No announcement yet.

Knight's pick 09-14-2011

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Knight's pick 09-14-2011

    Bam... smack! Rocketman knocks it out of the park!
    Originally posted by rocketman
    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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?

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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.

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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?

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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:


    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

    • 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

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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?

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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.

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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.

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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.

    Originally posted by Alate_One
    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?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  • #2
    That is a grand slam Rocketman. Good work!

    June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? ☞ More like tolerate perversity.☠


    • #3
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.


      • #4
        Don't forget to send the R-man some rep!


        • #5
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.


          • #6
            Thank You all! You guys are why TOL is the best forum on the net.
            The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award


            Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States


            • #7
              The best answers are always the ones using indisputable number figures.
              Before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if it turns out they are right and get mad at you, they are a mile away and barefoot.


              • #8
                Originally posted by organiccornflake View Post
                The best answers are always the ones using indisputable number figures.
                Funny thing though Alate One even faced with the numbers from a study by his own colleagues at CSU, was, and is, still in denial of the facts. It was a great debate though. Thanks OCF
                The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award


                Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States