We need more regulation!!!

[ooge]

so I post relevant questions about regulation,ex. deregulating the trucking Industry and you respond with the Soviet Union Reference.I see I should have instead responded with are you a Nazi? because that is how idiotic and intellectually dishonest it is to respond with "soviet Union" I shall not waste anymore time with you.

[patches70]

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

They are indistinguishable these days. Where it is illegal or politically risky to set up regulation, taxation is used instead. An example, New York's soda ban was struck down (a failed attempt at regulation, correct?). California is moving in another direction, with the same goal. If they can't regulate it then they'll tax it more-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5796,d.b2I

Advocates of the soda tax hope that increasing the cost of sugary beverages to put them on par with healthier, more expensive options will entice more people to make better choices when it comes to quenching their thirsts.

The voters, certain do gooders who think they know how to make better choices for other people, push for this. Since the current regulations haven't made enough people make the decisions they want to be made and the politicians and do gooders know that they can't get bans or even stricter regulations, they instead go the tax route.

The purpose of the new tax is not to raise revenue at all. In fact, the advocates and politicians making the law would be happy if they didn't make a single dime, that would mean that people had given up on sodas all together. Well, maybe not the politicians so much as they rarely meet a tax they don't like, but the people who are whispering in the politician's ears have other reasons, which are clearly stated. To change people's behavior.

How can you not say that it isn't a form of control? Attempted at least.

That's just one example, there are many many more, as you well know. Over regulation is troubling to be sure, but I find this type of taxation equally troubling and in the exact same spirit of regulation. Taxation is indeed used plenty as yet another form of regulation.

I'm not sure why you have a problem admitting that. It's pretty clear cut.

And what is the reason that regulations are put in place? The over regulations I'm talking about, as in the spirit of the OP.

A perceived problem is brought to light and the customer (voters) demand that the politicians do something about it. So the politicians pass a rule or law or regulation, but being sure to sneak in enough loopholes and waivers so that the politicians don't alienate their big donors too much.

So now we have this problem, obesity.

efforts to impose similar taxes have become increasingly common in recent years as politicians around the country look for ways to combat the country's growing obesity epidemic. Legislators in seven other states, including Vermont and Texas, have introduced bills that would tax sugary drinks this session alone.

It's a problem and you know the usual M.O. of politicians, this is why they are elected is it not? Because we "need" them to solve these problems. Unfortunately, the politicians can't outlaw fat people. They can't pass a law fining someone because they get too fat (if they could I bet ya they'd exempt themselves! Hahaha). But a tax, well, they can do that can't they? And they sure as hell like getting a few extra bucks from us don't they?

And thus, this tax does the same thing as regulation. With regulation the government grows, inspectors, agents and agencies must be created to impose the regulations. With these new taxes new agencies will be created since we all know any money collected won't be spent wisely (like paying down debt), but doled out through more government employees who in turn keep voting for the same government policies that keep them employed and create more government employees.

More problems are found (created, blow out of proportion, over inflated, over stated and all other manner of deceptions) and more regulations and more taxes come. You can't have one without the other. Regulation costs money. More regulation means more costs means more taxes means more regulation means more costs means more taxes. A vicious cycle to say the least until the point comes when the two are the same.

Where we are now. And both have the same effect, less freedom of choice, among other commonalities.

So I ask you, BBS, a simple question which can be answered yes or no-

Can taxation be yet another form of regulation?

[BigBallinStalin]

so I post relevant questions about regulation,ex. deregulating the trucking Industry and you respond with the Soviet Union Reference.I see I should have instead responded with are you a Nazi? because that is how idiotic and intellectually dishonest it is to respond with "soviet Union" I shall not waste anymore time with you.

Oh, seeing that you don't want to read about this issue, then we can only conclude that you're an ideologue. Good luck out there. There's plenty of politicians out there willing to exploit you.

[Lootifer]

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.

Huh? Wheres the rule that says this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_tax (oh god posting that link is going to open a can of BBS-flavoured worms! - yes yes knowledge problem etc etc, however knowledge problem or not, the negative externalities still exist in some value above zero).

I would suspect BBS wants to shy away from taxation (which can be used, legitimately, as a form or regulation) because if there is going to be any kind of regulation at all he'd prefer it in the milder taxation form...?

Also just a reminder, there's a perfectly rational economic reason why we have graduated taxation, and it has nothing to do with re-distribution of wealth.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure what this thread has morphed into, but I'll say this:

meta-category: Governmental Control
subcategories: taxation, regulation, deficit spending + expansionary monetary policy, etc.

[Lootifer]

I'm not sure what this thread has morphed into, but I'll say this:

meta-category: Governmental Control
subcategories: taxation, regulation, deficit spending + expansionary monetary policy, etc.

That clears things up

[thegreekdog]

Just a point of clarification ooge - the FDIC is not a regulation, it's a Congressional-created body (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).

[Baron Von PWN]

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?

A glorious victory for socialism.

_______________________--
more serious example.

When the soviets collectivized agriculture. Gross agricultural production decreased significantly (10-20% if I recall correctly)

However state collection of grain shot up , and resultant state income from grain sales also increased. This allowed the Soviets to launch their massive industrialization drive.

Not sure how nationalization plays into regulations though, a regulated industry is still in private ownership just restricted in what they can do, while a nationalized industry is entirely under state management and control.

[BigBallinStalin]

A glorious victory for socialism.

_______________________--
more serious example.

When the soviets collectivized agriculture. Gross agricultural production decreased significantly (10-20% if I recall correctly)

However state collection of grain shot up , and resultant state income from grain sales also increased. This allowed the Soviets to launch their massive industrialization drive.

The Soviet economists and accountants told ya so, amirite?

Not sure how nationalization plays into regulations though, a regulated industry is still in private ownership just restricted in what they can do, while a nationalized industry is entirely under state management and control.

Although National Socialism was a regulated economy (similar to the US during the 1930s/1940s in price controls, work hours, quotas, etc.), it's better to use the Soviet Union as an example because people think too emotionally about these issues.

[Baron Von PWN]

A glorious victory for socialism.

_______________________--
more serious example.

When the soviets collectivized agriculture. Gross agricultural production decreased significantly (10-20% if I recall correctly)

However state collection of grain shot up , and resultant state income from grain sales also increased. This allowed the Soviets to launch their massive industrialization drive.

The Soviet economists and accountants told ya so, amirite?

Actually that is pretty much the consensus on what happened as a result of collectivizing agriculture. State collection of grain and produce increased significantly. Gross food production dropped significantly. The Soviet government used the increase in grain and foodstuff collection to export and generate capital for industrialization.

This was also the primary cause of the famine in Ukraine, as the Soviets were exporting grain rather than feeding Ukrainian peasants.

Not sure how nationalization plays into regulations though, a regulated industry is still in private ownership just restricted in what they can do, while a nationalized industry is entirely under state management and control.

Although National Socialism was a regulated economy (similar to the US during the 1930s/1940s in price controls, work hours, quotas, etc.), it's better to use the Soviet Union as an example because people think too emotionally about these issues.

When speaking of economic regulation the Soviet Union doesn't make much sense to use as an example. The vast majority of enterprises were state run, not regulated( they had regulations yes but quotas overruled the regulations).

IF you want to discuss the impact of state run enterprises and central planing by all means use the Soviet union as an example. For state regulation of enterprises in market economies? the USSR is a pretty useless example.

[AndyDufresne]

I next to nothing about these topics. But BVP is a noble baron, so I think that adds weight to his argument.


--Andy

Not sure how nationalization plays into regulations though, a regulated industry is still in private ownership just restricted in what they can do, while a nationalized industry is entirely under state management and control.

Although National Socialism was a regulated economy (similar to the US during the 1930s/1940s in price controls, work hours, quotas, etc.), it's better to use the Soviet Union as an example because people think too emotionally about these issues.

When speaking of economic regulation the Soviet Union doesn't make much sense to use as an example. The vast majority of enterprises were state run, not regulated( they had regulations yes but quotas overruled the regulations).

IF you want to discuss the impact of state run enterprises and central planing by all means use the Soviet union as an example. For state regulation of enterprises in market economies? the USSR is a pretty useless example.

[BigBallinStalin]

A glorious victory for socialism.

_______________________--
more serious example.

When the soviets collectivized agriculture. Gross agricultural production decreased significantly (10-20% if I recall correctly)

However state collection of grain shot up , and resultant state income from grain sales also increased. This allowed the Soviets to launch their massive industrialization drive.

The Soviet economists and accountants told ya so, amirite?

Actually that is pretty much the consensus on what happened as a result of collectivizing agriculture. State collection of grain and produce increased significantly. Gross food production dropped significantly. The Soviet government used the increase in grain and foodstuff collection to export and generate capital for industrialization.

This was also the primary cause of the famine in Ukraine, as the Soviets were exporting grain rather than feeding Ukrainian peasants.

That's interesting. Here's my favorite story about Paul Samuelson and his macroeconomics textbooks throughout the 1950s and 1960s and 70s, etc. In the front cover page, there's a graph projecting the Soviet Union's growth (in GDP), which would surpass the US in 10 years. Then every 10 years, it never happened because the projection was false--based on either Samuelson's nonsense or on Soviet data, but he kept having the same graph shown.

Not sure how nationalization plays into regulations though, a regulated industry is still in private ownership just restricted in what they can do, while a nationalized industry is entirely under state management and control.

Although National Socialism was a regulated economy (similar to the US during the 1930s/1940s in price controls, work hours, quotas, etc.), it's better to use the Soviet Union as an example because people think too emotionally about these issues.

When speaking of economic regulation the Soviet Union doesn't make much sense to use as an example. The vast majority of enterprises were state run, not regulated( they had regulations yes but quotas overruled the regulations).

IF you want to discuss the impact of state run enterprises and central planing by all means use the Soviet union as an example. For state regulation of enterprises in market economies? the USSR is a pretty useless example.

Ah, the relative prices of using the CCCP and Nazi Germany examples.

[Baron Von PWN]

A glorious victory for socialism.

_______________________--
more serious example.

When the soviets collectivized agriculture. Gross agricultural production decreased significantly (10-20% if I recall correctly)

However state collection of grain shot up , and resultant state income from grain sales also increased. This allowed the Soviets to launch their massive industrialization drive.

The Soviet economists and accountants told ya so, amirite?

Actually that is pretty much the consensus on what happened as a result of collectivizing agriculture. State collection of grain and produce increased significantly. Gross food production dropped significantly. The Soviet government used the increase in grain and foodstuff collection to export and generate capital for industrialization.

This was also the primary cause of the famine in Ukraine, as the Soviets were exporting grain rather than feeding Ukrainian peasants.

That's interesting. Here's my favorite story about Paul Samuelson and his macroeconomics textbooks throughout the 1950s and 1960s and 70s, etc. In the front cover page, there's a graph projecting the Soviet Union's growth (in GDP), which would surpass the US in 10 years. Then every 10 years, it never happened because the projection was false--based on either Samuelson's nonsense or on Soviet data, but he kept having the same graph shown.

Yeah I'm familiar with Samuelson's type, that is the Soviet dazeled scholars of yesteryear. They were taken in by soviet accounts of "productivity". For example after collectivization they would proudly announce huge "gains" in farm productivity.

When what had really happened was the Government was taking in more crops (which they announced as a boost in production), while gross farm production was dropping due to A.repression to collectivize farms, and all the foibles of centraly planned farming .

Another thing which would fool people was the speed at which the soviets built mega projects, like the White sea canal and hydro electric dams in the Ukraine. However these projects were either of questionable use (white sea canals ) and or built with penal labour from the GULAG. The Gulag construction projects would at times have 1 in 4 convicts die due to appealing conditions (In the case of the white sea canal convicts dug sections out bare handed). As a rule unless convicts did enough work, they were not given full rations.

Of course quality was terrible, and when the GULAG was massively scalled down after stalin, they lost this terrible but cheap pool of labour.

[Lootifer]

My favourite bit about communist russia was when they effectively drained one of the largest lakes in the world! GO RUSSIA!

[Baron Von PWN]

My favourite bit about communist russia was when they effectively drained one of the largest lakes in the world! GO RUSSIA!

This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea

[Lootifer]

Yeah, shit is messed up!

[Baron Von PWN]

Yeah, shit is messed up!

My favourite Soviet anecdote is that Krushchev considered re-routing rivers through the use of nuclear bombs.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, shit is messed up!

My favourite Soviet anecdote is that Krushchev considered re-routing rivers through the use of nuclear bombs.

Eh, as long as Krushchev doesn't drink the water, no problems, yes?

[Nobunaga]

Check this out.

European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds ... ation.html

[john9blue]

Check this out.

European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds ... ation.html

so now agriculture, the fucking FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION ITSELF, is going to become illegal.

f*ck the EU and f*ck all the morons here in the US who want us to be anything like them.

i honestly wonder if people are right when they say that (modern) liberalism is a mental disorder.

[BigBallinStalin]

Check this out.

European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds ... ation.html

so now agriculture, the fucking FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION ITSELF, is going to become illegal.

f*ck the EU and f*ck all the morons here in the US who want us to be anything like them.

i honestly wonder if people are right when they say that modern liberalism is a mental disorder.

It certainly leads to it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Check this out.

European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds ... ation.html

so now agriculture, the fucking FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION ITSELF, is going to become illegal.

f*ck the EU and f*ck all the morons here in the US who want us to be anything like them.

i honestly wonder if people are right when they say that modern liberalism is a mental disorder.

It certainly leads to it.

I'm pretty sure the bigger mental disorder is the human desire to label one's opponents as sub-human, mentally ill or just plain evil.

"Moden Liberalism" may have lead to some shitty crony capitalist laws, but that other thing has lead to the biggest genocides and mass murders in human history, so y'know.

[BigBallinStalin]

Check this out.

European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds ... ation.html

so now agriculture, the fucking FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION ITSELF, is going to become illegal.

f*ck the EU and f*ck all the morons here in the US who want us to be anything like them.

i honestly wonder if people are right when they say that modern liberalism is a mental disorder.

It certainly leads to it.

I'm pretty sure the bigger mental disorder is the human desire to label one's opponents as sub-human, mentally ill or just plain evil.

"Moden Liberalism" may have lead to some shitty crony capitalist laws, but that other thing has lead to the biggest genocides and mass murders in human history, so y'know.

I agree, but are there only two options: "modern liberalism" and "genocide"?

[Woodruff]

Check this out.

European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds ... ation.html

so now agriculture, the fucking FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION ITSELF, is going to become illegal.

f*ck the EU and f*ck all the morons here in the US who want us to be anything like them.

i honestly wonder if people are right when they say that (modern) liberalism is a mental disorder.

Wait...you believe it's the liberals here in the US who are pushing for certain seeds to be giving trademark protection (that may not be the right term, but I'm looking at you Monsanto)? You might want to look into that a little bit. Just a little.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I agree, but are there only two options: "modern liberalism" and "genocide"?

Nah, twas just a general jab at the bullshit opponent demonizing.

When the discussion drops to the level of "conservatives are selfish evil pricks, liberals are delusional freeloaders (and possibly mentally ill)" I find it more helpful to point out that this type of thinking causes more harm then good. (though I do on occasion gleefully jump in the mud as well, it can be fun)