kalm wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 7:36 am
Winterborn wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 7:03 am
I can get behind the argument (from a small business side) they both suck. From a large business, regulatory standpoint, the current D's are much worse. The current EPA has proposed rule making that would effectively shutter half of our coal and gas fired power plants. Going to be hard to charge all those electric cars that we are supposed to buy, no?
I have no problem with some of what the EPA has done in the past, I think they were needed, but the current crop is justifying their paychecks and has gone beyond correcting a wrong to actively hindering the U.S. economy. The EPA has its place, but it needs guidelines and to stay in those guidelines. Your ignorance on what the EPA and other agencies actually do, is limiting your understanding of the topic (you’re not unique here, most of America doesn’t realize the impact on their day to day lives these agencies have). There is a massive difference in having blank permission to build a product while meeting certain regulatory rules and having to ask permission to even get started due so much regulatory oversight (we are very close to having to do this under the current rulemaking proposals). You complain about cost and corruption (validly) but yet ignore the cost the government adds to every single product by having onerous regulations who’s cost just gets passed on to the consumer and thereby reducing their spending power. Back to my reason.com article, who do you think is going to pay for those 220 million extra hours of regulatory paperwork that Biden added in two years? Those rich, evil corporations (your words) or the people who buy their products? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
And not all business are dishonest, the vast majority are not and do their best for their consumers and the environment they operate in. I work in the regulatory side of things with multiple Fortune 500 companies and your push of everybody is corrupt gets to be tiresome to read to be frank. I also take it that you never did read the WSJ article I put on here about the true cost of socialized medicine. I have Canadian relatives and guess where they come for anything serious? I will give you a hint, it isn’t their system.
Thom Hartmann is an idiot and his message is straight up your ally of a gluten free version of socialism lite (and yes I read the entire article just to see how far he goes down his particular gospel. I got a good chuckle out of it). I try to ignore the R’s and D’s beside people’s names and look at what they did from a does this increase people’s freedom or decrease it. I don’t agree with everything past presidents did on both sides nor do I disagree with what they did, true freedom doesn’t care about political party.
One should be careful of what they wish for, because they just might get it.
Well to be frank, I never everybody is too corrupt. I said too many companies are corrupt. Or put another way, there’s enough corporate malfeasance that the regulatory state continues to grow by necessity.
I don’t expect you to like Hartmann. I posted his facts as a counter to Reason (which, like Hartmann gets some things wrong and some right, and also has an axe to grind). One thing I appreciate has been Hartmann’s willingness to have libertarians including some writers from Reason on for debates many times through the years. They are typically engaging but respectful discussions.
I choose to not dismiss either out of hand. Reason’s ideas challenge my thinking…something I rather appreciate.
I can work with your correction but disagree on the need for the regulatory state to grow. I see just as much corruption in that as the companies they are supposedly to have oversight on (Banking is the most recent example and the EPA has been caught taking multiple shortcuts, which are against their charter, in the recent years). Who is going to watch the watchers then? Corruption doesn't just take a day off because it runs across a bureaucrat. As a small business owner (or former owner) you can appreciate efficiency I hope. When there is no to limited oversight (as in the EPA, CARB, etc) what is to keep them from acting in their own self interests? (which is very business like, IMHO)
I am not arguing for elimination of oversight, I am advocating for more efficient oversight, oversight that is accountable, and oversight that fits the particular case, not more growth. There is current work I am doing on where the proposed regulations are so low, that they are beyond the means to measure (i.e. there is NO instrument that exists to measure those values in a repeatable manner) and companies are supposed to comply with that. How? And the consequences of none-compliance can be millions of dollars a day depending on the product. That is to say nothing of their proposed rulemaking was based on a study in a different area that was applied to a completely different use case. The authority for this came under the Obama reign.
His "facts" (and I use the term very, very loosely) are confined to particular activity (i.e. Eisenhower started x) but why I called him an idiot and said that you two are peas in a pod (
) is because of his "analysis". Outside of the facts above, the rest is his opinion and poorly reasoned opinion at that, IMHO. Like you noted, Hartmann has an axe to grid, just like your posts and mine, my axe is to look at the past and see what it has gotten us, something Harmann and yourself like to pick and choose over to fit your agenda. I take a more holistic approach.
Biden will wind up costing us Billions more if we are lucky. Unlucky, well let me ask you this. How well do you like your AC system? Or stain resistant carpet? UV resistant plastics or other materials? Like your plastic tooth brush or bristles? IV lines? etc.
Now some (all of the above I listed but others will not) will get exemptions but that goes to my point in the previous post. We are going from a state of have permission to asking for permission due to chemicals that should have never been regulated in this manner. For reference, in my example, 3/4 of the U.S. economy runs on derivations of these chemicals of which some have been used for over 50 years and have a good provenance.
BTW: I am in fact calling your particular political philosophy idiotic in the nicest most well meaning way with a smile. Not saying you do not have good points (you have many), just that your proposed implementation is doomed to failure.
