeper.

Government regulation is created by economists to achieve the desired result with minimal economic impact, and often it achieves this.

Well obviously that is the aim,and I agree that a lot of it is effective, but some regulation goes too far. It's a bit like some health and safety laws, there comes a point when it's just not worth it and it becomes a drag on everything with no significant benefit.

[Menelik_I]

(Most) regulations exist for a good reason.

A good reason is not enough for good results, or is it ?

Do you really think businesses should be just allowed to throw their trash into a river, to pollute the air, to put poisonous stuff everywhere and so on? Really?

It is not a rational question if you assume that the other side want to kill kittens for fun ?

Absolute non pollution at any cost is senseless, and a choice is to be made for how much pollution from a scale of 0 to 100 people are willing to tolerate.

It is not rational to impose an increase of costs of 10% for a benefit of 0.01% less pollution, or in a more practical case to impose a moratorium on Shale gas for hypothetical risks of groundwater pollution, ie not even an effective polution, especially since the benefits are great and the technology is perfectly safe.

[justicar5]

It is not a rational question if you assume that the other side want to kill kittens for fun ?
.

we are talking about republicans here, so the overwhelming evidence supports that view (but the target isn't kittens it is people, either bombed, burned, shot or tortured. Preferably muslims, but south americans and asians are also valid targets.)

On the original topic, and provide some good example of things to deregulate ie some licences to exterminate.

wait your paramedics only get a months training?! Holy crap! Ours get at least two years....

[Bleda]

we are talking about republicans here, so the overwhelming evidence supports that view (but the target isn't kittens it is people, either bombed, burned, shot or tortured. Preferably muslims, but south americans and asians are also valid targets.)

Democrats seem perfectly content to bomb, burn and shoot as long as it's a Democratic President with "peace and love" rhetoric doing it.

[Thorn777]

Because certain deregulation profit certain segments, that also have the tools to elude the mass of people that this is good for everyone.

Its pretty simple but we see now that it ran its course. No more debt to pile up.

[SLN445]

Depends on what type of regulations they are trying to reduce or remove, there are some pretty shoddy stuff while also some important stuff so it all depends on what.

[Rolling Thunder]

Absolutely what SLN445 said. The main problem is that regulation usually imposes a (small, but significant) marginal cost onto businesses, which thus makes them marginally less profitable, and affects their ability to produce, employ and deliver returns by that small factor. However, when you consider the effect of multiple regulations and taxes (multiple marginal costs), in terms of bookeeping, in terms of payroll tax, in terms of VAT, et cetera, then it does begin to have a serious effect on the ability of firms to produce (and thus, employ, and thus, make a profit) and expand.

[flonky]

What about letting start-ups (and maybe small businesses?) ignore certain regulations for a time, until they are better able to afford the costs with abiding by them etc.

[chilon]

What about letting start-ups (and maybe small businesses?) ignore certain regulations for a time, until they are better able to afford the costs with abiding by them etc.

Depends on the regulation. Should a small contractor be exempt from the regulations regarding asbestos abatement if that means potentially fatal health risks to consumers?

[Søren]

It's not logical to simply assume that the greater the length of the regulation the more likely it is to close loopholes. Equally it may be that the longer and more complex it becomes the more likely it is to be self-contradictory and create more loopholes by virtue of it being less well understood, not least by the legislators writing it.

Of course there might be some silly regulations (in b4 someone comes and posts a sensationalist Foxnews article about a "ridiculous" regulation), but what is wrong with regulations in general?

Regulations don't exist because people are bored or want to annoy business owners, regulations (usually) were created due to problems that existed beforehand.

Very few sensible people actually think regulations are wrong per se, but instead think that there's a problem with over-regulation, something which has been a consistent and inevitable flaw throughout history in all bureaucratic states. Of course there are people who distrust anything too long to fit on a matchbox, but they're easy targets, and equally naive people carrying equally naive positions appear all over the political spectrum, and aren't really worth having a theoretical debate with.

[Kitsunegari]

Especially in the US talking about "deregulation" seems to be the thing to do. "Govt regulations are impeding business! Stop hurting the economy!"

Where does this obsession come from? Why do people have this belief that "regulations" are some evil, abstract tool that the fed govt uses because it hates business owners?

No regulations are created due to lobbying by the more powerful corporations to impede competitors, creating virtual monopolies, this is called regulatory capture.

If a bar owner banned smoking, the smokers would simply change location to a more "smoker-friendly" bar next door. If smoking was allowed... what were the non-smokers supposed to do? You could smoke everywhere.

Stay at the non-smoking bar.

[Astaroth]

No regulations are created due to lobbying by the more powerful corporations to impede competitors, creating virtual monopolies, this is called regulatory capture.

Yeah, right, that must be the only reason. Da state is evil, free market for da win!!

Hmm, where did I put my tinfoil hat?

Stay at the non-smoking bar.

If you had read my post you would know that there is (pretty much) none.
Revenue loss from smokers leaving > revenue loss from non-smokers leaving, in essentially every single bar.
But if smoking is banned everywhere, the smokers will reluctantly have to go to non-smoking bars => nobody loses revenue.

Health > happiness of a few smokers because they have to walk 5 steps outside to smoke.