Regulation - Too Much or Too Little?

[cradleandshoot]

You guys should move to Virginia. The power company comes through our neighborhood every year and practically shreds all the trees around the power lines.

It's fun reading Nextdoor. Both the hippie-dippie types and the right-wingers who live next to the line get upset about how much gets cuts back in their yards and on the right-of-ways.

Actually our power company last year hired sub contractors to cut back branches in back yards that could take down power lines. They really hacked up our wimp willow tree that had grown all around the power lines. The thing is they need the homeowners permission to do the work. I was happy they were pro active enough to do what they could do. My next door neighbor has 4 big oak trees that still have branches that could take out power lines. She would not let them come in to her yard and trim the branches. It might have had something to do with the pot plants back there. That would be speculation on my part.

You earlier stated no proactive measures were taken and now your dissatisfied with proactive measures taken.

I’ve been in Buffalo eight years now. National Grid has a proactive trimming of trees by power lines about every four years. During this time I’ve only had a couple very brief power outages, never due to down power lines. I have no complaints. Have to add that I love having hydro-power. Niagara Falls (slowly I turn).

Last summer, 2020 was the first time that these pro active measures were taken. The crews can only enter the yards when the owners give them permission. I'm not dissatisfied with the pro active measures taken. My only issue is nobody initiated these pro active measures a long time ago. You are lucky the National Grid is way more on top of this issue than Rochester Gas and Electric.

[CU88]

Biden acts to reverse excessive regulation by 2 x IMPOTUS o d on federal building design.


https://www.archpaper.com/2021/02/biden ... ive-order/

[Brooklyn]

Any forum right wing delusionals still under the illusion that deregulation is a good idea or that the so called free market works miracles?

[Farfromgeneva]

You guys should move to Virginia. The power company comes through our neighborhood every year and practically shreds all the trees around the power lines.

It's fun reading Nextdoor. Both the hippie-dippie types and the right-wingers who live next to the line get upset about how much gets cuts back in their yards and on the right-of-ways.

Actually our power company last year hired sub contractors to cut back branches in back yards that could take down power lines. They really hacked up our wimp willow tree that had grown all around the power lines. The thing is they need the homeowners permission to do the work. I was happy they were pro active enough to do what they could do. My next door neighbor has 4 big oak trees that still have branches that could take out power lines. She would not let them come in to her yard and trim the branches. It might have had something to do with the pot plants back there. That would be speculation on my part.

You earlier stated no proactive measures were taken and now your dissatisfied with proactive measures taken.

I’ve been in Buffalo eight years now. National Grid has a proactive trimming of trees by power lines about every four years. During this time I’ve only had a couple very brief power outages, never due to down power lines. I have no complaints. Have to add that I love having hydro-power. Niagara Falls (slowly I turn).

Last summer, 2020 was the first time that these pro active measures were taken. The crews can only enter the yards when the owners give them permission. I'm not dissatisfied with the pro active measures taken. My only issue is nobody initiated these pro active measures a long time ago. You are lucky the National Grid is way more on top of this issue than Rochester Gas and Electric.

Try living in a city cut out of a forest! (Atlanta). Every tree on our block is 100yrs old except the ones replaced when a few died. Small city street and every time a tree has to come down they have to close the block and cut it in like ten sections. Kids on The block will play on 4-6ft wide, 3-5ft tall chunks they’ll leave on the street for a day or two.

[Farfromgeneva]

Any forum right wing delusionals still under the illusion that deregulation is a good idea or that the so called free market works miracles?

So I don’t see myself as delusional on this topic but let me suggest a different perspective.

It’s not that free market “works miracles” but rather than it’s a more organic and less intrusive way to allow things to shake out. More purely benefits meritocracy and Doesn’t carry the baggage that every decision that shifts resources (=power) from one cohort to another. All those decisions implicitly and often explicitly benefit one group to the detriment of another.

If you considered this perspective at all, would you still think all people who want a lighter touch from govt are idiots or a holes?

[Brooklyn]

Any forum right wing delusionals still under the illusion that deregulation is a good idea or that the so called free market works miracles?

So I don’t see myself as delusional on this topic but let me suggest a different perspective.

It’s not that free market “works miracles” but rather than it’s a more organic and less intrusive way to allow things to shake out. More purely benefits meritocracy and Doesn’t carry the baggage that every decision that shifts resources (=power) from one cohort to another. All those decisions implicitly and often explicitly benefit one group to the detriment of another.

If you considered this perspective at all, would you still think all people who want a lighter touch from govt are idiots or a holes?

Reagan said government needs to get off your back because it is not the solution to a problem but is always the cause. Somehow he did not feel that way when he disarmed the Black Panthers in California nor did he feel that way when he ordered PATCO employees to be fired.

The idea that certain pharmaceuticals should be tested and perfected through market sales results in the proliferation of quack medicine such as this gem of a schit box:




Children were given this garbage and died because the pharmaceutical industry was not regulated in that era. I could give you thousands of examples where people were harmed or defrauded because of the lack of regulation of this and other industries. Whether anyone wants to believe the delusional theory of market miracle working or not, logic, common sense, and the human experience clearly and unequivocally proves that regulation which entails proper testing, research, time, trials, and historical experience are the only way to create medicines and other products that are utilitarian. Don't know about anyone else but to me, mere theories, ideology, mysticism, and other imaginings do not work. Only practical, realistic, and proven methods do.

The example of medical quackery, the illusion of Reaganomics trickle down capitalism, and the utterly pathetic example of Texass politics all prove it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Seems to me that regulation is neither inherently good or bad, but rather a question of whether it is warranted, whether it is effective and efficient in achieving it's objectives, and whether it's the best approach to achieve those results fairly.

Market forces can be superior to regulation, and indeed regulation can unnecessarily burden market dynamics or cause inefficiencies that don't deliver sufficient benefit to justify the intrusion.

However, demagoguing "regulation" or "government" as inherently to be minimized can conversely result in really dumb and bad outcomes ranging from the snake oil to the fiasco in Texas this winter.

So, what's reasonable, what's effective and efficient, for each situation should be driving these choices not some blanket ideological perspective.

[holmes435]

Regulations are written in blood and in lawsuit settlements.

In the history of earth's businesses, we're running about 99.99% too unregulated and 0.01% too regulated. From history classes and personal experience, so take that with a grain of salt. But not without your physician's approval and health monitoring, please*.

* These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This post is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

[Farfromgeneva]

Any forum right wing delusionals still under the illusion that deregulation is a good idea or that the so called free market works miracles?

So I don’t see myself as delusional on this topic but let me suggest a different perspective.

It’s not that free market “works miracles” but rather than it’s a more organic and less intrusive way to allow things to shake out. More purely benefits meritocracy and Doesn’t carry the baggage that every decision that shifts resources (=power) from one cohort to another. All those decisions implicitly and often explicitly benefit one group to the detriment of another.

If you considered this perspective at all, would you still think all people who want a lighter touch from govt are idiots or a holes?

Reagan said government needs to get off your back because it is not the solution to a problem but is always the cause. Somehow he did not feel that way when he disarmed the Black Panthers in California nor did he feel that way when he ordered PATCO employees to be fired.

The idea that certain pharmaceuticals should be tested and perfected through market sales results in the proliferation of quack medicine such as this gem of a schit box:




Children were given this garbage and died because the pharmaceutical industry was not regulated in that era. I could give you thousands of examples where people were harmed or defrauded because of the lack of regulation of this and other industries. Whether anyone wants to believe the delusional theory of market miracle working or not, logic, common sense, and the human experience clearly and unequivocally proves that regulation which entails proper testing, research, time, trials, and historical experience are the only way to create medicines and other products that are utilitarian. Don't know about anyone else but to me, mere theories, ideology, mysticism, and other imaginings do not work. Only practical, realistic, and proven methods do.

The example of medical quackery, the illusion of Reaganomics trickle down capitalism, and the utterly pathetic example of Texass politics all prove it.

So cost benefit analysis makes no difference to you? The negative impact of any regulation on a group of people is ok as long as it isn’t you? Do you not accept that any touch of government inherently advantages one group over another? For me sometimes that’s ok but it should always be transparent all cards on the table which no politician does, only sells the upside.

You’re response doesn’t really address my question though or even attempt to understand what I was saying. In at place did I say fee for all? Did I say no regulation or lighter touch? You appear to have responded reflexively without actually considering what I hoped you would address. Or you want to use regulation as a weapon to benefit your agenda and that is what you are saying with this response.

[Farfromgeneva]

Seems to me that regulation is neither inherently good or bad, but rather a question of whether it is warranted, whether it is effective and efficient in achieving it's objectives, and whether it's the best approach to achieve those results fairly.

Market forces can be superior to regulation, and indeed regulation can unnecessarily burden market dynamics or cause inefficiencies that don't deliver sufficient benefit to justify the intrusion.

However, demagoguing "regulation" or "government" as inherently to be minimized can conversely result in really dumb and bad outcomes ranging from the snake oil to the fiasco in Texas this winter.

So, what's reasonable, what's effective and efficient, for each situation should be driving these choices not some blanket ideological perspective.

I wasn’t demagoguing regulation. It’s a literal fact that it will advantage one group over another. Sometimes that’s ok. I didn’t say it’s never appropriate. But the dishonesty is that it’s never addressed. I can come up with a million unintended consequences of regulation from Ethanol mandate to subsidized college loans to GSEs that have directly caused $8/bushel corn, $250k mediocre college educations and home inflation thats stripped all of the savings function out of home ownership that folks older than myself enjoyed for 40yrs.

But to deny that any action shifts the balance in a direction is a lie. It should be openly discussed and evaluated on all its merits and costs.

[Farfromgeneva]

Regulations are written in blood and in lawsuit settlements.

In the history of earth's businesses, we're running about 99.99% too unregulated and 0.01% too regulated. From history classes and personal experience, so take that with a grain of salt. But not without your physician's approval and health monitoring, please*.

* These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This post is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

I’m still a big fan of (Frederick) Hayekian economic thought.

[MDlaxfan76]

Seems to me that regulation is neither inherently good or bad, but rather a question of whether it is warranted, whether it is effective and efficient in achieving it's objectives, and whether it's the best approach to achieve those results fairly.

Market forces can be superior to regulation, and indeed regulation can unnecessarily burden market dynamics or cause inefficiencies that don't deliver sufficient benefit to justify the intrusion.

However, demagoguing "regulation" or "government" as inherently to be minimized can conversely result in really dumb and bad outcomes ranging from the snake oil to the fiasco in Texas this winter.

So, what's reasonable, what's effective and efficient, for each situation should be driving these choices not some blanket ideological perspective.

I wasn’t demagoguing regulation. It’s a literal fact that it will advantage one group over another. Sometimes that’s ok. I didn’t say it’s never appropriate. But the dishonesty is that it’s never addressed. I can come up with a million unintended consequences of regulation from Ethanol mandate to subsidized college loans to GSEs that have directly caused $8/bushel corn, $250k mediocre college educations and home inflation thats stripped all of the savings function out of home ownership that folks older than myself enjoyed for 40yrs.

But to deny that any action shifts the balance in a direction is a lie. It should be openly discussed and evaluated on all its merits and costs.

Absolutely.
I didn't take any of what you were saying as demagoguery...sorry if there was any such impression.

I was referring to those who do demagogue this issue.

I think I laid out what I think the rationale for evaluation of specific regulation should be...pretty close to your logic, I'd think.

[Farfromgeneva]

Still more responding to Brooklyn I guess. Surprised at his response, didn’t seem to address my post directly unless he didn’t bother to really think about what I wrote.

[Brooklyn]

So cost benefit analysis makes no difference to you? The negative impact of any regulation on a group of people is ok as long as it isn’t you? Do you not accept that any touch of government inherently advantages one group over another? For me sometimes that’s ok but it should always be transparent all cards on the table which no politician does, only sells the upside.

You’re response doesn’t really address my question though or even attempt to understand what I was saying. In at place did I say fee for all? Did I say no regulation or lighter touch? You appear to have responded reflexively without actually considering what I hoped you would address. Or you want to use regulation as a weapon to benefit your agenda and that is what you are saying with this response.

You and other delusionals of the right wing persuasion need to understand this is not a one size fits all universe. That mere theories do make a world make. That just because you invent an idea or subscribe to one invented have a millennium ago in someone's imagination somehow is truth because you say so or believe in it.

Cost benefit? We have discussed this before on LP which you right wingers conveniently ignore again and again.

You sell an untested medicine, children and elders die because they used it and it fails, their families sue you into bankruptcy or they go on welfare while some other profit making company closes its accounts after selling similar junk, and now every taxpayer has to finance the medical costs while enduring the loss of productivity because people have died or became sick ~ all this needs to be factored in the cost benefit analysis.

Again, the matter of tobacco use - for years science taught that this was dangerous. Others denied that it was harmful. Thousands died, others got sick. People go welfare because of disability. Capitalists profit, the taxpayers have to pay for all those medical costs. Automobiles - companies sell defective cars, people get injured or die from accidents. Then, welfare costs go up while the auto companies profit. We pay, they profit.

Society also loses the productivity these victims gave it.

Had these defective foods, medicines, autos, etc been subjected to proper regulation and proven to be effective and safe before they were marketed, society would have been spared the high cost of welfare which covered hospitalization, the loss of productivity, as well as providing the indemnification given to those victims. Instead of society paying for all that, let the capitalists pay for research and testing. Let them prove the products has utilitarian value and are safe, then allow it to be marketed. This way we don't lose grandmas and grandpas or little children while saving ourselves ship loads of tax dollars. We should NOT have to pay in terms of dead people or higher taxes so that capitalists and their defenders can harvest billions in tax free profits and shelter those sums in untaxed overseas accounts.

Regulation of this type does not constitute a weapon to punish anyone. Instead it is used as a preventive. One design to prevent people from needlessly getting sick or dying so that capitalists can laugh all the way to the bank while everyone else is burying grandma and paying taxes to finance the welfare costs some families need.

Let's see you address these truths rather than jump off into some tin hat theory that is more fitting for fairy tales such as those written by Ayn Rand and Madison Grant.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok I’m a delusional. So clearly I can’t have a discourse with you. Cool. Thanks for the diatribe. I was trying to have a reasonable interaction but it just proves a point. Thanks for your uncivil input. I’ll move on now. I guess you shouldn’t bother ever responding to me again since I’m delusional. It would be a waste of your precious time.

Same bad faith folks like OS utilize...also pathetic to think we can protect all people all of the time in any utopian society. Just fantasy and more projection on these boards.

[Brooklyn]

Thanks for proving my point. He just will not address the issues I raise by refusing to address the subject of regulation as a PREVENTIVE.

Right wingers know that it is regulation that keeps dangerous products out of garages, tables, and medicine cabinets. That because of government imposed regulations, we have safer cars, more nutritive foods, and effective medicines. That it often takes years of research and study that allows us to have these safer more utilitarian products. As always, the capitalists and their apologists don't want that. Instead, they want to sell worthless products that are unsafe but which gives them billions in profits while they shelter those profits in tax free accounts. Then, while we pay the high costs of social welfare and indemnification for their victims, they cry about not making enough profits while pretending that regulation defeats society's interests.

[Farfromgeneva]

Thanks for proving my point. He just will not address the issues I raise by refusing to address the subject of regulation as a PREVENTIVE.

Right wingers know that it is regulation that keeps dangerous products out of garages, tables, and medicine cabinets. That because of government imposed regulations, we have safer cars, more nutritive foods, and effective medicines. That it often takes years of research and study that allows us to have these safer more utilitarian products. As always, the capitalists and their apologists don't want that. Instead, they want to sell worthless products that are unsafe but which gives them billions in profits while they shelter those profits in tax free accounts. Then, while we pay the high costs of social welfare and indemnification for their victims, they cry about not making enough profits while pretending that regulation defeats society's interests.

Why are you responding? I’m delusional remember. Who’s the name caller here recall? I have never quoted Rand in my life she’s a joke. I’ve always argued that we have to price for all negative externalities and you go off like a woman on her period name calling and accusing me of things I never have said or represented in my life when I simply wanted to have a basic dialogue. Look who’s behaving how here.

Also why would I give you a courtesy you didn’t provide me in answering my questions thoughtfully and actually paying attention to what I wrote instead calling me names? Then go on to claim I won’t answer your questions. That’s selfish and a jerkoff. I never got an honorable thoughtful response from you so eat a d**k and go f**K yourself.

No worries,I’ll just throw you in the useless “advocate” bucket of people that don’t want to have discourse but just name call and shout at people. You seem to like that way of life so enjoy.

It’s not only the Pete Browns who makes this group of threads a joke..

[Brooklyn]

Stop crying and start addressing the issue if you want any credibility.

Your capitalists pollute the rivers, they should have to pay for the cleanup. Taxpayers should not have to pay so much as one cent. Adequate regulation would insure that. Naturally, those who want deregulation don't on the grounds that it costs too much. Yeah, it may cost them too much but it sure as hell would save society multiples of billions every year.

[Farfromgeneva]

Stop crying and start addressing the issue if you want any credibility.

Your capitalists pollute the rivers, they should have to pay for the cleanup. Taxpayers should not have to pay so much as one cent. Adequate regulation would insure that. Naturally, those who want deregulation don't on the grounds that it costs too much. Yeah, it may cost them too much but it sure as hell would save society multiples of billions every year.

I just did b**ch. pay for negative external it owns you moron. Those were my words little child. You don’t read you just respond. Answer my question first piece of s**t

[Brooklyn]

Thank you for proving my point, again.