We need more regulation!!!

[Woodruff]

Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

the government is in your bedroom??? Can't wait to hear what you're talking about here.
Or are you just making things up again.

I know you don't keep up on the news much, Phatscotty, but see there's this interesting take on marriage that views it with the eyes of equality rather than with the eyes of bigotry. With that view, rational people are realizing that homosexuals should not be kept from the ability to marry. Never mind sodomy laws and other silly things like that.

[warmonger1981]

What happens in the case when affirmative action doesn't work? As in the case with white firefighters who were denied raises in pay since no blacks passed a written test. Reverse racism? Where was the caucasian fair right to advance. They had to go to court to get the pay. Affirmative action is legal reverse racism on whites. People should be as racist all they want. Freedom of choice even if your an ignorant asshole.

[Woodruff]

What happens in the case when affirmative action doesn't work? As in the case with white firefighters who were denied raises in pay since no blacks passed a written test.

I don't know the story here...do you have a link?

Affirmative action is legal reverse racism on whites. People should be as racist all they want. Freedom of choice even if your an ignorant asshole.

First of all, the term "reverse racism" is a moron term. It doesn't even make basic sense, unless you're trying to say that the individual using "reverse racism" is NOT being racist.

Secondly, people WILL be racist all they want and I even agree that they should be allowed to be when it's simply a private matter, unfortunately. However, I do not at all agree that they should be allowed to in the performance of some public undertaking, such as running a business or the like.

[Lootifer]

What happens in the case when affirmative action doesn't work? As in the case with white firefighters who were denied raises in pay since no blacks passed a written test. Reverse racism? Where was the caucasian fair right to advance. They had to go to court to get the pay. Affirmative action is legal reverse racism on whites. People should be as racist all they want. Freedom of choice even if your an ignorant asshole.

Then i'd assume there would be a signal sent that education amongst black communities is lacking and we should probably do something about that also.

(note: I personally would be supporting improved education programs amongst communities that are... erm... being left behind. I dont particularly support an affirmative action scheme that prescribes a certain percentage of diversity amongst parts of the workforce).

Not all regulation is bad, but I would suggest most, if not all, prescriptive regulation is bad.

[BigBallinStalin]

What happens in the case when affirmative action doesn't work? As in the case with white firefighters who were denied raises in pay since no blacks passed a written test. Reverse racism? Where was the caucasian fair right to advance. They had to go to court to get the pay. Affirmative action is legal reverse racism on whites. People should be as racist all they want. Freedom of choice even if your an ignorant asshole.

Then i'd assume there would be a signal sent that education amongst black communities is lacking and we should probably do something about that also.

(note: I personally would be supporting improved education programs amongst communities that are... erm... being left behind. I dont particularly support an affirmative action scheme that prescribes a certain percentage of diversity amongst parts of the workforce).

Not all regulation is bad, but I would suggest most, if not all, prescriptive regulation is bad.

What's your approach to this kind of problem?

[Lootifer]

Throw tax payer money at it durr!

But more seriously. I am not sure; this is how we do it, and it seems ok (I am not particularly in-the-know-in in education...).

There's plenty of unintended consequences (which im sure you will happily list), the most obvious being the slowing of net progress of education (racing boat analogy, one with a pointed front goes through the water faster than one with a square front) but since I value fairness above progress I can sleep at night.

[BigBallinStalin]

Throw tax payer money at it durr!

But more seriously. I am not sure; this is how we do it, and it seems ok (I am not particularly in-the-know-in in education...).

There's plenty of unintended consequences (which im sure you will happily list), the most obvious being the slowing of net progress of education (racing boat analogy, one with a pointed front goes through the water faster than one with a square front) but since I value fairness above progress I can sleep at night.

Hey, especially since you're glad that everyone else is forced to pay for it! External costs, private benefits, yo. Oh, the price of Ideology. When will it end?

The lower a school’s decile rating, the more funding it gets. The increased funding given to lower decile schools is to provide additional resources to support their students’ learning needs. A decile does not indicate the overall socio-economic mix of the students attending a school or measure the standard of education delivered at a school.

That's an interesting way to 'throw taxpayer money' at it!

I wonder if anywhere uses an index of performance, e.g. # of employed or in under/grad school after graduation would determine how much state-money a school gets.

[Lootifer]

Hey, especially since you're glad that everyone else is forced to pay for it! External costs, private benefits, yo. Oh, the price of Ideology. When will it end?

Firstly the cost isnt completely externalised; I pay my taxes, and happily do so, knowing that part of my taxes go towards this program.

Secondly you are right; in a perfect world we would figure out a way of voting on the ideology, such that we can democratically say, one way or another, this is what the population genuinely wants (after understanding the unintended consequences and decrease in efficiency) - yes I am implying I know what way the vote would go, I am fairly (pun intended) confident of what way our culture would go on this single issue (NZ culture tends to favour fairness over freedom when faced with a binary choice).

Once again we come to an impasse that is a result of the political structure being unable practically represent its people.

I wonder if anywhere uses an index of performance, e.g. # of employed or in under/grad school after graduation would determine how much state-money a school gets.

Tsk tsk... thats equality of results durr, not equality of opportunity.

[ooge]

regulation..glass /spegal why was it put into law? when was it repealed? what were the consequences of the repealing of this regulation? Arline industry when was it deregulated? by whom? what have been the consequences of this deregulation?State of California and energy deregulation,what were the consequences of the deregulation.Trucking industry? one can go on and on about how government has deregulated over regulated the past forty years.

Huh? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How?


(The underlined were very beneficial examples of deregulation/privatization).

care to elaborate on why deregulation was beneficial to the underlined?

How much are you willing to read?

And, as a thought experiment, what happens when the Soviet Union nationalizes an industry?

nationalizing is not the same as regulation.look at the title of this thread

[warmonger1981]

Links: Ricci v. DeStefano
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106083630
https://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/ 07/ 29/ nyregion/ new-haven-firefighters-settle-race-discrimination-claims.html -


" The best form of government, like the most perfect of religions, taken in a literal sense, is a contradictory idea. The problem is not to discover how we shall be best governed, but how we shall be most free. George Plechanoff - Anarchism and Socialism

[john9blue]

nationalizing is not the same as regulation.look at the title of this thread

can you give an example of something that was one but not the other?

[b.k. barunt]

Links: Ricci v. DeStefano
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =106083630
https://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/ 07/ 29/ nyregion/ new-haven-firefighters-settle-race-discrimination-claims.html -


" The best form of government, like the most perfect of religions, taken in a literal sense, is a contradictory idea. The problem is not to discover how we shall be best governed, but how we shall be most free. George Plechanoff - Anarchism and Socialism

That's one of those soundsgoodifyousayitfast lil popups. The more freedom you have, the more perfect form of government you need to maintain those freedoms. Case in point: America. We had the most perfect formof government that i know of within the framework of our Constitution. As self serving wankers like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, NIxon, Reagan, Bush and Obama chipped away at our Constitution we correspondingly had our freedom chipped away.


Honibaz

[warmonger1981]

Our Constitution only works with moral people. We dont have that. We are a nation of corporations not people. Polititions are lobbyist working for corporations. The whole world is up for sale and everything in it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, especially since you're glad that everyone else is forced to pay for it! External costs, private benefits, yo. Oh, the price of Ideology. When will it end?

Firstly the cost isnt completely externalised; I pay my taxes, and happily do so, knowing that part of my taxes go towards this program.

Secondly you are right; in a perfect world we would figure out a way of voting on the ideology, such that we can democratically say, one way or another, this is what the population genuinely wants (after understanding the unintended consequences and decrease in efficiency) - yes I am implying I know what way the vote would go, I am fairly (pun intended) confident of what way our culture would go on this single issue (NZ culture tends to favour fairness over freedom when faced with a binary choice).

Once again we come to an impasse that is a result of the political structure being unable practically represent its people.

Markets are significantly better at that though.

I wonder if anywhere uses an index of performance, e.g. # of employed or in under/grad school after graduation would determine how much state-money a school gets.

Tsk tsk... thats equality of results durr, not equality of opportunity.

How can you adhere to opportunity while shunning outcomes? You'd be satisfied in having "equal opportunity" for all kids to join warehouses from 8AM-3PM everyday, learning nothing. (Just being extreme here, but that's the reductio ad absurdum. Obviously, you'd want better outcomes, but I'm not sure why you said the underlined).

[BigBallinStalin]

regulation..glass /spegal why was it put into law? when was it repealed? what were the consequences of the repealing of this regulation? Arline industry when was it deregulated? by whom? what have been the consequences of this deregulation?State of California and energy deregulation,what were the consequences of the deregulation.Trucking industry? one can go on and on about how government has deregulated over regulated the past forty years.

Huh? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How?


(The underlined were very beneficial examples of deregulation/privatization).

care to elaborate on why deregulation was beneficial to the underlined?

How much are you willing to read?

And, as a thought experiment, what happens when the Soviet Union nationalizes an industry?

nationalizing is not the same as regulation.look at the title of this thread

Suppose I let you own a piece of land. I'm going to tell you what you can and can't produce, and how you're going to produce it (regulation). If the regulation is great enough, then you de facto do not own your land (i.e. you don't retain the ownership rights).

How much are you willing to read? Do you even care about critically challenging your beliefs about regulation?

[patches70]

Suppose I let you own a piece of land. I'm going to tell you what you can and can't produce, and how you're going to produce it (regulation). If the regulation is great enough, then you de facto do not own your land (i.e. you don't retain the ownership rights).

How much are you willing to read? Do you even care about critically challenging your beliefs about regulation?

Let me ask you something, BBS, in all seriousness.

Suppose I let you buy a house on some land. Then every year I make you pay me a tax. I can change (raise) that tax whenever I want and if you don't pay the tax then I can take your house, your land and throw you and your family out on the street.
Do you really own your house?

Here is another one. You go to the bank and get a loan and use the money to buy a house on some land and agree to pay the money back over 30 years. Do you own that house and land? Are you a "homeowner" or a homeborrower?

[Lootifer]

nationalizing is not the same as regulation.look at the title of this thread

can you give an example of something that was one but not the other?

Hrmm, SoE functioning in a market environment? There's certainly going to be regulartory influence in this situation; but the SoE in itself is not a direct regulartory mechanism...

(just taking a stab here, dont really give a shit )

(SoE: State owned enterprise)

[Lootifer]

Suppose I let you own a piece of land. I'm going to tell you what you can and can't produce, and how you're going to produce it (regulation). If the regulation is great enough, then you de facto do not own your land (i.e. you don't retain the ownership rights).

How much are you willing to read? Do you even care about critically challenging your beliefs about regulation?

Let me ask you something, BBS, in all seriousness.

Suppose I let you buy a house on some land. Then every year I make you pay me a tax. I can change (raise) that tax whenever I want and if you don't pay the tax then I can take your house, your land and throw you and your family out on the street.
Do you really own your house?

Here is another one. You go to the bank and get a loan and use the money to buy a house on some land and agree to pay the money back over 30 years. Do you own that house and land? Are you a "homeowner" or a homeborrower?

Not much of a pragmatist are we? (just idle teasing, not having a go - we differ in opinions but I respect your intellect)

Like BBS does with my arguments all the time, you can extend this into the absurd as well: Suppose I own my body; every year I have to eat a certain amount of healthy food or my artaries will clog up; at any one point in time my artaries may decide to stop functioning properly anyway (even if I obey all the healthy guidlines) and decide to take my body away from me. Do I really ever own my own body?

Risk is part of EVERYTHING we do. Yes you own the house; but theres liabilities and risk associated with that ownership (government could take it off you, a meteor could strike, your 5 year old could play with matches and burn it down).

To me there is little or no point in asking your question.

[BigBallinStalin]

Good enough response for me, Loot, but you can do whatever you want with your body. It's not like the property rights of your living self transfer to someone else. And when you die, your body is a different economic good, so we should keep that in mind. (You might also have some buyers).

patches, we're talking about regulation/control---not taxation and debt.

Debt depends on the contract. If I borrow $200,000 from you with the express purpose of buying a house, then I own the house, which serves as collateral. You own/are entitled to x-amount of interest payments from me--but you don't own my house. If I default on the loan, then that's essentially theft. Since we've agreed that my house serves as collateral, then you become the owner. This event is defined within the contract which delineates our property rights.

Say I move into a neighborhood which has its own rules and regulations. If I voluntarily agree to them, then I'm obliged to obey. Sure, I may face some regulation like "mow the lawn every two weeks." Anything involving ownership involves rules (which optimally you've voluntarily agreed to).

With property rights, there is a spectrum. You can tax someone 99% of their income, or 1% of their income. I think we're all inclined to agree that one retains more control and ownership over their income if it's taxed at 1% (which is why I bring up the Soviet Union--it's analogous to 99% taxation).

[ooge]

regulation..glass /spegal why was it put into law? when was it repealed? what were the consequences of the repealing of this regulation? Arline industry when was it deregulated? by whom? what have been the consequences of this deregulation?State of California and energy deregulation,what were the consequences of the deregulation.Trucking industry? one can go on and on about how government has deregulated over regulated the past forty years.

Huh? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How?


(The underlined were very beneficial examples of deregulation/privatization).

care to elaborate on why deregulation was beneficial to the underlined?

How much are you willing to read?

And, as a thought experiment, what happens when the Soviet Union nationalizes an industry?

nationalizing is not the same as regulation.look at the title of this thread

Suppose I let you own a piece of land. I'm going to tell you what you can and can't produce, and how you're going to produce it (regulation). If the regulation is great enough, then you de facto do not own your land (i.e. you don't retain the ownership rights).

How much are you willing to read? Do you even care about critically challenging your beliefs about regulation?

again what you are describing is not regulation.Ever heard of Upton Sinclair?

[ooge]

lets ask this then..FDIC is it a regulation? if so has it been beneficial?

[patches70]

patches, we're talking about regulation/control---not taxation and debt.

You don't think taxation is a form of regulation?

Granted, the only legitimate use of taxation is to raise revenue, but we don't do that anymore do we? We use taxation to regulate behavior.

Want people to quit smoking? Create cigarette taxes to make smoking more expensive. People are too fat? Impose a soda tax. The reverse is true as well. Want people to have children? Grant a tax break. Wealth distribution is out of kilter? Tax the wealthy and redistribute the wealth. In the end, or the point we've reached today, is that you get a tax code that in and of itself is a regulation nightmare. Our tax code is a form of regulation. It regulates behavior and social experiments. Taxes are no longer just for raising revenue, they are now used to get you to do or not to do something. And as a final line of control as well.

Al Capone was a known extortionist, murdered and downright prick, but the government couldn't get him on any of those charges. What did they resort to? Tax evasion. The tax code helps insure that the government has the last laugh, a final card to play in case they ever feel the need to break a person's balls.

It's funny that you say you put the house up as collateral when you get a mortgage. It's true enough I suppose, but certain questions arise. For instance, if you sit in the banker's office and get a mortgage, you pledge the house as collateral. Even though you don't actually own the house, someone else/some other bank owns the house. How can you pledge something as collateral if you don't have the right to do so in the first place?

Can I get a loan and pledge your house as collateral? If you own a house outright, and go to the bank to purchase another home, I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that you'll be putting your owned home up as collateral (because you actually own that one!). The bank will happily be giving you that loan, if you default they could well end up with two houses! For the first time home buyers, there is no other collateral, but the home being purchased. But you know well enough that if you have significant hard assets it's easy to get a loan, because you have real collateral.

It's a strange system indeed, and all too often does not regulation in the end benefit some over others? That is, misplaced regulations such as you appear to be targeting for this thread.

Want people to "own" homes? Tax credits and subsidies for home "ownership". Who benefits most? People line up to get into debt for 15-30 years hooked to the plowshare for an asset that has been overvalued through fraud and maleficence. I don't have to go over the history of the housing bubble that burst back in 2008 do I? Who was bailed out? The real home owners of course! The banks.

It doesn't matter that when you applied and got your home mortgage that the money the bank loaned you was created out of thin air and didn't exist (except for about 10%) until you signed the dotted line. What did the bank ever actually put up then if it simply created the money from nothing and if you default the government will simply take from everyone else to make good on the debt through TARP?

[BigBallinStalin]

Huh? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How?


(The underlined were very beneficial examples of deregulation/privatization).

care to elaborate on why deregulation was beneficial to the underlined?

How much are you willing to read?

And, as a thought experiment, what happens when the Soviet Union nationalizes an industry?

nationalizing is not the same as regulation.look at the title of this thread

Suppose I let you own a piece of land. I'm going to tell you what you can and can't produce, and how you're going to produce it (regulation). If the regulation is great enough, then you de facto do not own your land (i.e. you don't retain the ownership rights).

How much are you willing to read? Do you even care about critically challenging your beliefs about regulation?

again what you are describing is not regulation.Ever heard of Upton Sinclair?

Regulation is control. Not sure how you don't get that.

Upton Sinclair wrote fictional works of art.

Anyway, since you don't want to answer "How much are you willing to read?," then should anyone expect you to challenge your ideological beliefs?

[warmonger1981]

Applaud to patches.

[BigBallinStalin]

patches, we're talking about regulation/control---not taxation and debt.

You don't think taxation is a form of regulation?

Granted, the only legitimate use of taxation is to raise revenue, but we don't do that anymore do we? We use taxation to regulate behavior.

Want people to quit smoking? Create cigarette taxes to make smoking more expensive. People are too fat? Impose a soda tax. The reverse is true as well. Want people to have children? Grant a tax break. Wealth distribution is out of kilter? Tax the wealthy and redistribute the wealth. In the end, or the point we've reached today, is that you get a tax code that in and of itself is a regulation nightmare. Our tax code is a form of regulation. It regulates behavior and social experiments. Taxes are no longer just for raising revenue, they are now used to get you to do or not to do something. And as a final line of control as well.

Al Capone was a known extortionist, murdered and downright prick, but the government couldn't get him on any of those charges. What did they resort to? Tax evasion. The tax code helps insure that the government has the last laugh, a final card to play in case they ever feel the need to break a person's balls.

It's funny that you say you put the house up as collateral when you get a mortgage. It's true enough I suppose, but certain questions arise. For instance, if you sit in the banker's office and get a mortgage, you pledge the house as collateral. Even though you don't actually own the house, someone else/some other bank owns the house. How can you pledge something as collateral if you don't have the right to do so in the first place?

Can I get a loan and pledge your house as collateral? If you own a house outright, and go to the bank to purchase another home, I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that you'll be putting your owned home up as collateral (because you actually own that one!). The bank will happily be giving you that loan, if you default they could well end up with two houses! For the first time home buyers, there is no other collateral, but the home being purchased. But you know well enough that if you have significant hard assets it's easy to get a loan, because you have real collateral.

It's a strange system indeed, and all too often does not regulation in the end benefit some over others? That is, misplaced regulations such as you appear to be targeting for this thread.

Want people to "own" homes? Tax credits and subsidies for home "ownership". Who benefits most? People line up to get into debt for 15-30 years hooked to the plowshare for an asset that has been overvalued through fraud and maleficence. I don't have to go over the history of the housing bubble that burst back in 2008 do I? Who was bailed out? The real home owners of course! The banks.

It doesn't matter that when you applied and got your home mortgage that the money the bank loaned you was created out of thin air and didn't exist (except for about 10%) until you signed the dotted line. What did the bank ever actually put up then if it simply created the money from nothing and if you default the government will simply take from everyone else to make good on the debt through TARP?

The OP is about regulation, so I'm not sure how this is relevant. Hopefully, we can still distinguish between regulation and taxation.