Bush ready to gut Endangered Species Act.

I'm not saying that all of the commercial uses that have been identified for various effluents would have hap pended without significant public scrutiny and outcry. That is the market at work. I am not convinced that regulation was necessary since any manager that is worth anything always asks "what are my options." Once payback has been identified and life cycle costs determined, then decisions become much easier whether or not there is regulation.

What regulation made Johnson & Johnson build a methane powered plant that uses the byproduct of an old landfill? What regulation drove Subaru to build a zero landfill plant? None, but public concern over these issues gave industries that were building new facilities the opportunity to include public concern, and the reality of reduced production/operation/maintenance/capital costs, in their decision making.

The issue with regard to mother nature and species extinction is simply that the environmental problems we face are the result of too damned many humans on the planet. The root cause of every environmental problem that exists is human overpopulation. As a species we can't stay away from inventing ways to increase our comfort, satisfy our every need, therefore there is no way 7 billion humans can survive on this earth for any significant length of time without depleting every resource necessary for life, particularly since that number is growing geometrically. So when you talk about regulation what you are really trying to regulate is human nature. Good luck and I truly hope your expectations for success are low because you will not succeed.

 

J&J probably have a rate locked in. They won't have to worry about inflation in prices. Price stability is as important as the price itself. That's why they're using landill gas. If it weren't good business they wouldn't do it.

So what you're saying is we're screwed. Our population will be regulated one way or another. Wealth and education (or you can use the Russian model) tend to mitigate population growth. So does famine. The choice is ours. You're right that there are too many people, but beyond that we tend to treat the globe poorly. If we lived more sustainably and with the understanding that our collective actions affect the planet as a whole we might see some improvement in our lot.

By your reasoning we must have had nothing but incompetent manager because the age of environmental protection. You're whole system is predicated on people playing fair. You waive off each incident which goes against your POV as a one off instance of corruption or criminal activity.... and then to top if off you tell me about trying to check human nature. That's hilarious mate.

So how would you characterize the current credit crisis? Would you try to prevent it from happening again? Do you consider it part of a healthy economy?

 

That's kinda what I got out of it too. We can't regulate anything because it will disturb the "market force". But any of us can come up with an unlimited number of examples of bad things that happen when there is no oversight. We're screwed.

Maybe I'm just too simplistic in my thinking, but capitalism is great for letting people pursue things for their own interest. But it breaks down when people need to consider the interests of society. It is easy to ignore environmental or societal problems if they don't appear to affect the bottom line. It seems like government has to consider the needs of society as a whole and set laws and regulations accordingly. It seems like most of the laws originate due to some sort of abuse in the first place. And when the laws are rescinded, there are the Enron guys ready to exploit the loopholes.

And yes, I have worked for the kind of people who need regulations to do the "right thing". Otherwise they will opt for the most profitable thing.

 

Take a step back here. First, did you notice that your free market theory took a big hit? Your reasoning all of the sudden shifts to a completely different logic. One that has bigger gaps (like Tripp describes).

Should fisheries be regulated?

It seems that you are stretching your logic to avoid addressing that point. Yes, we are overpopulated, but I cannot find any logic that would justify removing fishing restrictions.

On a supporting note, what California labeled as "deregulation" was not true deregulation. That label and associated actions were political manipulations, not marketplace conditions.

 

Are there any markets that aren't manipulated in one way or another by gov't? I don't know of a single free market anywhere. Everything is either regulated, subsidized, or both.

 

Well, you finally got my point. No, there are no truly free markets. We have regulated them out of existence and when the regulation has unintended consequences we add additional regulation to "fix" the problem. The credit crisis? Give me a break. People who took out loans that were interest only, or 100% loans that they could not afford to make the monthly payments, or loans that had an unreasonably low interest rate with a rate adjustment after 1, 3 or 5 years that doubled, tripled or quadrupled the payment! Anyone with a sixth grade education should have been able to "do the math." Everyone wants a free lunch, wants housing prices to increase unreasonably so they can achieve unearned gain. How do you regulate that without regulating human nature? How do you regulate to eliminate the potential that any harm can come to individuals through their own actions without eliminating individual determination and freedom? It can't be done and this is where the regulation, or regulation lite school of happiness disintegrates. It is socialism pure and simple, which degenerates into oligarchy, which leads to subsequent revolution and change. People can't be their brother's keeper without taking away their brother's self-determination and that is why it doesn't work.

You were right when you said J&J wouldn't have done it if it wasn't in their best interest. The point is that it was in their best interest, and as many are finding out in LEED building efforts, it doesn't add much to the cost and has substantial long term payback. Once you regulate the free out of free market, it no longer has the capability to be self-regulating.

My point, simply, is that by regulating the free markets out of existence we have given up the ONLY tool that is self-regulating. Human engendered regulation is as imperfect as the political process, mostly devoid of reality and steeped in ideology. Yes, we are screwed, and we are screwing ourselves. We had a good system and have slowly destroyed it with regulation and legislation.

As for the Cod, well, as the Cod diminished in population the price should have gone up to the point where people quit buying Cod. At that point, in a truly free market, fishermen would have had to fish for something else since they could not sell Cod, i.e., no demand. The population of Cod would then have increased and the price adjusted to create a demand and fishermen could have then switched back to Cod. I simply pointed out that nature has mechanisms to deal with a population that doesn't treat resources appropriately. The extinction of food source(s) will eventually rid the system of the population causing the problem. But I suspect that there was regulation enacted through policy to "protect" the Cod fishermen that thwarted the ability of the market to self-regulate. I do suspect the issue was a bit more complicated because of fishing by those of many nations and the issues associated with fishing in international waters, but the point is there were policy decisions made an formal or informal regulation eliminated the ability of the market to operate.

We simply can not bring ourselves to the reality that a part of life in a pool of humans is that there are winners and losers. There are those who are capable and those who are not. Those with ambition and ingenuity and those without. Not all humans are created equal. Our egos can't stand that and we search for some way for government to make true what nature has seen fit to keep unequal, since that inequality is what drives change in the species. Without change, we are doomed as a species. Without change driven by the best and the most capable, the end will come much sooner. Like it or not, the fishermen must win and those demanding to be given fish must lose, or we all lose!

 

You've completely missed the point. We all know that those people shouldn't have gotten loans... shouldn't have gotten loans. The loans were made by people who knew they were bad but they didn't care because they were reselling them down the line. The loans got bundled up into investment packages where there were literally thousands of these things bundled together. The loan officers were encouraging people to lie about their earnings and debt. The whole thing was a shame because there was no regulation. That's what happens. Sure, the market will self correct, but it will be extremely painful and many of the people involved will get away scot free to do it again. Is that the kind of economy you want? Apparently it is.

You stated it quite poorly.

You're whole argument seems to be predicated on corporate honesty and responsibility (I'm assuming that was your point about J&J in the first place). You've mentioned that several times (along with the incompetent manager bit). Experience has shown that that is a dismal failure.

You're also playing a dangerous game with your cods. Massive reductions in cod populations could have huge implications in other species (we're seeing this with yellow fin tuna populations already). It's impossible to say what those might be, but the chances are they won't be good. Unknowns increase our risk. We'd be wise to limit the unknowns as much as possible.

I find your point of view quite strange. I think you're the first free market nihilist that I've ever met.

 

What was your reason for posting your economic theory? If it was to see how it was viewed and how the few PC members that cared to respond, you are getting some feedback. If the reason was to convert someone to your way of thinking, you have a lot more work in front of you. You keep putting in "fixes" never postulated in your original discussions. This does not bode well for convincing the last two PC readers standing.

Note the underlined passage. It was a free market. COD prices, costs, and fishing limits were not regulated. Period. The price did what the free market would have it do. You cannot postulate a theory and then postulate what should have been different from what actually happened.

Nature does have mechanisms to control out of balance conditions. One set of mechanisms is anarchy, starvation, disease, extinction. Another set of mechanisms is called caring, planning, and regulating. I am casting my lot with the second set.

Back a long time ago, some scientist discovered that CFCs (Freons) were eating away at the Ozone layer. After a few years of validating the science and determining the offending chemicals, enough governments and industry transformed the Freon industry to eliminate CFCs with minimal impact on the industries. This was a great accomplishment driven by the best and most capable. Regulation was essential for this to happen. This is an example of change made to protect us from doom.

When a fishery is overfished, the fish are gone, the fisherman are impoverished, and the population suffers the consequences. There is absolutely NO winner, none, nada, zip.

Somewhere in your theory, may be an element of truth. However, what was presented was applied so cosmically, that your element, if it exists, was lost. If you still think you have a element worth exposing, you need to focus on where it does and does not apply.

 

Well said, mate. The CFC example was class.

"A Civil Action" is another example of no regulation that popped into me heed earlier. Classic and rather sad example.

Likewise.

 

Regulations are essential to the operation of business. They create a "level playing field." They make things more predictable. The airline industry fought hard for regulation in the 1920s. The airlines grew. Yes, air travel was expensive but it was safe and profitable. Most small cities had access which allowed them to stay economically healthy. Then came deregulation, which the industry fought, in the 1970s. Now airline travel is getting more expensive all the time but service is absent for many small cities.

If there are no regulations, then businesses that don't cut corners, don't cheat their employees or their customers etc go out of business. That's not to say that all regulations are good, such as the many laws about what clothes you could wear in Medieval Europe or the regulations imposed by the guilds on craftsmen, but they are necessary.

Government isn't a business and can't run like a business. It provides basic services that everyone needs whether they know it or not, i.e. police and fire protection. It insures the orderly conduct of business through courts and regulations, i.e. accounting standards. It insures the safe conduct of business over distances within the country and without. These are not things you can reasonably expect to turn over to the private sector because many of them aren't likely to provide a natural profit.

 

It is certainly difficult to get into sufficient detail in a few sentences to get to the center of a very complex issue. Somehow, you have convinced yourselves that government is necessary to protect the "classes" from each other, or to protect nature from human activity. I don't happen to believe that (only because nature can take care of herself and will get rid of us when we go too far) and have yet to see solid evidence that there is any need for government to get involved in most of the things it is involved in. For example I happen to think that "If there are no regulations, then businesses that don't cut corners, don't cheat their employees or their customers etc. go out of business." is one of the most absurd statements I have seen in many years. This individual does; however, make a statement that I do agree with: "Government isn't a business and can't run like a business." The issue is that governmental regulation puts the government in the position of driving policy and operational reality for every business it regulates, a venue in which it has no experience or capability.

As far as airlines are concerned, please. Air fares, in constant dollars, are a fraction of what they were before deregulation and there has been no degradation in safety as a result of deregulation (the safety issue is one where regulation still exists although the FAA has taken quite a black eye lately for examples of where it is not doing its job). Where no demand exists it is an absurd waste of capital and resources to provide service.

With respect to the argument regarding the credit crisis, fraud in applications, banks issuing loans they knew they shouldn't have in hopes of selling them off, you are talking about fraud, pure and simple. It can and should be prosecuted - criminal prosecution is more effective than more regulation. If you want to see how government regulation contributed to this take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their policy directives to give out more minority home loans, which led to some of the practices that you cite. Real estate and mortgage trusts or organizations haven't been in my portfolio for a long time and I didn't need a governmental regulation to tell me to get out.

Since this is the US, everyone has a right to their opinion. I will simply suggest to you that when you combine the world's second highest effective tax rate with the amount and kind of regulation that is being demanded today we have absolutely no hope of ever being competitive on the international marketplace and will never be able to provide sufficient jobs for the economy to recover. Your regulation will destroy the economy and will result in a socialist political system and a command economy. At that point, the first sentence in this paragraph will become inoperative.

One way to test your position is to ask yourself this question: "If government issues a regulation in your area of expertise that you do not agree with, and that you think will be harmful to the public, do you accept the regulation as government's necessary responsibility or would you oppose it?" Please keep in mind that if you would oppose it, then you negate the concept that regulation is a necessary role of government and that it is capable of doing so in the public interest. If you accept it, you are not acting in an ethical and moral manner, and if a licensed professional, are violating your license. Before you tell me that we can't expect government to be perfect, remember that my point is that government should NOT regulate unless it is absolutely sure that regulation is necessary and that the regulation issued will do what is intended without unintended consequences.

 

It is certainly difficult to get into sufficient detail in a few sentences to get to the center of a very complex issue. Somehow, you have convinced yourselves that government is necessary to protect the "classes" from each other, or to protect nature from human activity. I don't happen to believe that (only because nature can take care of herself and will get rid of us when we go too far) and have yet to see solid evidence that there is any need for government to get involved in most of the things it is involved in. For example I happen to think that "If there are no regulations, then businesses that don't cut corners, don't cheat their employees or their customers etc. go out of business." is one of the most absurd statements I have seen in many years. This individual does; however, make a statement that I do agree with: "Government isn't a business and can't run like a business." The issue is that governmental regulation puts the government in the position of driving policy and operational reality for every business it regulates, a venue in which it has no experience or capability.

As far as airlines are concerned, please. Air fares, in constant dollars, are a fraction of what they were before deregulation and there has been no degradation in safety as a result of deregulation (the safety issue is one where regulation still exists although the FAA has taken quite a black eye lately for examples of where it is not doing its job). Where no demand exists it is an absurd waste of capital and resources to provide service.

With respect to the argument regarding the credit crisis, fraud in applications, banks issuing loans they knew they shouldn't have in hopes of selling them off, you are talking about fraud, pure and simple. It can and should be prosecuted - criminal prosecution is more effective than more regulation. If you want to see how government regulation contributed to this take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their policy directives to give out more minority home loans, which led to some of the practices that you cite. Real estate and mortgage trusts or organizations haven't been in my portfolio for a long time and I didn't need a governmental regulation to tell me to get out.

Since this is the US, everyone has a right to their opinion. I will simply suggest to you that when you combine the world's second highest effective tax rate with the amount and kind of regulation that is being demanded today we have absolutely no hope of ever being competitive on the international marketplace and will never be able to provide sufficient jobs for the economy to recover. Your regulation will destroy the economy and will result in a socialist political system and a command economy. At that point, the first sentence in this paragraph will become inoperative.

One way to test your position is to ask yourself this question: "If government issues a regulation in your area of expertise that you do not agree with, and that you think will be harmful to the public, do you accept the regulation as government's necessary responsibility or would you oppose it?" Please keep in mind that if you would oppose it, then you negate the concept that regulation is a necessary role of government and that it is capable of doing so in the public interest. If you accept it, you are not acting in an ethical and moral manner, and if a licensed professional, are violating your license. Before you tell me that we can't expect government to be perfect, remember that my point is that government should NOT regulate unless it is absolutely sure that regulation is necessary and that the regulation issued will do what is intended without unintended consequences.

 

Nonsense. I'd argue that that regulation is either unnecessary or poorly conceived. Just because I oppose a particular regulation doesn't mean that the concept of regulation itself is a bad one.

I can easily turn that argument on its head and put it to you in an equally absurd fashion. It proves nothing except that the extreme case on either side of the issue is untenable, which happens to be my POV.

Gov't raison d'etre is to enforce regulation (and collect the taxes necessary for said enforcement). It's a human institution, which means that it's fubar, but that said, it's better than nothing.

 

Nope. Try again.

So you prefer a reactive approach. One that reacts to crises as they happen and the instability that they bring. I prefer a more proactive approach. I'd rather anticipate a problem and try to avoid it rather than wait for the market to react to it.

That doesn't mean that we completely stifle innovation and economic growth with exessive regulation. That's self defeating. But you can't completely deregulate everything either. It's not in the public's best interest because it leads to instability and a lower quality of life.

 

Bob47-
Lack of any government regulation is called anarchy. I'm pretty sure you are not advocating that. Unfortunately, the descriptions you provide are meaningless because they don't provide any agreement point to start from. There are good regulations. There are bad regulations. Pick a specific area for discussion, not a philosophy of the entire universe.

 

You all seem to begin from the perspective that "regulation" is necessary. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about basic law, i.e. the Constitution, nor law passed through our Constitutionally established system (irrespective of how idiotic it may be). There is certainly plenty of that. What I am talking about is law that is legislated from the bench (judicial activism) or regulation imposed through governmental agencies, usually as a precondition to receipt of governmental funds, or governmental issued permits. As an example. NEPA is a very simple and short piece of legislation that says that prior to taking a federal action that has the potential to cause harm an interdisciplinary study will be made of the social, economic and environmental effects of that action.

Individual federal agencies through regulation and the courts through judicial activism have turned this process into a horridly expensive and time consuming process that virtually any group can either block or so significantly delay that progress is virtually impossible. In terms of energy, remember the dam whose purpose was to generate hydroelectric power that was blocked because of the Snail Darter?

My question, extreme though it was, in a prior post was simply whether you believed that the government was capable of determining what was within its lawful exercise of its police powers, i.e. necessary for the health, safety and welfare (and morals) of the public. Having worked in federal and local government and observed how individuals are promoted and decisions made, I have no confidence that government has that capability. Instead of reacting to real science, it reacts to political science, which often has little to do with reality. So then, does the possible impact on a species that is so rare that one must assume that it is not capable of evolving to remain viable in the current environment more important than producing power that does not rely on fossil fuels? These questions are not as few and far between as you might think. We can probably all think of examples of what we believe are "good" laws or regulations if we define the case and the issue narrowly enough, but has that "good" regulation been expanded to the point where it has become something quite different, as with NEPA.

Please keep in mind that I draw a real distinction between laws enacted through our Constitutionally established legislative system and regulation imposed through bureaucratic action of judicial fiat. You may say that this is difficult and I would agree, but that is why we have a republic rather than a democracy. There is no form of government more conservative (read resistant to change) than a pure democracy. The Framers understood that, which is why we have a republic that acts through a representative democracy. Bureaucratic regulation and judicial fiat are nothing more than socialism acting under the cloak of democracy. I do believe that is unacceptable on its face. If something is sufficiently important, and if the scientific proof is unassailable, then legislation is should be possible. Otherwise, regulation is based on what one, or a few, think is best for everyone.

 

Bob,

I agree that gov't management of everything is a poor way to go. I don't think anyone is advocating that. Having a completely unregulated market is also a poor way to go about things. A balance has to be struck and regulations need to be thoughtful, as permissive as possible (while still serving their intended purpose), and reviewed so that they remain relevant (subsidies always seem to escape this last one).

Nothing's perfect and there's no free lunch. Democracy is a helluva lot more work than either communism or facism, but that's our lot.

 

Here we are 100% in agreement.

 

Yes, Good regulations in the required areas. I do not hold much hope for anarchy.

Total agreement that having a non-legislative branch making defacto legislation will usually, if not always, end up being destructive. What is much harder is having the legislative branch make regulations that are constructive. When that is done successfully, it is rarely noticed. When done wrong, it's front page news.

It is critical to seperate the intent from the execution. Once this is done, it can figured out if the regulation intended is working or failing. In the case above, the intent was to prevent ecological disasters by requiring some science to be done before hand. There are quite a few areas permanently poisoned by mine trailings because nobody required any thought prior to dumping the heavy metal waste into the rivers. (See jayman's comments on the present toxic settling ponds in Canada) When the legislation can be gamed, the problem was not with the intent, but the failure of the regulation to be properly written, constrained, and/or enforced. I lose if a useful dam is not built. I lose if I am slowly poisoned.

For a regulation to be constructive, look at all the things that must be done right:
1) A real need is identified (e.g. prevent grouper overfishing in Gulf of Mexico)
2) Write legislation that achieves that purpose (e.g. legislation that totally bans all fishing in Gulf of Mexico is destuctive)
3) Enforce the legislation (make poachers activity unambiguous)
4) Update the legislation as lessons are learned (protected areas are better than specific no fish periods)

For a government to be useful, ALL of the above steps need to be done right. I make a BIG distinction between faulty regulation and faulty government. In the case of the snail darter, the government failed, but the intent of the original legislation had merit.

Your point here is quite different, at least in words, with some of your original statements. This is better. Right now the only way to fight this is to identify the questionable regulations, reveal the failures, and make others aware. Now the next level down needs to be identified. What are the specific regulations that give you the most heartburn?