Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business - Page 2

MrFun · November 20, 2003, 01:54

Hey Zylka -- go shove some more cocaine or marajuna down your throat.

Imran Siddiqui · November 20, 2003, 02:13

Zylka 1 - Mr Fun 0

Zylka · November 20, 2003, 02:40

oh why bother

Tingkai · November 20, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Adam Smith might wish Dean had a better understanding of economics, but I question the lack of political sense that brought his thought from brain to mouth.

It could be a good political move if he can package it properly. What's the point of acting like every other Democract and Republican. Dean is creating a distinct brand for himself.

A lot of Americans are pissed off with politicians like Bush who bend over backwards for big business. They're also fed up with Democrats who act like Republicans. Dean is saying we have to serve everyone, not just the rich.

Of course, the question remains whether this segment of the population is big enough to carry Dean to the White House, and how many democrats he will piss off.

DanS · November 20, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Of course, the question remains whether this segment of the population is big enough to carry Dean to the White House

It hasn't been large enough in the past. I don't know what has changed. I assume that Dean has access to those numbers. Or maybe he was pulling it out of his ass at midnight on the campaign plane while talking with the reporters? That can happen sometimes. Campaigns are crazy things.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Reregulation would help your economy, doofi. "Touching anything breaks it" is a silly attitude to take.

Yes, by all means, let's raise telecomms, natural gas, rail freight, electricity (yes, electricity), air travel, and God knows what else back up to the average costs over their last decade prior to deregulaton - that would do wonders for our economy.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 04:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Hey Zylka -- go shove some more cocaine or marajuna down your throat.

Another remark like that, EVER, and your ass will be mine.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 04:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
And ignorant Americans' phobia of reasonable government regulations continues to be of an embarrassment here on Apolyton . . . . .

Actually, it's not "ignorant American's phobia of reasonable government regulations" that's at issue.

Go down to you local law library and read one of the annotated versions of the CFR's. I assume you can read fast, so when you come back next decade, then you can start in on state regulations. And mind you, that doesn't get you to the tens of thousands of ALJ rulings and appeals etc. that are the interpretive body of those regulations. If it froze in place today, you couldn't read the published decisions at that level in your lifetime. Let's not even get into the IRS and private rulings and that whole morass, or statutory law. All of those are nice cottage industries full of $300 an hour lawyers.

It's "ignroant Americans" who want to crawl to the government to fix everything for them. The number of members of Congress (both houses) who are technical experts in anything can be counted on your fingers and toes. Congress doesn't understand what they're regulating, or not, nor do the staffmembers they hire - Congressional staffs aren't that large. It's not "reasonable" regulation people have a problem with - it's layers upon layers of unreasonable regulation, that fails to accomplish it's purportedly intended purposes in the first place.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
It could be a good political move if he can package it properly. What's the point of acting like every other Democract and Republican. Dean is creating a distinct brand for himself.

McGovern ("$1,000 a month welfare check") and Mondale ("Fritz and tits") branded themselves distinctly, too.

Quote:

A lot of Americans are pissed off with politicians like Bush who bend over backwards for big business. They're also fed up with Democrats who act like Republicans. Dean is saying we have to serve everyone, not just the rich.

And Dean's only chance of surviving foibles like this lie in the fact that the people who will suck it up have no knowledge of economic theory or regulatory practice. Those who do, even Democrats, already cringe at the thought of Dean winning the primary and handing George II reelection on a silver platter.

Quote:

Of course, the question remains whether this segment of the population is big enough to carry Dean to the White House, and how many democrats he will piss off.

It's the flakiest and least motivated to vote segment of the electorate, and it hasn't worked in the past.

Jon Miller · November 20, 2003, 04:59

hmm

Dean is looking a little better now

Jon Miller

Tingkai · November 20, 2003, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
It hasn't been large enough in the past. I don't know what has changed. I assume that Dean has access to those numbers.

The votes that went to Nadar hurt the Democrats in 2000, IIRC.

Dean is probably trying to win back these people. The risk is that he might lose democrats on the right, but that's not a big problem right now given Bush's overspending. Of course things can change a lot in a year and it all depends on how both sides package themselves at election time.

JohnT · November 20, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

A lot of Americans are pissed off with politicians like Bush who bend over backwards for big business. They're also fed up with Democrats who act like Republicans. Dean is saying we have to serve everyone, not just the rich.

A bunch of kids who don't vote. Why pander to them?

Sikander · November 20, 2003, 08:52

What cracks me up is that he pretends that he could wave his magic presidential wand and this stuff would just happen. In fact he'd need to start a new party and win overwhelmingly in order to get the time of day from the legislature. So this isn't a policy, it is a phantasy he is selling here.

Adam Smith · November 20, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara So, obviously what we want is smart regulation, not no regulation or over-regulation.

Exactly.

If we were smarter about our regulations we could have much lower occupational injury and illness rates, and a much cleaner environment, for the same cost.

Problem is that most people don't distinguish between regulation of evil businesses adn intelligent regulation where it is needed. For example, Dean concludes from the California experience (botched from the word go) that electric deregulation is a failure. He makes no mention of the experiences in the northeast and mid-atlantic, which have clearly been successful.

People also don't realize how many success stories there have been in deregulation. Looking at airlines, trucking, railroads, banking, and natural gas one recent author found

Quote:

since deregulation each industry has significantly imroved its service quality and reduced its real average prices [ie, adjusted for inflation - AS] by 30 to 75 percent. Clifford Winston, US INdustry Adjustemnt to Economic Deregulation, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 1998, p. 100 Winston works for the Brookings Institution, a think tank long associated with the Democratic Party.

By reregulating industries such as these we risk throwinhg out the baby with the bathwater.

Lastly, some regulations have been just plain stupid. For example, the Federal Power Commissions' price regulation of natural gas in the 1960's and 1970's made clean, relatively inexpensive natural gas unavailable to a whole segment of consumers, forcing them to use relatively dirty and expensive electricity instead. The problem persists to this day.

MrFun · November 20, 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Another remark like that, EVER, and your ass will be mine.

Alrighty then -- no more of that again.

But it was just ***-for-tat, you have to admit.

DanS · November 20, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Dean is probably trying to win back these people. The risk is that he might lose democrats on the right, but that's not a big problem right now given Bush's overspending.

This is a stupid political move because the fantasy strikes the majority of people as wrong. If you're going to create a fantasy, it's much better to create one that the majority can sign on to. No?

monkspider · November 20, 2003, 16:04

Wow, it's stranger than fiction that people would actually *not* want business to be regulated. What a strange, upside-down world we live in.

Caligastia · November 20, 2003, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, it's stranger than fiction that people would actually *not* want business to be regulated. What a strange, upside-down world we live in.

It's not that we don't want business regulated, we just don't want it over-regulated.

chequita guevara · November 20, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
This is a stupid political move because the fantasy strikes the majority of people as wrong.

I think the majority of people don't care. Personally, with the Republican drive to completely derregulate everything but our personal lives, combined with their wanting to do away with tort, I can't imagine why anyone would want to vote Republican. Oh joy, I got poisoned by this chicken but I'm limited in how much I can collect in damages and punitive monies.

Derregulation kills.

MrFun · November 20, 2003, 16:15

Strange that many Republicans want to regulate the private lives of people through morality laws, but those same Republicans cry "bad wolf" when Democrats seek to regulate our economic infrastructure.

DinoDoc · November 20, 2003, 16:15

Do you even read these threads anymore che?

chequita guevara · November 20, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you even read these threads anymore che?

Read?

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

The votes that went to Nadar hurt the Democrats in 2000, IIRC.

The votes that went to Bush hurt a lot more.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, it's stranger than fiction that people would actually *not* want business to be regulated. What a strange, upside-down world we live in.

It is a stranger than fiction world to ignore the massive amount of regulation that currently exists on virtually every commercial transaction and form of commercial activity.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Alrighty then -- no more of that again.

But it was just ***-for-tat, you have to admit.

Damn, now we've got *** censored. Perhaps if you hadn't started with the jibe about "ignorant Americans" and how it was "an embarassment" you wouldn't have gotten jumped on in the first place.

MrFun · November 20, 2003, 16:27

Well I always like to learn my lessons the hard way, I guess.

MichaeltheGreat · November 20, 2003, 16:44

The hard way is my specialty. You're lucky I let you learn the easy way this time.

Japher · November 20, 2003, 16:54

MtG giving it to MrFun, the hard way?

Anyway,

Regulating industries is a commie propoganda, and should be right out. Any of you who have ever said Government Intelligence is an oxymoron, and meant it, should be for Deregulation. Any of you who have ever complained that the free market is not "free" should want deregulation. Any of you who take advantage of a competitive market, meaning if you look for sales or deals, should want deregulation.

Dean is a moron. If he starts reregulating things, prices would go all screwy again, then a Repub will come in and Dereregulate the market and things will go back to sheit. Then, we'll get another Dem in office and she'll redereregulate things, and the word will become as screwed up as our utilities industries!

I see no reason why Dean wants to do this, makes absolutely no sense. Things are finally becoming barable (at least for California after getting screwed for power), his hand in the mess will only make it worse.

chequita guevara · November 20, 2003, 17:00

Jpaher is all for eating tainted meat and having cockroach burgers. Yum yum.

DinoDoc · November 20, 2003, 17:03

Yes and che is for a big brother state in which reams upon reams of government red tape ground the economy to a halt.