FREE TAPATALK APP

Tsukasa Buddha · 27th July 2012, 05:25 AM

Some Republicans have come out with this chart detailing all the job killing red tape that is out there. It is very annoying.

Basically the bold red lines are just Washington D.C.-->Congress/Executive Branch/Courts-->Government Agency. Remove the clutter and you see a few government agencies and policy groups:

IRS, Environmental Law, Privacy Law, Federal Trade Commission, Labor Law, Finance Law, and Obamacare.

So what are they proposing to cut? Can't be all the things pictured.

The Don · 27th July 2012, 06:31 AM

Remove all regulation, let the market decide

Careyp74 · 27th July 2012, 06:43 AM

OMG I didn't realize there were so many lines going everywhere!!! I mean, look, there is a red line joining privacy law to e-commerce rules, employee - customer identity theft, pre-employment checks and information security. Not to mention ones like labor law and worker's compensation. That's it. I am voting for Romney.

Beerina · 27th July 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Remove all regulation, let the market decide

Why is this always the response?

Well, if no regulations is bad, then a 6 trillion ton, bon bon-eating pig on your back is warranted.

Is that really what passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the left?

ravdin · 27th July 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Why is this always the response?

Well, if no regulations is bad, then a 6 trillion ton, bon bon-eating pig on your back is warranted.

Is that really what passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the left?

You beat me to it, I see. There's a lot of lazy reasoning out there (particularly in Congress) that if regulations are good, then more regulations must be better. Any criticism of the bewildering and often Kafkaesque nature of the alphabet soup of federal agencies means that you must be in favor of child labor and allowing robber barons to poison our drinking water as long as it's profitable.

daenku32 · 27th July 2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

You beat me to it, I see. There's a lot of lazy reasoning out there (particularly in Congress) that if regulations are good, then more regulations must be better. Any criticism of the bewildering and often Kafkaesque nature of the alphabet soup of federal agencies means that you must be in favor of child labor and allowing robber barons to poison our drinking water as long as it's profitable.

Based on the GOP graph, that's exactly what they are saying. They have big red lines to things like environmental law. Apparently they don't like environmental law. Since that line will be there as long as we want to ban toxic waste from getting dumped into public waterways.

JoeTheJuggler · 27th July 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Basically the bold red lines are just Washington D.C.-->Congress/Executive Branch/Courts-->Government Agency. Remove the clutter and you see a few government agencies and policy groups:

That was my initial response. What do the lines between "Washington D.C." and the 3 branches signify? For that matter, what do the lines between the branches and the various agencies or regulators signify? (I think they signify a relationship of control or authority, but not actual "red tape"--that is, the regulations themselves.)

Just a visually misleading graphic.

JoeTheJuggler · 27th July 2012, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by daenku32

Based on the GOP graph, that's exactly what they are saying. They have big red lines to things like environmental law. Apparently they don't like environmental law. Since that line will be there as long as we want to ban toxic waste from getting dumped into public waterways.

Good point. None of the lines correspond to the extent of "red tape" but only to the existence (at all) of any regulation (or rather regulatory bodies).

ETA: And just like the argument against the ACA that it is a bajillion pages long, the sheer volume of anything doesn't say anything about how good or bad it is. In this case, the number of regulatory agencies (and it's unlikely that all agencies will impact every small business) doesn't say anything whatosever about how burdensome the regulations are on the small business.

ETA: Is anyone seriously arguing that we should do away with the IRS?

Bikewer · 27th July 2012, 12:07 PM

It's the nature of bureacracy to self-perpetuate, and I'm sure many businesses would appreciate some paring down or simplifying of existing regulations. I'm sure that some are contradictory, considering the large number of agencies.

However, according to all the economic pundits I've listened to over the last couple of years on the various NPR shows I listen to the stifling factor right now is lack of demand.
Lack of demand caused by the bad economy. Unemployment, low-wage jobs for many who are underemployed...Uncertainty....
If widgets are not selling you don't hire more widget salesmen.

Tony · 27th July 2012, 12:42 PM

The graph isn't very useful. All it does is show that these things exist, but it doesn't show how they effect the marketplace or the typical business.

The Fallen Serpent · 27th July 2012, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

It's the nature of bureacracy to self-perpetuate, and I'm sure many businesses would appreciate some paring down or simplifying of existing regulations. I'm sure that some are contradictory, considering the large number of agencies.

However, according to all the economic pundits I've listened to over the last couple of years on the various NPR shows I listen to the stifling factor right now is lack of demand.
Lack of demand caused by the bad economy. Unemployment, low-wage jobs for many who are underemployed...Uncertainty....
If widgets are not selling you don't hire more widget salesmen.

Buy more smart phones and tablets. It would seriously help me out.

Travis · 27th July 2012, 01:20 PM

Of course the GOP doesn't argue to get rid of certain unnecessary laws they argue for abolishing the EPA and OSHA altogether.

jnelso99 · 27th July 2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Why is this always the response?

Well, if no regulations is bad, then a 6 trillion ton, bon bon-eating pig on your back is warranted.

Is that really what passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the left?

It also passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the right, with all the "if raising minimum wage is so good, why not just raise it to $50000?" or "if raising taxes is so good, why not just raise them to 100%?" discussions around here...

Earthborn · 27th July 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Some Republicans have come out with this chart detailing all the job killing red tape that is out there. It is very annoying.

It is just an "argument by bad diagramming" fallacy they're using. A good diagram makes a complex thing look understandable, so if you want to make complex thing look un-understandable just make a bad diagram. Republicans love this sort of thing: here and here are some supposedly showing how unwieldy Obamacare is.

The use of such bad charts is a fallacy, because you can make a complex looking diagram of pretty much everything. All processes and all organisations are pretty complex when you try to draw them out. The fact that they managed to put in everything they could think of, and still made it fit onto a single page shows more effectively how simple the whole thing is.

Beerina · 29th July 2012, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Of course the GOP doesn't argue to get rid of certain unnecessary laws they argue for abolishing the EPA and OSHA altogether.

It's legitimate to suggest, in these cases, that getting rid of them might not be the disasters their proponents claim, and in any case, might be a net benefit. If 90%+ of it needs to go...

The ever-increasing stack of regulation is a cumulative death of 1,000 cuts.

Actually, the death of 4,450 cuts, up from 3,000 in 1980.

tyr_13 · 29th July 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It's legitimate to suggest, in these cases, that getting rid of them might not be the disasters their proponents claim, and in any case, might be a net benefit. If 90%+ of it needs to go...

The ever-increasing stack of regulation is a cumulative death of 1,000 cuts.

Actually, the death of 4,450 cuts, up from 3,000 in 1980.

As the highlighted isn't true, it doesn't apply now does it?

Beerina · 29th July 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

As the highlighted isn't true, it doesn't apply now does it?

Hence the debate.

geni · 29th July 2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Hence the debate.

I see sloganeering no actual debate.

Remeber the raw number of regulations are pretty meaningless. For example do you know what an R/S number is? No? Well that means there is already a heck of a lot of red tape that doesn't apply to you.

Biscuit · 29th July 2012, 10:15 AM

I suppose if ones small business was a construction mining airline catering nursing home utility farm that might be a useful graph.

Other than taxes and employment laws the federal government doesn't affect my business at all. The local government does.

Beerina · 30th July 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by geni

I see sloganeering no actual debate.

Remeber the raw number of regulations are pretty meaningless. For example do you know what an R/S number is? No? Well that means there is already a heck of a lot of red tape that doesn't apply to you.

Good god.

Tony · 30th July 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It's legitimate to suggest, in these cases, that getting rid of them might not be the disasters their proponents claim, and in any case, might be a net benefit. If 90%+ of it needs to go...

The ever-increasing stack of regulation is a cumulative death of 1,000 cuts.

Actually, the death of 4,450 cuts, up from 3,000 in 1980.

And which party was in the White House for the majority of the 32 years since 1980?

JoeTheJuggler · 30th July 2012, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I suppose if ones small business was a construction mining airline catering nursing home utility farm that might be a useful graph.

And not even then. The graph does nothing to communicate what it means to: how onerous, unnecessary or unfair some federal regs are.

ETA: Some of the nodes and many of the lines are completely nonsensical. For example, there's a line from Congress to Antitrust to Obamacare. What is that supposed to mean?

Magyar · 30th July 2012, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And not even then. The graph does nothing to communicate what it means to: how onerous, unnecessary or unfair some federal regs are.

ETA: Some of the nodes and many of the lines are completely nonsensical. For example, there's a line from Congress to Antitrust to Obamacare. What is that supposed to mean?

All regulation is evil. IF it was created by the govt to protect anyone other than the wealthy business owner who through no other means than his own sweat and blood creates everything that is good and pure and profitable it needs to be banned.

Who needs clean water, air. Who doesn't like rivers on fire - Hell Providence RI makes a holiday out of it.

Wangler · 30th July 2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

ETA: Some of the nodes and many of the lines are completely nonsensical. For example, there's a line from Congress to Antitrust to Obamacare. What is that supposed to mean?

It means that the folks who made this chart were a bunch of num-nuts.

It is a pretty pointless graphic.

geni · 31st July 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Good god.

Not really. Those are the inernational standards for toxic chemicals. And yeah the paperwork probably would kill a small business in some cases but then if you've seen how they tend to handle chemical waste then you will see why you don't want anything smaller than a university dealing with say phosgene (and even thats only because Phd students are, in the final analysis, expendable).

In other cases its simply due to the number of people trying to cheat the system. Simplify the tax system for small businesses too much and Goldman Sachs will respond by starting half a million small businesses and getting a negative tax bill greater than the total US GDP.

Beerina · 1st August 2012, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by geni

I see sloganeering no actual debate.

Remeber the raw number of regulations are pretty meaningless. For example do you know what an R/S number is? No? Well that means there is already a heck of a lot of red tape that doesn't apply to you.

Actually, the sheer cumulative weight of massive regulations is mathematically, perfectly, the oposite of meaningless.

Let us assume for the sake of argument those 4000+ regulations, every one, are useful. So? What good are they is they drag the economy, and thus quality of life, downward so it's worse than it would be without the regulations?

This is not a trivial observation. Economice doesn't care if the economy becomes ****** because of corruption and kleptocracy, hindering freedom of enterprise, or because of well-meaning government regulations and costs, which perform the exact same role in slowing things down.

It's become a mantra, literally, to federal regulators in recent years, that "we don't have to choose" between economics and whatever the regulator wants to regulate.

Results? "Mystification" at the chronic nature of this recession.

Random · 1st August 2012, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Actually, the sheer cumulative weight of massive regulations is mathematically, perfectly, the oposite of meaningless.

Let us assume for the sake of argument those 4000+ regulations, every one, are useful. So? What good are they is they drag the economy, and thus quality of life, downward so it's worse than it would be without the regulations?

This is not a trivial observation. Economice doesn't care if the economy becomes ****** because of corruption and kleptocracy, hindering freedom of enterprise, or because of well-meaning government regulations and costs, which perform the exact same role in slowing things down.

It's become a mantra, literally, to federal regulators in recent years, that "we don't have to choose" between economics and whatever the regulator wants to regulate.

Results? "Mystification" at the chronic nature of this recession.

Oh piffle. If you think a regulation is bad, name it, explain why it is bad, and why we should get rid of it. If it is silly enough, I might even agree with you. But arguing about the number of regulations and saying that that is what is causing the recession is silly.

We had plenty of regulations under Clinton and the economy did better. We had a strong push for deregulation under Bush, and we got the housing crisis.

JoeTheJuggler · 1st August 2012, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Random

Oh piffle. If you think a regulation is bad, name it, explain why it is bad, and why we should get rid of it. If it is silly enough, I might even agree with you. But arguing about the number of regulations and saying that that is what is causing the recession is silly.

Exactly. That's the same failed argument as opposing the ACA because of how many pages it is. I hope we don't evaluate laws by how many pages they are or regulations by how numerous they are.

And this graphic doesn't even represent the information Beerina is arguing. It actually doesn't communicate any information at all.

By the way, do we only count the number of regulations that specifically affect small businesses, or do we count things like the number of speed limits they have to abide by when driving? There's a LOT of them, and the more you drive, the more you're subject to these regulations.

geni · 1st August 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Actually, the sheer cumulative weight of massive regulations is mathematically, perfectly, the oposite of meaningless.

So you fail at maths as well. Your problem is that you are failing to consider the impact of individual regulations. 3000 regulations that only impact the four companies that deal with radioactive mercury are less significant than 1 regulation that impacts everyone.

JoeTheJuggler · 1st August 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by geni

So you fail at maths as well. Your problem is that you are failing to consider the impact of individual regulations. 3000 regulations that only impact the four companies that deal with radioactive mercury are less significant than 1 regulation that impacts everyone.

Just as I said. We've simply got to put an end to those damn speed limits! They're stifling entrepreneurship!!!

27th July 2012, 05:25 AM	#1
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 10,037	"Red Tape vs. Small Business" Some Republicans have come out with this chart detailing all the job killing red tape that is out there. It is very annoying. Basically the bold red lines are just Washington D.C.-->Congress/Executive Branch/Courts-->Government Agency. Remove the clutter and you see a few government agencies and policy groups: IRS, Environmental Law, Privacy Law, Federal Trade Commission, Labor Law, Finance Law, and Obamacare. So what are they proposing to cut? Can't be all the things pictured.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

27th July 2012, 08:35 AM	#4
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by The Don Remove all regulation, let the market decide Why is this always the response? Well, if no regulations is bad, then a 6 trillion ton, bon bon-eating pig on your back is warranted. Is that really what passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the left?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

27th July 2012, 09:22 AM	#5
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,611	Originally Posted by Beerina Why is this always the response? Well, if no regulations is bad, then a 6 trillion ton, bon bon-eating pig on your back is warranted. Is that really what passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the left? You beat me to it, I see. There's a lot of lazy reasoning out there (particularly in Congress) that if regulations are good, then more regulations must be better. Any criticism of the bewildering and often Kafkaesque nature of the alphabet soup of federal agencies means that you must be in favor of child labor and allowing robber barons to poison our drinking water as long as it's profitable.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

27th July 2012, 11:55 AM	#7
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Basically the bold red lines are just Washington D.C.-->Congress/Executive Branch/Courts-->Government Agency. Remove the clutter and you see a few government agencies and policy groups: That was my initial response. What do the lines between "Washington D.C." and the 3 branches signify? For that matter, what do the lines between the branches and the various agencies or regulators signify? (I think they signify a relationship of control or authority, but not actual "red tape"--that is, the regulations themselves.) Just a visually misleading graphic.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

27th July 2012, 11:59 AM	#8
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by daenku32 Based on the GOP graph, that's exactly what they are saying. They have big red lines to things like environmental law. Apparently they don't like environmental law. Since that line will be there as long as we want to ban toxic waste from getting dumped into public waterways. Good point. None of the lines correspond to the extent of "red tape" but only to the existence (at all) of any regulation (or rather regulatory bodies). ETA: And just like the argument against the ACA that it is a bajillion pages long, the sheer volume of anything doesn't say anything about how good or bad it is. In this case, the number of regulatory agencies (and it's unlikely that all agencies will impact every small business) doesn't say anything whatosever about how burdensome the regulations are on the small business. ETA: Is anyone seriously arguing that we should do away with the IRS?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 27th July 2012 at 12:05 PM.

27th July 2012, 06:31 AM	#2
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,578	Remove all regulation, let the market decide

27th July 2012, 06:43 AM	#3
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	OMG I didn't realize there were so many lines going everywhere!!! I mean, look, there is a red line joining privacy law to e-commerce rules, employee - customer identity theft, pre-employment checks and information security. Not to mention ones like labor law and worker's compensation. That's it. I am voting for Romney.

27th July 2012, 09:29 AM	#6
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,987	Originally Posted by ravdin You beat me to it, I see. There's a lot of lazy reasoning out there (particularly in Congress) that if regulations are good, then more regulations must be better. Any criticism of the bewildering and often Kafkaesque nature of the alphabet soup of federal agencies means that you must be in favor of child labor and allowing robber barons to poison our drinking water as long as it's profitable. Based on the GOP graph, that's exactly what they are saying. They have big red lines to things like environmental law. Apparently they don't like environmental law. Since that line will be there as long as we want to ban toxic waste from getting dumped into public waterways.

27th July 2012, 12:07 PM	#9
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,617	It's the nature of bureacracy to self-perpetuate, and I'm sure many businesses would appreciate some paring down or simplifying of existing regulations. I'm sure that some are contradictory, considering the large number of agencies. However, according to all the economic pundits I've listened to over the last couple of years on the various NPR shows I listen to the stifling factor right now is lack of demand. Lack of demand caused by the bad economy. Unemployment, low-wage jobs for many who are underemployed...Uncertainty.... If widgets are not selling you don't hire more widget salesmen.

27th July 2012, 12:42 PM	#10
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,819	The graph isn't very useful. All it does is show that these things exist, but it doesn't show how they effect the marketplace or the typical business.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

27th July 2012, 12:46 PM	#11
The Fallen Serpent Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Not Oregon, Texas Posts: 1,964	Originally Posted by Bikewer It's the nature of bureacracy to self-perpetuate, and I'm sure many businesses would appreciate some paring down or simplifying of existing regulations. I'm sure that some are contradictory, considering the large number of agencies. However, according to all the economic pundits I've listened to over the last couple of years on the various NPR shows I listen to the stifling factor right now is lack of demand. Lack of demand caused by the bad economy. Unemployment, low-wage jobs for many who are underemployed...Uncertainty.... If widgets are not selling you don't hire more widget salesmen. Buy more smart phones and tablets. It would seriously help me out.
	__________________ You don't use science to show that you are right, you use science to become right. - Randall Munroe

27th July 2012, 01:20 PM	#12
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,108	Of course the GOP doesn't argue to get rid of certain unnecessary laws they argue for abolishing the EPA and OSHA altogether.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

27th July 2012, 01:48 PM	#13
jnelso99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 444	Originally Posted by Beerina Why is this always the response? Well, if no regulations is bad, then a 6 trillion ton, bon bon-eating pig on your back is warranted. Is that really what passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the left? It also passes for sentient, sufficient reasoning on the right, with all the "if raising minimum wage is so good, why not just raise it to $50000?" or "if raising taxes is so good, why not just raise them to 100%?" discussions around here...
jnelso99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 444

27th July 2012, 02:35 PM	#14
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,677	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Some Republicans have come out with this chart detailing all the job killing red tape that is out there. It is very annoying. It is just an "argument by bad diagramming" fallacy they're using. A good diagram makes a complex thing look understandable, so if you want to make complex thing look un-understandable just make a bad diagram. Republicans love this sort of thing: here and here are some supposedly showing how unwieldy Obamacare is. The use of such bad charts is a fallacy, because you can make a complex looking diagram of pretty much everything. All processes and all organisations are pretty complex when you try to draw them out. The fact that they managed to put in everything they could think of, and still made it fit onto a single page shows more effectively how simple the whole thing is.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli Last edited by Earthborn; 27th July 2012 at 02:37 PM.

29th July 2012, 09:00 AM	#15
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Travis Of course the GOP doesn't argue to get rid of certain unnecessary laws they argue for abolishing the EPA and OSHA altogether. It's legitimate to suggest, in these cases, that getting rid of them might not be the disasters their proponents claim, and in any case, might be a net benefit. If 90%+ of it needs to go... The ever-increasing stack of regulation is a cumulative death of 1,000 cuts. Actually, the death of 4,450 cuts, up from 3,000 in 1980.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 29th July 2012 at 09:02 AM.

29th July 2012, 09:11 AM	#16
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,790	Originally Posted by Beerina It's legitimate to suggest, in these cases, that getting rid of them might not be the disasters their proponents claim, and in any case, might be a net benefit. If 90%+ of it needs to go... The ever-increasing stack of regulation is a cumulative death of 1,000 cuts. Actually, the death of 4,450 cuts, up from 3,000 in 1980. As the highlighted isn't true, it doesn't apply now does it?
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

29th July 2012, 09:36 AM	#17
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by tyr_13 As the highlighted isn't true, it doesn't apply now does it? Hence the debate.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

29th July 2012, 10:02 AM	#18
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,643	Originally Posted by Beerina Hence the debate. I see sloganeering no actual debate. Remeber the raw number of regulations are pretty meaningless. For example do you know what an R/S number is? No? Well that means there is already a heck of a lot of red tape that doesn't apply to you.

29th July 2012, 10:15 AM	#19
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,923	I suppose if ones small business was a construction mining airline catering nursing home utility farm that might be a useful graph. Other than taxes and employment laws the federal government doesn't affect my business at all. The local government does.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,923	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

30th July 2012, 07:32 AM	#20
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by geni I see sloganeering no actual debate. Remeber the raw number of regulations are pretty meaningless. For example do you know what an R/S number is? No? Well that means there is already a heck of a lot of red tape that doesn't apply to you. Good god.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

30th July 2012, 07:57 AM	#21
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,819	Originally Posted by Beerina It's legitimate to suggest, in these cases, that getting rid of them might not be the disasters their proponents claim, and in any case, might be a net benefit. If 90%+ of it needs to go... The ever-increasing stack of regulation is a cumulative death of 1,000 cuts. Actually, the death of 4,450 cuts, up from 3,000 in 1980. And which party was in the White House for the majority of the 32 years since 1980?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

30th July 2012, 12:41 PM	#22
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by Biscuit I suppose if ones small business was a construction mining airline catering nursing home utility farm that might be a useful graph. And not even then. The graph does nothing to communicate what it means to: how onerous, unnecessary or unfair some federal regs are. ETA: Some of the nodes and many of the lines are completely nonsensical. For example, there's a line from Congress to Antitrust to Obamacare. What is that supposed to mean?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 30th July 2012 at 12:43 PM.

30th July 2012, 04:25 PM	#23
Magyar Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 1,564	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler And not even then. The graph does nothing to communicate what it means to: how onerous, unnecessary or unfair some federal regs are. ETA: Some of the nodes and many of the lines are completely nonsensical. For example, there's a line from Congress to Antitrust to Obamacare. What is that supposed to mean? All regulation is evil. IF it was created by the govt to protect anyone other than the wealthy business owner who through no other means than his own sweat and blood creates everything that is good and pure and profitable it needs to be banned. Who needs clean water, air. Who doesn't like rivers on fire - Hell Providence RI makes a holiday out of it.
	__________________ "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Due to recent cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

30th July 2012, 04:57 PM	#24
Wangler Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: OH State Posts: 2,230	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler ETA: Some of the nodes and many of the lines are completely nonsensical. For example, there's a line from Congress to Antitrust to Obamacare. What is that supposed to mean? It means that the folks who made this chart were a bunch of num-nuts. It is a pretty pointless graphic.

31st July 2012, 03:59 PM	#25
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,643	Originally Posted by Beerina Good god. Not really. Those are the inernational standards for toxic chemicals. And yeah the paperwork probably would kill a small business in some cases but then if you've seen how they tend to handle chemical waste then you will see why you don't want anything smaller than a university dealing with say phosgene (and even thats only because Phd students are, in the final analysis, expendable). In other cases its simply due to the number of people trying to cheat the system. Simplify the tax system for small businesses too much and Goldman Sachs will respond by starting half a million small businesses and getting a negative tax bill greater than the total US GDP.

1st August 2012, 03:48 AM	#26
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by geni I see sloganeering no actual debate. Remeber the raw number of regulations are pretty meaningless. For example do you know what an R/S number is? No? Well that means there is already a heck of a lot of red tape that doesn't apply to you. Actually, the sheer cumulative weight of massive regulations is mathematically, perfectly, the oposite of meaningless. Let us assume for the sake of argument those 4000+ regulations, every one, are useful. So? What good are they is they drag the economy, and thus quality of life, downward so it's worse than it would be without the regulations? This is not a trivial observation. Economice doesn't care if the economy becomes ****** because of corruption and kleptocracy, hindering freedom of enterprise, or because of well-meaning government regulations and costs, which perform the exact same role in slowing things down. It's become a mantra, literally, to federal regulators in recent years, that "we don't have to choose" between economics and whatever the regulator wants to regulate. Results? "Mystification" at the chronic nature of this recession.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

1st August 2012, 06:50 AM	#27
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,467	Originally Posted by Beerina Actually, the sheer cumulative weight of massive regulations is mathematically, perfectly, the oposite of meaningless. Let us assume for the sake of argument those 4000+ regulations, every one, are useful. So? What good are they is they drag the economy, and thus quality of life, downward so it's worse than it would be without the regulations? This is not a trivial observation. Economice doesn't care if the economy becomes ****** because of corruption and kleptocracy, hindering freedom of enterprise, or because of well-meaning government regulations and costs, which perform the exact same role in slowing things down. It's become a mantra, literally, to federal regulators in recent years, that "we don't have to choose" between economics and whatever the regulator wants to regulate. Results? "Mystification" at the chronic nature of this recession. Oh piffle. If you think a regulation is bad, name it, explain why it is bad, and why we should get rid of it. If it is silly enough, I might even agree with you. But arguing about the number of regulations and saying that that is what is causing the recession is silly. We had plenty of regulations under Clinton and the economy did better. We had a strong push for deregulation under Bush, and we got the housing crisis.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

1st August 2012, 08:58 AM	#28
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by Random Oh piffle. If you think a regulation is bad, name it, explain why it is bad, and why we should get rid of it. If it is silly enough, I might even agree with you. But arguing about the number of regulations and saying that that is what is causing the recession is silly. Exactly. That's the same failed argument as opposing the ACA because of how many pages it is. I hope we don't evaluate laws by how many pages they are or regulations by how numerous they are. And this graphic doesn't even represent the information Beerina is arguing. It actually doesn't communicate any information at all. By the way, do we only count the number of regulations that specifically affect small businesses, or do we count things like the number of speed limits they have to abide by when driving? There's a LOT of them, and the more you drive, the more you're subject to these regulations.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

1st August 2012, 09:47 AM	#29
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,643	Originally Posted by Beerina Actually, the sheer cumulative weight of massive regulations is mathematically, perfectly, the oposite of meaningless. So you fail at maths as well. Your problem is that you are failing to consider the impact of individual regulations. 3000 regulations that only impact the four companies that deal with radioactive mercury are less significant than 1 regulation that impacts everyone.

1st August 2012, 10:17 AM	#30
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by geni So you fail at maths as well. Your problem is that you are failing to consider the impact of individual regulations. 3000 regulations that only impact the four companies that deal with radioactive mercury are less significant than 1 regulation that impacts everyone. Just as I said. We've simply got to put an end to those damn speed limits! They're stifling entrepreneurship!!!
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons