that's actually a legitimate problem. particularly noticeable if you import tech upgrades in rural agriculture at a time when there is not corrisponding growth in cities to soak up the now free workforce.
Every development, or near enough, in agriculture that has increased yields has Also reduced the number of people needed to do the work. if there aren't new jobs for them in growing cities at the time they become an economic drain if society supports them, and a major issue in other ways if it doesn't.
of course, an excess of bad regulation and a generally lack of understanding of reality has lead to a situation where few US cities are actually growing, to the best of my knowledge, those that are aren't growing fast enough, and the industries that could Change that are the ones the regulations and stuff cripple, preventing that growth.
every time you create an actual, productive job in a city, especially if it's New work rather than just More work, you actually create several, as there's that much more food etc to be bought and moved around to supply the workers if nothing else. far more likely if it's a new business is that other businesses will expand or be created to fill in it's supply chain. constant pushes by big businesses to squash such new businesses and constantly make themselves more 'efficiant' (which usually involves laying people off) prevent this.
which leads to insuffciant employment
which, of course, among other things, leads to less money moving through the economy, hence, recession.
excuse me if this isn't as coherant as it might be. it's getting on towards 7am and i've not slept yet.
actually, politicians listening to economists is part of the problem.
they'd be better off listening to historians and statisticians. They'll actually give you a reasonably accurate idea of how stuff works. economists mostly give you a load of ideological rubbish that fails to line up with reality. (if you're Lucky they'll manage to accurately describe the current situation. if you want how you got there you're dreaming. if you think they actually know how to get where you want to be from here you're outright disillusion.)
it is a fault with the oversized and outdate model that the US government is built upon (the constitution itself is good, the rest, not so much.).
this fault makes it Very Easy to attain a state of regulatory capture.
once that state is attained, the Problem is that the ones who should be being regulated by an outside force are writing the regulations, or at least controlling the flow of information to those who do.
this leads to BAD regulations.
if you eliminate the capture issue, regulation suddenly becomes a Very Good Thing. (for instance: it's the main reason NZ's telecommunications system wasn't immediately asset stripped and run into the ground upon privatization. the railways here did NOT get the accompanying regulation when they were privatized and were Gutted. in both cases said infrastructure was bought up by American interests, though the railways were then sold to an Australian company who Tried to make the resulting mess profitable, but couldn't and eventually bailed. (at one point they sold the Tracks back to the government for a single NZ dollar. the government took on all responcibility for maintaince costs etc. for the tracks. they Still couldn't bring it back up to profitability. though it's debateable if the railways ever were profitable. reality was that they started out as a government owned piece of infrastructure who's primary purpose was to move stuff around to facilitate OTHER THINGS making a profit. ... it was also used as a sort of welfare program by being a bit of an employment sink. so it's not really surprising that the only way an american owner saw to make a profit was to asset-strip it.))
protectionist policies and tariffs are great things. ... ... when applied Properly. (and that's protection of your economic capacity, not of some specific industry or lobby or business.)
the main problem is that modern economics is mostly complete bunk but has been used as the basis for most of these decisions, combined with the related problem of an inability to understand that the Nation is NOT a meaningful economic entity, combined with regulatory capture and general ignorance leading to, as noted with the bad regulations, poorly applied measures.
tariffs should be introduced when they encourage import replacement. a lack of them will, in fact, Cripple a weaker city-region's ability to grow in the face of conveniant trade for the consumer with another city which, for whatever reason, produces things cheaper. free trade actually inverts the primary step of the economic growth cycle, which is import replacement. (unless, of course, you're already the powerhouse in that industry and no one can undercut or outproduce you...)
actually, some people Are saying that, which is problematic.
your point still holds though.
save that it's a bit of a toss up to me, whether that first sentence should be "Sorry, but Bad regulations also hamper the consumer..." or "... regulations also hamper the consumer and businesses, because sometimes failure to do so is worse." only better written, of course.
the issue is 'is the current regulation doing what it should be without getting in the way of everything else'. if not, it needs reworking. no regulation is a disaster. Bad regulation is just as bad.
the problem in the USA (and other places) is it's the very entities that need to be regulated who pull the strings of the regulators.
so, yes, deregulation of the wrong things caused major issues.
excessive regulation of others also causes issues.
the sides are not 'regulation' and 'deregulation'
they are 'sensible regulation in the public interest' and 'ill thought out regulation or lack there of in the name of personal and corporate greed'
if someone attacks you with intent to kill, and successfully kills you, outside of a war where you are combatants on opposing sides (and various sundry other related situations) they have committed murder.
if someone attacks you with intent to kill under the same situation and you fight back and kill them, it is not murder. it cannot be. they were the one who chose to initiate a fight to the death, and they lost. the entered into it voluntarily. you did not. you were forced into it by their attack.
if you cannot see the difference i can only hope you never EVER end up on a jury.
....
or in a situation where someone is trying to kill one of your family members with a weapon they know how to use.
(i'm not particularly worried if they come after You, however. dieing for your beliefs is entirely your right, after all.)
please note that the biblical law people love to misquote with this line is actually 'thou shalt not Murder'. killing the enemy in a battle or executions as the end result of legitimate judicial proceedings (or animal sacrifice. or killing animals so you can eat them... or any number of other things really) are not included.
generally speaking the people using That logic are the ones who will strip away all the government's useful functions (they cost money and aren't bringing any in) and support large scale cronyism.
after all, they only get the job for, what, eight years or so? best to make all the money they can personally, set things up as nicely as possible for their continued gain, then cash out, no?
just good business sense. (like asset stripping... *sarcastic cough goes here*.)
you know those CEOs who get all set up with massive golden handshakes? contracts where it's TO Their Advantage to run the business into the ground?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley should be the first to go
i'd like to point out that 'free and open markets' do NOT stay that way if corporations are left to their own devices within them. proper regulation is required to keep them free and open.
that said, bailing out a failed business is NOT proper regulation. bailing out said businesses Creditors might be, depending on the situation, bailing out the business itself? no. 'too big to fail' is synonymous with 'too big to exist'. that's the point where you should have broken it up into smaller entities a while back.
the US (and world)'s current problem is NOT that the government regulates business. it's that the largest businesses (those most in need of regulation) are in control of the government!
thus the regulation is used, rather than to keep the markets free and open, to support the corporations' natural tendency towards destroying the market around it (Especially competition, which is the only non-governmental force that actually steers corporate behavior at all, and then mostly due to a desire to destroy it) closing it down and removing any sort of choice from the consumer any chance of a competitor arising...
and, in many cases, to legally defraud the public, or at least to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. (fun thought for consideration: the more concentrated the wealth is, the less it is worth.)
if the corporations no longer control the regulators, the regulations inhibit this behavior rather than encouraging it, which is better for all concerned.
eliminating corporations entirely would be useful. returning them to the ideal of limited duration entites established for a specific purpose who have shareholders entirely as a way to raise funds would be better. (the idea is that the chater says 'the corporation exists to do thing X. once thing X is complete the corporation pays out and stops existing. should the corporation fail to do thing X it shall pay out and stop existing.' thing X is not paying out to the shareholders. it is achieving a specific large scale thing which is beneficial to the public which the government either does not have the funds to do or does not have the right to use public funds for. the shareholders get their dividends as a reward for contributing their personal funds to the project. they are not liable for the failings of the corporation beyond not getting their money back, there is no reason why they should get to control it's actions. )
as you can probably tell, i'm not a fan of modern corporations :P multi-nationals are particularly bad.
that right there is a significant problem in it's own right.
i'm betting there's a lot of overlap, gaps, and subdividing areas of responsibility that probably shouldn't be.
i mean, yes, obviously you're running a continental empire, that that justifies the agencies being Large and having a lot of branches to cover all the localities. how the heck do you even HAVE 240 government agencies? what do they all DO?
not sure why you expected anyone outside of europe to know about that one, but it's a significant thing, yes.
course, poland's also somewhat famous in a similar era for it's government being unable to actually get anything done due to being run by a parliament where in ANY INDIVIDUAL disagreeing vetoed the action.
*ponders* actually, a few countries could do with that these days, seeing as how an awful lot of our problems seem to be stemming from politicians enacting stupid shit just to justify their own jobs or bribes.
also, i'm not sure helping establish the Hapsburg hegemony is Exactly something to be proud of (though i suppose it was the better of two bad options and the less easy to see coming...)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re:
but i'm guessing.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Maybe I'm being naive
Every development, or near enough, in agriculture that has increased yields has Also reduced the number of people needed to do the work. if there aren't new jobs for them in growing cities at the time they become an economic drain if society supports them, and a major issue in other ways if it doesn't.
of course, an excess of bad regulation and a generally lack of understanding of reality has lead to a situation where few US cities are actually growing, to the best of my knowledge, those that are aren't growing fast enough, and the industries that could Change that are the ones the regulations and stuff cripple, preventing that growth.
every time you create an actual, productive job in a city, especially if it's New work rather than just More work, you actually create several, as there's that much more food etc to be bought and moved around to supply the workers if nothing else. far more likely if it's a new business is that other businesses will expand or be created to fill in it's supply chain. constant pushes by big businesses to squash such new businesses and constantly make themselves more 'efficiant' (which usually involves laying people off) prevent this.
which leads to insuffciant employment
which, of course, among other things, leads to less money moving through the economy, hence, recession.
excuse me if this isn't as coherant as it might be. it's getting on towards 7am and i've not slept yet.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re:
actually, politicians listening to economists is part of the problem.
they'd be better off listening to historians and statisticians. They'll actually give you a reasonably accurate idea of how stuff works. economists mostly give you a load of ideological rubbish that fails to line up with reality. (if you're Lucky they'll manage to accurately describe the current situation. if you want how you got there you're dreaming. if you think they actually know how to get where you want to be from here you're outright disillusion.)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
it is a fault with the oversized and outdate model that the US government is built upon (the constitution itself is good, the rest, not so much.).
this fault makes it Very Easy to attain a state of regulatory capture.
once that state is attained, the Problem is that the ones who should be being regulated by an outside force are writing the regulations, or at least controlling the flow of information to those who do.
this leads to BAD regulations.
if you eliminate the capture issue, regulation suddenly becomes a Very Good Thing. (for instance: it's the main reason NZ's telecommunications system wasn't immediately asset stripped and run into the ground upon privatization. the railways here did NOT get the accompanying regulation when they were privatized and were Gutted. in both cases said infrastructure was bought up by American interests, though the railways were then sold to an Australian company who Tried to make the resulting mess profitable, but couldn't and eventually bailed. (at one point they sold the Tracks back to the government for a single NZ dollar. the government took on all responcibility for maintaince costs etc. for the tracks. they Still couldn't bring it back up to profitability. though it's debateable if the railways ever were profitable. reality was that they started out as a government owned piece of infrastructure who's primary purpose was to move stuff around to facilitate OTHER THINGS making a profit. ... it was also used as a sort of welfare program by being a bit of an employment sink. so it's not really surprising that the only way an american owner saw to make a profit was to asset-strip it.))
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
the main problem is that modern economics is mostly complete bunk but has been used as the basis for most of these decisions, combined with the related problem of an inability to understand that the Nation is NOT a meaningful economic entity, combined with regulatory capture and general ignorance leading to, as noted with the bad regulations, poorly applied measures.
tariffs should be introduced when they encourage import replacement. a lack of them will, in fact, Cripple a weaker city-region's ability to grow in the face of conveniant trade for the consumer with another city which, for whatever reason, produces things cheaper. free trade actually inverts the primary step of the economic growth cycle, which is import replacement. (unless, of course, you're already the powerhouse in that industry and no one can undercut or outproduce you...)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
your point still holds though.
save that it's a bit of a toss up to me, whether that first sentence should be "Sorry, but Bad regulations also hamper the consumer..." or "... regulations also hamper the consumer and businesses, because sometimes failure to do so is worse." only better written, of course.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re:
or at least, it shouldn't be.
the issue is 'is the current regulation doing what it should be without getting in the way of everything else'. if not, it needs reworking. no regulation is a disaster. Bad regulation is just as bad.
the problem in the USA (and other places) is it's the very entities that need to be regulated who pull the strings of the regulators.
so, yes, deregulation of the wrong things caused major issues.
excessive regulation of others also causes issues.
the sides are not 'regulation' and 'deregulation'
they are 'sensible regulation in the public interest' and 'ill thought out regulation or lack there of in the name of personal and corporate greed'
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re: yes, but ...
if someone attacks you with intent to kill, and successfully kills you, outside of a war where you are combatants on opposing sides (and various sundry other related situations) they have committed murder.
if someone attacks you with intent to kill under the same situation and you fight back and kill them, it is not murder. it cannot be. they were the one who chose to initiate a fight to the death, and they lost. the entered into it voluntarily. you did not. you were forced into it by their attack.
if you cannot see the difference i can only hope you never EVER end up on a jury.
....
or in a situation where someone is trying to kill one of your family members with a weapon they know how to use.
(i'm not particularly worried if they come after You, however. dieing for your beliefs is entirely your right, after all.)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: yes, but ...
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
then again, they kinda already do.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re:
generally speaking the people using That logic are the ones who will strip away all the government's useful functions (they cost money and aren't bringing any in) and support large scale cronyism.
after all, they only get the job for, what, eight years or so? best to make all the money they can personally, set things up as nicely as possible for their continued gain, then cash out, no?
just good business sense. (like asset stripping... *sarcastic cough goes here*.)
you know those CEOs who get all set up with massive golden handshakes? contracts where it's TO Their Advantage to run the business into the ground?
you want THEM running your country?
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley should be the first to go
that said, bailing out a failed business is NOT proper regulation. bailing out said businesses Creditors might be, depending on the situation, bailing out the business itself? no. 'too big to fail' is synonymous with 'too big to exist'. that's the point where you should have broken it up into smaller entities a while back.
the US (and world)'s current problem is NOT that the government regulates business. it's that the largest businesses (those most in need of regulation) are in control of the government!
thus the regulation is used, rather than to keep the markets free and open, to support the corporations' natural tendency towards destroying the market around it (Especially competition, which is the only non-governmental force that actually steers corporate behavior at all, and then mostly due to a desire to destroy it) closing it down and removing any sort of choice from the consumer any chance of a competitor arising...
and, in many cases, to legally defraud the public, or at least to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. (fun thought for consideration: the more concentrated the wealth is, the less it is worth.)
if the corporations no longer control the regulators, the regulations inhibit this behavior rather than encouraging it, which is better for all concerned.
eliminating corporations entirely would be useful. returning them to the ideal of limited duration entites established for a specific purpose who have shareholders entirely as a way to raise funds would be better. (the idea is that the chater says 'the corporation exists to do thing X. once thing X is complete the corporation pays out and stops existing. should the corporation fail to do thing X it shall pay out and stop existing.' thing X is not paying out to the shareholders. it is achieving a specific large scale thing which is beneficial to the public which the government either does not have the funds to do or does not have the right to use public funds for. the shareholders get their dividends as a reward for contributing their personal funds to the project. they are not liable for the failings of the corporation beyond not getting their money back, there is no reason why they should get to control it's actions. )
as you can probably tell, i'm not a fan of modern corporations :P multi-nationals are particularly bad.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley should be the first to go
some others do a better job, generally speaking.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Sunset
On the post: ICE Considered One Of The Worst Places To Work In The Federal Government
you have 240 different government agencies.
that right there is a significant problem in it's own right.
i'm betting there's a lot of overlap, gaps, and subdividing areas of responsibility that probably shouldn't be.
i mean, yes, obviously you're running a continental empire, that that justifies the agencies being Large and having a lot of branches to cover all the localities. how the heck do you even HAVE 240 government agencies? what do they all DO?
On the post: ICE Considered One Of The Worst Places To Work In The Federal Government
Re: Re: Re:
idiot.
the abbreviation only has TWO "F"s, not THREE!
(that is not the only thing wrong with your post.)
On the post: ICE Considered One Of The Worst Places To Work In The Federal Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Polish Prime Minister Steps Up His Anti-ACTA Efforts After Hosting 7-Hour Open Q&A Via IRC
Re: Allow me to say this...
hehehe.
On the post: Polish Prime Minister Steps Up His Anti-ACTA Efforts After Hosting 7-Hour Open Q&A Via IRC
Re: Re: Re: After Hosting 7-Hour Open Q&A Via IRC
not sure why you expected anyone outside of europe to know about that one, but it's a significant thing, yes.
course, poland's also somewhat famous in a similar era for it's government being unable to actually get anything done due to being run by a parliament where in ANY INDIVIDUAL disagreeing vetoed the action.
*ponders* actually, a few countries could do with that these days, seeing as how an awful lot of our problems seem to be stemming from politicians enacting stupid shit just to justify their own jobs or bribes.
also, i'm not sure helping establish the Hapsburg hegemony is Exactly something to be proud of (though i suppose it was the better of two bad options and the less easy to see coming...)
On the post: Polish Prime Minister Steps Up His Anti-ACTA Efforts After Hosting 7-Hour Open Q&A Via IRC
Re: Re: After Hosting 7-Hour Open Q&A Via IRC
also, 1683?
*investigates*
Next >>