The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Does government regulation kill jobs?

Goverment regulation and jobs

It's pretty simple, say you add additional regulation to an Electrical company. That adds more cost, they pass that cost on to the customer ( YOU and I). Do you really think a business can survive if they keep eating the cost of more regulation without passing it on to the customer?

As I've said MANY MANY times. There is a need for regulation, it's the added regulation where it starts getting costly, and less efficient. It's like a gun law, why would you keep adding gun laws when CRIMINALS are the ones ignoring them? All you need to do is when a company breaks regulatory standards, punish them for doing so Instead of adding more regulation that really doesn't do anything. As I said before about gun laws, if people that commit crimes with guns got the maximum punishment for that crime, there wouldn't be any need for additional laws. This would apply the same way with regulation. Pretty simple stuff!

Still talking blanket generalizations sinij? For shame.

I don't think so. I don't need to look far to see your fellow conservatives rave and rage about the usual, communists, freedom and constitution, while not even understanding ideas behind their talking points. Derid, while you are not acting unreasonable or uninformed, conservative movement around you is going off the deep end in a blaze of ignorance.

Maybe, but to a much lesser degree than the leftists because the left is ignoring some basic self evident points.

1) The bigger the govt, the harder it is to keep an eye on what that govt does. One of the biggest problems with a huge federal govt is accountability.

2) Like any system, the more "moving parts" and the greater the complexity - the more entropy.

3) One size does not fit all. The more totalitarian you become, the more individuals get squeezed out. Society is made up of individuals, if you focus on individual rights then everyone's rights are protected. If you start thinking in a group-based mentality, many individuals get the shaft.

4) Socialism has not worked well anywhere. A few societies that have an abundance of natural resources have been able to fund socialist seeming programs to some extent, but every society that depends on a real internal economy and embraces it ends up devolving.

5) Just because what we have now is not perfect, does not mean that any other available change would necessarily be for the better.

So you're saying that added regulation cost doesn't get passed down to the consumer? Over regulation is a problem, and it causes A lot of Inefficiency. Obama has even came out and said there's some unnecessary regulation. Is he wrong as well? Or is he just being a conservative

Agree with 5, disagree with 4 but acknowledge our past natural resources argument, 3 is not an argument, 2 is unavoidable, stick is simplest weapon yet we fly jets, agree with #1.

You critique of point #2 is invalid because a Jet is a discrete system that requires considerable outside resources to keep working. It works by the same principles as a socialist economy funded by natural resources that acquire large amount of cash and other material support and resources simply by virtue of digging a hole in the ground and hauling stuff out of it.

A jet is not intended to be self-perpetuating.

Point 3 is an observation. I probably could have broken it into into two separate points for greater clarity.

I am still waiting on a working example in regards to point 4, that can operate with self sufficiency.

Regardless of example I provide, you simply going to argue that current western lifestyle is only possible due to abundance of cheap oil&gas energy. While this is correct, without oil&gas our civilization would collapse, this fact has nothing to do with social programs, and everything to do with cheap energy and resources enabling our present quality of life, from most social to least social government _ALL OF THEM_ would fail without this energy.

No, current western lifestyle is a result of capitalism. The couple instances of widespread socialism that occurs without demonstrable immediate problems is a result of large energy exports.

There is a big difference.

The world has many economies that are exist in varying states of capitalism, socialism, with varying degrees of corruption and cronyism etc. Different sources of various resources from energy to labor.

Understanding which are which, and who is doing and supplying what is critical if you want to tie together a case for any system of socioeconomic management.

Its also important to separate the accidental from the systemic.

One other thing to keep in mind is the level of interventionism, and the byproducts of such intervention (by govt into the economy). If you are not looking at the consequences of interventionism by several degrees of removal, you are not getting an accurate picture of the consequences.

The problem is that Socialist lines of thinking are fundamentally incapable of providing for a self sustaining economic growth. Which is why you cannot and will never see a self sustaining model. So, Socialist advocates fall back on the emotional aspects of how "good" it sounds or ad hominem attacks on those who challenge their faith.

If someone was capable of breaking this pattern and putting forth a model that actually worked, and allowed liberty to flourish I would be all for it. I am not exactly the "1%", if there was a way to actually provide for greater economic growth and happiness I would be all for it. Sadly, there is not - or at the very least noone has outlined how such a system would work.