I'm a free market capitalist and I realize that (1) what's good for markets isn't always good for the people who make up society and (2) markets are never perfect, regardless of assumptions we make all the time in economics. There's absolutely no way we could rely solely on markets and industry to actually have a functioning society and associated economy. Is that what you're saying in this post?

IowaAg07 said:

---

I'm a free market capitalist and I realize that (1) what's good for markets isn't always good for the people who make up society and (2) markets are never perfect, regardless of assumptions we make all the time in economics. There's absolutely no way we could rely solely on markets and industry to actually have a functioning society and associated economy. Is that what you're saying in this post?

---

Extremely silly and trollish post, sir. Re-read mine, more slowly this time, and you'll see that isn't at all what I'm saying.

The poster indicated that bureaucracy and regulations "enable our economy". I said he has it backwards. The capitalist framework is what enables the economy - the rule of law and libertarian principles moderate it. Then, tactically, regulators/regulations are an enforcement mechanism, and in no way whatsoever "enable" our economy, comrade. It all works together, but without the proper free enterprise framework, you end up with autocratic socialism of one type or another.

I bleed maroon said:

---

IowaAg07 said:

---

I'm a free market capitalist and I realize that (1) what's good for markets isn't always good for the people who make up society and (2) markets are never perfect, regardless of assumptions we make all the time in economics. There's absolutely no way we could rely solely on markets and industry to actually have a functioning society and associated economy. Is that what you're saying in this post?

---

Extremely silly and trollish post, sir. Re-read mine, more slowly this time, and you'll see that isn't at all what I'm saying.

The poster indicated that bureaucracy and regulations "enable our economy". I said he has it backwards. The capitalist framework is what enables the economy - the rule of law and libertarian principles moderate it. Then, tactically, regulators/regulations are an enforcement mechanism, and in no way whatsoever "enable" our economy, comrade. It all works together, but without the proper free enterprise framework, you end up with autocratic socialism of one type or another.

---

Already mentioned it but inevitably as with all organizations Parkinson's Law takes effect and they essentially take on a life of their own that will metastasize until an outside force stops it - a cancer, if you will. I'm, of course, referring to federal government agencies and all of the cottage orgs and industries around them.

So, we can start out with reasonable checks and balances where you have some level of regulatory oversight of the capitalist framework so that you don't just have flat out 100% cutthroat Capitalism, but inevitably the regulatory side of this (the government) scope creeps beyond anything that remotely resembles reasonableness. It's a natural outcome of almost any organization especially one that is perpetually funded and self-sustaining like our government.

Our government bureaucracy should at most be a light governor and not an enabler. Anyone who thinks the government should be the enabler of any of this is a leftist and believes in centralized, authoritative control of the economy whether or not they even realize that.

This entire arrangement will always be a constant tug of war back and forth in a capitalistic model depending on who holds the reins in Washington DC. And it's still far superior than the idea of just throwing it all out and starting over with full-blown socialism/communism.

I agree.

IowaAg07 said:

---

I don't know how that was trolling, I literally asked if that's what you meant. You could stand to use a little less snark in your responses.

---

So, I guess you didn't actually read the post after all? You put words in my mouth that I never remotely said. You could stand to use a little less snark in your responses.

IowaAg07 said:

---

I did read it and it sounds like I minimized your points on still needing regulation and maximized your "let me stop you right there" to a post that claims free market capitalism is enabled by regulation. Thanks for clarifying.

If I was somehow snarky to you that was not my intent. I will say I'm not the one calling someone a troll, silly, and comrade on a B&I thread. I feel like these discussions get polluted by F16 rhetoric and go downhill fast, so I'd prefer it if you could drop the name calling.

---

No problem. I accept your apology.

Ironically, we're probably pretty aligned on this issue (and probably on politics, too), but I DO think it's important to note that the tail doesn't wag the dog - - government certainly has a role in the framework to help ensure the economy runs smoothly, and is not THE REASON the economy is enabled to exist. That's just silly.

MAS444 said:

---

This is one of the most refreshing threads I've ever read on Texags.

---

I agree... Even posts I initially disagree with made some interesting points that gave me something to think about

So you don't think the cutting off something like USAid is a good thing? Selling of un-used government buildings what's the alternative do nothing you know congress won't do jack ***** At the very least it shined a light on all the waste of taxpayer money.

Cougar11 said:

---

So you don't think the cutting off something like USAid is a good thing? Selling of un-used government buildings what's the alternative do nothing you know congress won't do jack ***** At the very least it shined a light on all the waste of taxpayer money.

---

I think these are great things and applaud the effort. From financial health standpoint, it's just not enough to move the needle on our current trajectory and trend line.

I'm still trying to understand how someone who is the #4 employee at a startup (me) watching the government annually fail the most basic of financial math formulas (Profit = Revenue - Expenses) leading us to $37T in debt...a debt they refuse to address.....makes me a "corporate dumbthink" person.

Maybe Mr. Milkshake (ironically a fan nickname for a corporate lackey on the most popular show going that lambasts corporate life) has unlocked a solutions or a revelation that the rest of the planet hasn't thought of yet? I'm seriously intrigued...

I think Mao and Pol Pot already tried killing all the experts. The results were sub-optimal.

I bleed maroon said:

---

IowaAg07 said:

---

I did read it and it sounds like I minimized your points on still needing regulation and maximized your "let me stop you right there" to a post that claims free market capitalism is enabled by regulation. Thanks for clarifying.

If I was somehow snarky to you that was not my intent. I will say I'm not the one calling someone a troll, silly, and comrade on a B&I thread. I feel like these discussions get polluted by F16 rhetoric and go downhill fast, so I'd prefer it if you could drop the name calling.

---

No problem. I accept your apology.

Ironically, we're probably pretty aligned on this issue (and probably on politics, too), but I DO think it's important to note that the tail doesn't wag the dog - - government certainly has a role in the framework to help ensure the economy runs smoothly, and is not THE REASON the economy is enabled to exist. That's just silly.

---

Sorry for the 'late to the part response', but I can agree, on some basic level, that yes, regulations do not prevent one party from agreeing with another to buy something. But if we want to move beyond basic subsistence living, we need to have some sort of regulations and framework. Heck, even England figured that out back in the middle ages. The definition of what a gallon, barrel, bushel, etc. was.

But I'd also argue that the government, any gov't, exists for 2 reasons: protection of the citizens and betterment of their lives. I agree that this is a great 'pie in the sky' ideal, but most actions of the state should be viewed in that lens.

But I also think that in our current economy/life, regulations are needed, moreso than what most people think, as there is so much (data, products, offerings, etc.) out there, there is/are bad players (fraud, deception, etc.) everywhere and rules are needed to keep everyone honest.

Also, with advent of the Industrial Revolution, we, as humans, have the ability to do way more damage than when the US was started. In my prior post, I mentioned working and releasing chemicals. That was not possible in the 1700's. Even the worst disasters of old (Triangle Shirtwaist fire, Chicago city fires) , while bad, wouldn't compare to some of the 'current' disasters of today (Rana Plaza, Bhopal as examples).

With these elevated risks, I don't think the general populous (or most people for that matter) understand the risks that are presented to us every day. And since our gov't is there to protect the citizens, the role of minimizing risk is placed at it's feet. A someone who deals with process safety on a daily basis, I see the risks and determine what is 'acceptable' and what isn't. And it gets more fun the second you add money to that equation. It's even more sobering when you start putting values of people to the actions/risks and determine if a certain course of action is worth it or not. (Side note: always fun to plat devil's advocate with companies that claim safety is #1 with them. I always ask/mention "I thought our first priority was making money? If Safety is #1, then tell Wall Street that we missed our earnings, but it's ok, because Safety is #1, not $$". That tends to get a few


(end side note)

But the question I also ask, because I have yet to actually get good examples is:

What regulations are actually 'killing' business? Which ones are ACTUALLY preventing things from happening?

This isn't meant to be snarky, just wanting to know. I read articles about "banks can't handle new rules!" or other stuff like that. I also read "new EPA rules to make oil wells impossible to construct" or some other tripe like that. Mostly because they are, at least what I've seen, etheral; they are making assumptions on a rule or idea that has yet to be implemented. The rules/idea are either just issued, which means they won't be in force for a MINIMUM of 90 day (or more) or will also be tested in courts (2+ years from now). So claiming those will kill jobs/businesses tomorrow is a lie. And the corollary is that they aren't going to save everyone and the puppy dogs tomorrow either.

I offset those with "tarriffs raised on Al/Fe/parts kill project" as real; mostly because that tends to be immediate and impactful (like my current project and us importing nearly 1/3 or so of the materials from China).

The other aspect of regulations/beaucracy is that they are a balancing act between swings of ideas. They are there to moderate stuff. To geek out a bit, they are a dampening force to outside influences. Now, in an ideal world, they will be critically damped, so that too much of a politcal swing in either direction prevents us a country of going too far to one side or another. But, there are too many groups that have pushed things and now we are no longer critically damped; we are either under damped or over damped in various areas. Example: under-damped: crypto; overdamped: navigatable waterways. (end geek out).

Beaucracy is also in place to create trust. In all business, you need trust. And to enforce the laws, you need trust. Flipping/cutting/starting/stopping things on a dime destroys trust and will do more damage than anything else done, IMHO.

I believe that we should have some level of sunsetting on some regulations/actions. Granted, that action should be done from the agency to Congress, but that would mean those going to Congress also understand (or at least can be taught a modicum of intelligence) what that agency does. I also agree that this would be wildly difficult, at times, for some agencies. The 1st and easiest method is to do a P&L or cost benefit to the action. But, much like education spending, it can be hard to realize costs today vs. results 20+ years from now (spending money on Pre-K and getting the students to be highly successful vs. basis successful, etc.) Also, LOTS of basic research done by the gov't has no immediate value to society. "Well, why are we funding it!!?" Because, as a PhD person who does/did that research, what you find out today won't be instanteously determined to be valuable tomorrow. What you look for can lead to wildly different results/answers. And since most companies think long term strategy is 1 year in the future and research can take 5-10 years (or more), it's not on their scope.

IF we want real world examples of what a place that has no regulations, look to India or China. Sure, they have things on the books, but you have to enforce it. And when you cut the beaucracy that is in charge of enforcing the laws, you'll end up looking like those places. And, not to sound too crazy, we've already started our path that way with several Supreme court cases. The biggest is the Chevron Deference ruling. This, coupled with the destruction of science and other regulations, means the US is no longer the place for stability and 'common sense' in the business arena.

I'll leave on a final example: would I invest $200 MM (or whatever, larger than a couple million) in a facility in the US or the EU given the current politcal climate? What if the US changes tarriffs and tomorrow my $200 MM project is now 45% (or more) more on materials? What if my main market is fine, but all the other minor markets get blocked (US being main market at 40%; ROW is 60%. US issues trade embargo to largest ROW market)?

While the EU has it's own host of issues, I know some macro level issues aren't going to change overnight. I have to deal with regulations (and regulations and regulations...), but that can be managed vs what is the current state in the US? (e.g., If I wanted to increase LNG exports, what is the FERC turnaround? Are they even people in FERC who can sign off/issue permits for export?)

TL;DR: Agree that there are some minor nuances to what is the market and how it works, but if we want to continue our high level of living standards, we need regulations in our daily lives.

~egon

Dr. Doctor said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

IowaAg07 said:

---

I did read it and it sounds like I minimized your points on still needing regulation and maximized your "let me stop you right there" to a post that claims free market capitalism is enabled by regulation. Thanks for clarifying.

If I was somehow snarky to you that was not my intent. I will say I'm not the one calling someone a troll, silly, and comrade on a B&I thread. I feel like these discussions get polluted by F16 rhetoric and go downhill fast, so I'd prefer it if you could drop the name calling.

---

No problem. I accept your apology.

Ironically, we're probably pretty aligned on this issue (and probably on politics, too), but I DO think it's important to note that the tail doesn't wag the dog - - government certainly has a role in the framework to help ensure the economy runs smoothly, and is not THE REASON the economy is enabled to exist. That's just silly.

---

Sorry for the 'late to the part response', but I can agree, on some basic level, that yes, regulations do not prevent one party from agreeing with another to buy something. But if we want to move beyond basic subsistence living, we need to have some sort of regulations and framework. Heck, even England figured that out back in the middle ages. The definition of what a gallon, barrel, bushel, etc. was.

But I'd also argue that the government, any gov't, exists for 2 reasons: protection of the citizens and betterment of their lives. I agree that this is a great 'pie in the sky' ideal, but most actions of the state should be viewed in that lens.

But I also think that in our current economy/life, regulations are needed, moreso than what most people think, as there is so much (data, products, offerings, etc.) out there, there is/are bad players (fraud, deception, etc.) everywhere and rules are needed to keep everyone honest.

Also, with advent of the Industrial Revolution, we, as humans, have the ability to do way more damage than when the US was started. In my prior post, I mentioned working and releasing chemicals. That was not possible in the 1700's. Even the worst disasters of old (Triangle Shirtwaist fire, Chicago city fires) , while bad, wouldn't compare to some of the 'current' disasters of today (Rana Plaza, Bhopal as examples).

With these elevated risks, I don't think the general populous (or most people for that matter) understand the risks that are presented to us every day. And since our gov't is there to protect the citizens, the role of minimizing risk is placed at it's feet. A someone who deals with process safety on a daily basis, I see the risks and determine what is 'acceptable' and what isn't. And it gets more fun the second you add money to that equation. It's even more sobering when you start putting values of people to the actions/risks and determine if a certain course of action is worth it or not. (Side note: always fun to plat devil's advocate with companies that claim safety is #1 with them. I always ask/mention "I thought our first priority was making money? If Safety is #1, then tell Wall Street that we missed our earnings, but it's ok, because Safety is #1, not $$". That tends to get a few


(end side note)

But the question I also ask, because I have yet to actually get good examples is:

What regulations are actually 'killing' business? Which ones are ACTUALLY preventing things from happening?

This isn't meant to be snarky, just wanting to know. I read articles about "banks can't handle new rules!" or other stuff like that. I also read "new EPA rules to make oil wells impossible to construct" or some other tripe like that. Mostly because they are, at least what I've seen, etheral; they are making assumptions on a rule or idea that has yet to be implemented. The rules/idea are either just issued, which means they won't be in force for a MINIMUM of 90 day (or more) or will also be tested in courts (2+ years from now). So claiming those will kill jobs/businesses tomorrow is a lie. And the corollary is that they aren't going to save everyone and the puppy dogs tomorrow either.

I offset those with "tarriffs raised on Al/Fe/parts kill project" as real; mostly because that tends to be immediate and impactful (like my current project and us importing nearly 1/3 or so of the materials from China).

The other aspect of regulations/beaucracy is that they are a balancing act between swings of ideas. They are there to moderate stuff. To geek out a bit, they are a dampening force to outside influences. Now, in an ideal world, they will be critically damped, so that too much of a politcal swing in either direction prevents us a country of going too far to one side or another. But, there are too many groups that have pushed things and now we are no longer critically damped; we are either under damped or over damped in various areas. Example: under-damped: crypto; overdamped: navigatable waterways. (end geek out).

Beaucracy is also in place to create trust. In all business, you need trust. And to enforce the laws, you need trust. Flipping/cutting/starting/stopping things on a dime destroys trust and will do more damage than anything else done, IMHO.

I believe that we should have some level of sunsetting on some regulations/actions. Granted, that action should be done from the agency to Congress, but that would mean those going to Congress also understand (or at least can be taught a modicum of intelligence) what that agency does. I also agree that this would be wildly difficult, at times, for some agencies. The 1st and easiest method is to do a P&L or cost benefit to the action. But, much like education spending, it can be hard to realize costs today vs. results 20+ years from now (spending money on Pre-K and getting the students to be highly successful vs. basis successful, etc.) Also, LOTS of basic research done by the gov't has no immediate value to society. "Well, why are we funding it!!?" Because, as a PhD person who does/did that research, what you find out today won't be instanteously determined to be valuable tomorrow. What you look for can lead to wildly different results/answers. And since most companies think long term strategy is 1 year in the future and research can take 5-10 years (or more), it's not on their scope.

IF we want real world examples of what a place that has no regulations, look to India or China. Sure, they have things on the books, but you have to enforce it. And when you cut the beaucracy that is in charge of enforcing the laws, you'll end up looking like those places. And, not to sound too crazy, we've already started our path that way with several Supreme court cases. The biggest is the Chevron Deference ruling. This, coupled with the destruction of science and other regulations, means the US is no longer the place for stability and 'common sense' in the business arena.

I'll leave on a final example: would I invest $200 MM (or whatever, larger than a couple million) in a facility in the US or the EU given the current politcal climate? What if the US changes tarriffs and tomorrow my $200 MM project is now 45% (or more) more on materials? What if my main market is fine, but all the other minor markets get blocked (US being main market at 40%; ROW is 60%. US issues trade embargo to largest ROW market)?

While the EU has it's own host of issues, I know some macro level issues aren't going to change overnight. I have to deal with regulations (and regulations and regulations...), but that can be managed vs what is the current state in the US? (e.g., If I wanted to increase LNG exports, what is the FERC turnaround? Are they even people in FERC who can sign off/issue permits for export?)

TL;DR: Agree that there are some minor nuances to what is the market and how it works, but if we want to continue our high level of living standards, we need regulations in our daily lives.

~egon

---

That was a pretty long-winded response to a question or assertion I didn't make?!?!? I am all for effective regulation, and agree it is a critical art of a functional free-enterprise framework. So I guess we agree? If you were responding to someone else's post ad addressed it to me by mistake, we're all good.