This is not a thread about moderators, please stay on topic

---

Мишель,
Please refer to http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=77015&postid=1660061

No further discussion needed or warranted.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

If you want to drink sewage that is your choice but I choose to be part of the solution not part of the problem

Thanks for your extrapolation that if one objects to over regulation they obviously drink sewage. And exactly how are you 'part of the solution'.

One obvious way was to debunk the straw man argument you threw out.

---

Straw Man.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has issued a report that shows the macroeconomic impact of federal regulations. The study also reveals the extent to which manufacturers bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden, and that burden is heaviest on small businesses and manufacturers because their compliance costs are often not affected by economies of scale. - See more at: http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/The-Cost-of-Federal-Regulation/#sthash.XqrYv3Mb.dpuf

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Was never an undue burden on me or company I owned or the ones I worked in. In fact complying with OSHA regs and having a safe workplace was in my best interests as was complying with environmental regs. Frankly those who scoff at those concerns don't deserve the benefits of the society they are using for their personal gain, IMO.
As an aside the man speaking in the video was not complaining about the regulations but incompetent administration.

---

Straw Man.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has issued a report that shows the macroeconomic impact of federal regulations. The study also reveals the extent to which manufacturers bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden, and that burden is heaviest on small businesses and manufacturers because their compliance costs are often not affected by economies of scale. - See more at: http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/The-Cost-of-Federal-Regulation/#sthash.XqrYv3Mb.dpuf

Sure. But do you want a situation where there are no regulations? Where people can just dump their trash where ever they like? Spew their chemicals in the air unopposed? Where there are no employee safety regulations? Where if you get sick or get in a work accident, its to bad for you but you can find a new job? Where there are no minimum wage standards? Maximum work hours? Overtime? Nothing to protect the employee from exploitation? No minimum safety standards on the products they produce, ensuring a minimum level of quality, so the products you buy dont poison you/explode in your face/have faulty breaks/kill/maim/otherwise hurt you?

There are countries with minimum levels of regulation, and yes those countries are competitive because they have much lower operating costs. But look at those countries. Would you want to be a worker in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Philippines or China?

Another 'Straw Man' ascertain.

So you just want less regulations. And you think that will help? Less regulations will make things a little cheaper, but they won't actually make things so cheap you can compete with other low wage countries, while you will compromise on some form of safety standard, be it environmental, workplace related or consumer related.

Those rules were invented for a reason, they are meant to combat a problem. I can assure you that in nearly all cases those problems still lurk beneath the surface and will return once the rules dealing with the problem are relaxed.

Typical. Had good intelligent debate going on and then .... now people are intentionally talking past each other.

Don't take the bait!

---

To be for ALL Solutions, is Unintelligent.

To be against ANY Solution, is also Unintelligent.

Many times: The Cure is worse than the Disease.

As long as the underlying problem a regulation is designed to prevent exists, the regulation is necessary. If you can find a way past those problems without needing further regulations, great, make the regulations obsolete and I will be right there with you saying the regulation is unnecessary and needs to go. Until then, those regulations are necessary.

.... now people are intentionally talking past each other.

And All Forms of Government talk to and Not Against?

'Form of', I want to see, 'is', Fear of Us. Utter, Complete, Bone Chilling Fear. Since this way would be highly immoral and illegal, in the 'form' which would work best, then Fear of Immediate Long Jail Time, 'is' The Only Other 'Solution'.

Sure, would not work either.

Then, We The People will have to go with The Almost Perfect Australian Government, G.S. keeps and keeps and keeps on droning on about.

Or, Try Real Hard to Keep Out The Madame Yogas, Slick Willies, Hustlin'Husseins, Shrubs, Rayguns, Tricky Dicks, and All Other 'Well Intentioned' Candidates.

Hmmm, Guess dat's a No Go.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Can many Regulations be either incorrect, nor necessary anymore.

Don't believe, that if one believes you should be cautious about Regulations: That person doesn't believe in Necessary Regulations.

The old saying - The Devil, is in the Details, does apply to ALL Regulations.

BTW: Do you believe ALL the, perhaps thousands/millions of Regulations, are either necessary, nor harmful?

Straw Man. http://www.nfib.com/article/unnecessary-federal-regulations-crushing-pennsylvania-small-business-61987/

Bill and Sue Hensler, Owners of Becker Wholesale Mine Supply, hosted the meeting at their facility. Vic Hensler, Human Resources Director for the company gave numerous examples of how overregulation can harm small businesses and stunt job creation in the state. ........ What we are advocating is simply some common sense and balance in the regulatory process," said Hensler.

After his many examples of time wasting and blending requirements of FMLA, EEOC, ADA, OSHA, and more, Hensler remarked that Becker Wholesale Mining Supply has "been forced to expand our Human Resource staff to deal with regulation on a full time basis, not production."

Hensler continued, "Burdensome regulations force executives, managers, and team leaders to think like lawyers rather than entrepreneurs, to focus on risk management rather than being fair and growing business. They force leaders to spend a huge part of tier day jumping through federal compliance hoops rather than guiding and assisting their employees."

[full disclosure Bold and Italic are my edits]

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I suggest everyone stop defending or trying to argue with this made up nonsense.Totally false BS.

What? A moderator using obscene language?
We all know what BS is.
Ok?
And don't give me some bull that I don't know US idioms that are infecting the civilized World know!
Ok?
Stop your nonsense!

Buttered Squash?

Don't worry, we know why he's (Person 1) whining.
And someone else sure sounds like a third person, so I hope if Person 2 = Person 3, maybe he's not taking Alinsky's high road?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Typical. Had good intelligent debate going on and then .... now people are intentionally talking past each other.

Don't take the bait!

As for others, it's hard to even read through the nearly 50 to 100 posts since last reading. Why do people insist on such quick responses?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Why do people insist on such quick responses?

Their knee jerks?

---

BTW: Do you believe ALL the, perhaps thousands/millions of Regulations, are either necessary, nor harmful?

Well that is a very difficult question to answer, and in order to answer that, I need to delve in some theoretical background, so if you'll indulge me, this will be a long post :)

So first we need to look at the policy process, which consists of four distinct stages (in some academic circles they have 5 but I think 4 covers it). First, before there is policy, there needs to be a problem for which policy is needed. After all, if there are no problems, there is no need to interfere. This is agenda setting, the act of getting a problem on the political radar, so politicians can start talking about how it needs to be fixed. This can be anything, from global warming or health care reform to outlawing jaywalking. There are several ways of getting an issue on the political agenda, but those are irrelevant for now. After an issue has been put on the agenda, politicians try to find a way to deal with it so they come up with solutions. From all these solutions a regulation is formulated. Then we go to policy implementation, meaning that the rule you just wrote down on paper needs to be something everyone actually follows. Who enforces the rule depends entirely on who made the rule and what the rule exactly entails. It could be the cops, it could be a safety inspector, you get the idea. Finally, after a policy is implemented, there is policy review, which means people looking on whether the policy was properly implemented, whether its properly enforced, and if the policy actually solves the problem it set out to fix. Now, in theory this is usually presented as a cycle, with each step following the next, but obviously in real life things are more complicated. However, generally speaking all policies do pass at least through one or more of these four phases.

Back to your question. First, are all regulations necessary? Well, yes and no. All regulations do address some kind of problem. The thing here is that not every issue on the political agenda is actually a problem. A skillful political operator can frame an issue in such a way that it seems like a real problem when actually its not really such a big deal. As a result, the priorities with politicians can sometimes be a bit off and they end up trying to fix problems that aren't really problems if you take a step back and look at the big picture. So you can say that yes, not all regulations are maybe necessary.

Second, are all regulations not harmful? Well that question can't be answered. There has never been a regulation that was designed to be harmful and non of them are ever just harmful. The thing is though that whenever an issue comes up on the agenda, there are multiple interests that are involved in the issue in some way, and a lot of them will have different solutions. And non of these solutions are wrong, but non of them are also completely harmless for every single interest involved. As a result, no matter the regulation, there will always be someone who doesn't like it. Take for example financial reform, measures designed to prevent another 2008 crisis. Everyone agrees that this should never happen again, but there is disagreement over how to do this. Do you strictly limit what banks can do, as some suggest, or do you want something that is less strict like a banks and financial institutions signing a voluntary charter saying they promise they will never screw up this bad again. The right solution depends on who you are and what your political convictions are. Are you someone who utterly trusts capitalism's self regulating ability or are you convinced that banks and financial institutions can't be trusted and require strict government oversight. Depending on that you will find certain regulations either harmful or very necessary.

...
A skillful political operator can frame an issue in such a way that it seems like a real problem when actually its not really such a big deal. As a result, the priorities with politicians can sometimes be a bit off and they end up trying to fix problems that aren't really problems if you take a step back and look at the big picture. So you can say that yes, not all regulations are maybe necessary.
...
Take for example financial reform, measures designed to prevent another 2008 crisis. Everyone agrees that this should never happen again, but there is disagreement over how to do this. Do you strictly limit what banks can do, as some suggest, or do you want something that is less strict like a banks and financial institutions signing a voluntary charter saying they promise they will never screw up this bad again. The right solution depends on who you are and what your political convictions are. Are you someone who utterly trusts capitalism's self regulating ability or are you convinced that banks and financial institutions can't be trusted and require strict government oversight. Depending on that you will find certain regulations either harmful or very necessary.

You imply that there are two possibilities in the cause of the 2008 crisis. Either a failure of capitalism where the banks got too greedy, or a benign failure in regulation of banks by the government.

Well, there is a third possibility... What actually happened.

The 2008 meltdown was the direct result of a harmful combination of government law AND regulation.

In the beginning, the capitalist banks, ever eager to make a profit, came up with a set of underwriting standards for loans that included the question: "Is the person applying for this loan likely to be able to pay it off?"

The people living in poor neighborhoods tended to frequently not be able to
successfully pay off home mortgage loans. So, of course the banks made a lot fewer loans to these areas. It was not in their financial best interests to have a large number of defaults... It would cost them money.

Well, this got put on the agenda, and the policy hacks got together and formulated a policy to address the perceived inequity in poor people not having a very high rate of home-ownership.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by the Democrat President Carter in 1977 and later significantly amended several times over the years.

Its purpose was to

to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.

.

This act required banks essentially to make a certain percentage of their loans to the poor neighborhoods or face federal sanction. The banks were in a bind. In 1993, President Clinton had the provision modified to not count lack of a credit history as a negative, among other things. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages to also abide by these standards.

So, the net result of these laws and regulations was the explosive growth of the 'subprime' mortgage market (mortgage loans that did not meet the standard 'prime' underwriting standards (frequently also including creative structuring of the loans' interest rates), and their consequent inclusion into the 'mortgage derivatives' sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Because of the rather creative interest rate structuring, all was well until sometime in mid-2000s. A small change in economic conditions caused mortgage rates to go up, frequently WAY up. By 2007, quite a number of the people that took out these sub-prime loans we in big trouble paying them back, due to suddenly very high payments.

By 2008, the number of these loans being forclosed on reached the point that it highly adversely affected the value of the mortgage derivitives issued by, among others, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Globally, due to global investment in what was thought to be safe investments, the organic fertilizer contacted the ventilation unit. Oh, what a mess. We are STILL cleaning up all the spray of 'stuff', both in the USA and Globally even today.

The root cause? A set of poisonously toxic Laws and Regulations written and passed by Government to address a perceived social need. The social need of getting more poor people into home ownership is a very laudable goal. But the way the Government went about it was pure economic poison.

Yes, the Banks and other financial institutions are guilty too... Guilty of trying to still make a profit in the face of BAD law and regulation.

Second, are all regulations not harmful? Well that question can't be answered.

Bull manure. Some regulations are highly harmful.

Major pretty much correct IMO, but you omitted Greenspan's admitted incorrect analysis that the banks would self regulate do to self interest. Bad policy followed by unconscionable greed by the banksters. Regulation is required if this is to be avoided, there is nothing wrong with fiscal responsibility and a lot right with it.

---

Bad policy followed by unconscionable greed by the banksters. Regulation is required if this is to be avoided, there is nothing wrong with fiscal responsibility and a lot right with it.

The "greed" is required by regulation and called "the fiduciary duty to the shareholder" It is the requirement that the bank find every possible way to make money and do so. Every way, legal or illegal, just make sure you turn a profit doing so. If you don't do this "greed" they will put you in jail. Hence when they conned wall street into credit default swaps, they were just doing their legally mandated job.

---

Bad policy followed by unconscionable greed by the banksters. Regulation is required if this is to be avoided, there is nothing wrong with fiscal responsibility and a lot right with it.

The "greed" is required by regulation and called "the fiduciary duty to the shareholder" It is the requirement that the bank find every possible way to make money and do so. Every way, legal or illegal, just make sure you turn a profit doing so. If you don't do this "greed" they will put you in jail. Hence when they conned wall street into credit default swaps, they were just doing their legally mandated job.

Gary I seriously doubt the illegal part, and as an aside I think jail time is appropriate.
Glass-Steagall worked and we fixed it.

---

Greed was the only cause of the GFC , and yes some country's have BAD regulation on Banks .....You would think people would remember 1928 , 1990's and now 2008

Why do we have Laws ???
why are Company's treated differently ??
Is fiduciary duty , the correct fiduciary duty when said money's are invested in high risk and possibly illegal things ??
What if said shareholders are people like a modern day Al Capone ??

Regulation is needed or you get things like insider trading

---