The Root Of Economic Malaise

Regulation also reduces the amount of toxic substances in the air and the drinking water and the food supply.
Which if you eat or drink or breathe is a consideration.

- - - Updated - - -

Which rules would you get rid of?

 

Taxcutter says:
Start with 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 82.

 

I'd start with the tax code, it's ridiculous. I read a recent report that says that American businesses have to spend about $2 trillion just in compliance costs for the myriad of regulations at every level of gov't. Some of it, maybe even most of it might seriously be needed, as you say to preclude businesses from taking advantage of consumers and competitors. But I'm thinking it doesn't need to be that bad.

 

No thanks, I breathe, and I like going outside, so I'll keep the regulations that protect clean air and the ozone layer.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd love to see a reformed tax code, but I wouldn't get rid of it, I'd replace it, with something simpler.
But congress won't......

 

No, Quantative easing is the reason for that. Wall Street is full of trust that QE will conitinue. Watch what the market does when there is even a hint of tapering QE. No, the market isn't this high because of anything this administration has done that is pro-business (because they haven't done anything, on balance, that is pro-business).

 

How about you elaborate WHICH regulations to remove.

Where is the $2 trillion in compliance? Give me a break.

The "regulations" argument is hogwash. The most regulated states (California and New York) lead the private sector in high-tech job creation. Why isn't "regulation" stopping them?????!??!!

QE has been tapering since the beginning of the year. Stock market still trading high, baby.

 

There is NO PRESSURE to reduce deficit spending. NONE. ZERO.

Ever heard of deflation? The Fed will do ANYTHING in its power to prevent deflation, which is the primary reason for money printing to begin with. Call it what you want.

The tax code won't get touched. We have too many high-salaried accountants that will be put out of work. Care to witness the economic malaise of THAT?!?!

Plus, the tax code is there for INCENTIVES, not revenue. The government can influence businesses and building practices through the tax code. Get used to it.

 

This post is even more amusing.

WHICH destructive policies? Like we all said, Wall Street is soaring. Where are these destructive policies?

Don't think so hard. When the average Gen Y citizen has $23,000 in debt after college, don't act suprised when the economy has no velocity. They are too busy paying school loans with their (*)(*)(*)(*)ty wages.

No.

LOL.

Concentration of wealth at the top is a combination of the skills-education gap and favorable taxation policy towards the 1%.

 

Who are you and what did you do with the real Eric? Hard to believe the real Eric is advocating for a system that allows big monied businesses and people to bribe Congress to achieve special tax breaks and loopholes that the rest of us have to pay for.

Incentives, huh? As if the ordinary incentives to make money isn't enough without having elected officials making under the table deals, picking winners and losers based on campaign contributions and political support? I don't think most libertarians are for that.

 

The market would double under Genghis Khan, if the FED poured 40 billion a MONTH into it.

 

Taxcutter says:
People breathed quite nicely before 1977.

The CFC regs have utterly failed to affect the ozone hole one bit, but the regs cost US consumers about a third of a trillion dollars a year. But DuPont made out nicely. R-134a replaced R-12 and costs five times as much. A refrigeration system using R-134a requires 11% more compressor HP than one using R-12 for the same amount of refrigeration. The consumer is hammered.

 

This is what terrifies me about the status quo, and I don't use "terrify" lightly. We are so addicted to Keynesian idiocy that we don't learn from our mistakes. We are barely creeping out of a terrible recession caused by Keynesianism in mortgage markets over many decades, we have a Keynesian student loan crisis in the on deck circle, and I don't have any faith at all that what you post above isn't true, not only indirectly, but is it possible that the government could be -directly- manipulating the stock market via illicit CIA type stimulus? If so, we are done, well and good, and I wish that poofy twit John Maynard Keynes, who never participated in any economy in any real way in his twatty little Cambridge under the rock existence, had never been born. He literally was the antichrist in my book, worse than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot rolled into one.

 

It doesn't need to be all or nothing...it just needs to be practical.

We get 'poisoned and killed and maimed and lied to' with all the regulations in place.

One example in today's news is private practice doctors are closing shop because too many government regulations and paperwork...this is not a 'disingenuous lie'. A large food manufacturing company a couple of cities from me wanted to expand but when they found out it would cost $30 million just for permitting they are now leaving the area...this is not a 'disingenuous lie'.

Kind of interesting your perspective that business wants to 'screw people' when in fact business cannot exist without people...both consumers and employees...

 

And it gives those ignorant of the science a great topic to complain about.....

 

Taxcutter says:
Ignorant of science...you mean like environmental extremists who support those job-killing regs?

 

Not really....

 

Cite some job killing regulations and how they "kill jobs."

 

If someone here took their time to do that, would it affect your opinion, even in the slightest?

I have a client right now who wants to hire several people. She has never had employees before only short term contract labor. I am holding a list of 23 laws in my hand that she will need to comply with immediately if she hires those people as employees. It will cost her approximately $40-70k a year to comply with them by my best estimate in addition to significantly higher liability insurance premiums due to having employees. How many of those laws are you truly interested in hearing about? How many would change your mind? She's already subject to hundreds of other laws and regulations. Thousands more are added every year.

Should I tell her to hire the employees? or to just keep hiring contract labor and pocket the extra 40-70k a year? What would you do in her shoes?

 

I would tell her to get the hell over it. Regulations aren't going away.. especially with the corruption and environmental pillaging businesses are into.

 

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked... surprise surprise. So why would anyone attempt to spend their time in answer to your question about specific laws? My client is neither corrupt, nor pillaging the environment. I could tell her to "get the hell over it" but I suspect she would find another lawyer, and would be right in doing so.

The paradox of the left, knows nothing yet knows everything at the same time. Amazing.

 

Taxcutter says:
But the jobs are.

 

Taxcutter says:
Is that an admission you know nothing about the subject?

I take it you know nothing of the "permit before you build" provisions of 40 CFR 52.21. Getting those permits take years. One took fourteen years. Do you think delay like this promotes new jobs?

 

No, I made my position very clear. Rules are something you have to deal with. GET OVER IT. You will not run a business with no rules in this country. There is no way around it.

That's not what the economic trend says.

If a market is there, the business will find a way to comply with the regulations, period.

 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/epa-powerplant-closures

This one is huge. Large numbers of coal burning power plants being shuttered or planned to shutter over the continued onslaught of coal regulation. I live near 2 of them and they continue to implement upgrades to meet clean air standards, only to be hit by new standards that force even further upgrades. It has shot utility prices up and now they plan to close them because they can't sustain the impacts of the regulations over time. Without new nuclear plants we're just looking at less and less energy available, not to mention the many jobs lost as energy workers are forced out of the industry during what is still a down economy.

 

Taxcutter says:
Yup. Either pass the costs on to the consumer (not always possible in a competitive market) or move the operation offshore.