Socialist Programs In The U.S.A.

[Cigar]

http://36.media.tumblr.com/8bfafd39dfad0f6fb80cd66b63586d81/tumblr_o096cl8qTh1s11xheo1_500.jpg

[Green Arrow]

None of those are socialist programs.

[Chris]

It's central planning.

[Green Arrow]

It's central planning.

Medicare/Medicaid and SS, but that's about all on that list that qualifies as "central planning."

*EDIT* Well, and student loans.

[Chris]

All federal projects and programs are centrally planned.

[Green Arrow]

All federal projects and programs are centrally planned.

Central planning refers to the allocation of resources and the running of the economy. It's not central planning every time the federal government sneezes.

[Chris]

Central planning refers to the allocation of resources and the running of the economy. It's not central planning every time the federal government sneezes.

Not according to your definition, but according to mine it is. All of these require allocation of resources. Some are run at state level, but that's central planning too--the OP meme is just a lousy meme.

We can argue semantics all day long but the question should be whether any of these do better than society itself performing them. Does, according to a definition I heard the other day, central planning lower transaction and opportunity costs.

[zelmo1234]

Dept of AG Abolish it
Student loans, Privatize it
Cia, Military, Jails, and Prisons, Not Socialism Public service.
Well you get the point.

Just another talking point form the left. to try and make you think that Government is a good thing.

[del]

socialism- i don't like these programs

public service- i like these programs

[Green Arrow]

Not according to your definition, but according to mine it is. All of these require allocation of resources. Some are run at state level, but that's central planning too--the OP meme is just a lousy meme.

We can argue semantics all day long but the question should be whether any of these do better than society itself performing them. Does, according to a definition I heard the other day, central planning lower transaction and opportunity costs.

I don't share your Newspeak idea of language, sorry.

[Chris]

I don't share your Newspeak idea of language, sorry.

Nor I your semantic arguments.

[Green Arrow]

Nor I your semantic arguments.

"Semantics" is one of those words that has been overused. I value language and don't have any desire to make the words we use meaningless by constantly redefining them for no useful purpose. All that does is make things needlessly confusing.

[Chris]

"Semantics" is one of those words that has been overused. I value language and don't have any desire to make the words we use meaningless by constantly redefining them for no useful purpose. All that does is make things needlessly confusing.

Yet your entire argument is over the meaning of words, socialism, central planning, etc when no one is in charge of how words are used, one place there is no central planning.

[Chris]

The Problem of Central Planning (https://mises.org/library/problem-central-planning)


… There is no doubt that there is today general acceptance of the idea that planning may be extended validly from the experience of individuals to the experience of organized groups. That this is true is attested by the appearance of a plethora of five- and ten-year plans on the part of colleges, churches, and business enterprises. All recognize the inevitability of change, but since all realize that change may take place in more than one direction, a strong effort is made to determine the direction of change in the hope that it will constitute progress.

… The relatively uncritical belief in central planning has been shown in a great variety of ways. The British government, for example, recognizing the inevitability of the population and geographical growth of Greater London, now plans and supervises the establishment of new satellite towns a few miles beyond the old population limits. The experience gained from the development of Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City has helped greatly in this new venture.

…Many are beginning to believe that we must try to plot the directions of our national future. President Eisenhower gave significant encouragement to this effort by his appointment of a group of distinguished men who were asked to think carefully on what the future of America ought to be. A leader of this group, Henry M. Wriston, is now the president of the American Assembly, with headquarters at Columbia University. In 1960, as the seventh decade of our century began, Life magazine presented a series of articles on "The National Purpose," with contributions from a variety of thinkers, including Adlai Stevenson, Archibald MacLeish, John Gardner, and Walter Lippmann. Most Americans are determined that they will not permit the wanton destruction of our natural resources or the continuation of depressed economic conditions in particular areas, such as West Virginia.

… The history of central planning, by which we mean that which influences the lives of political groups, seems to be as old as serious human thought. For the Greek thinkers, it was a significant part of political science and one of the chief reasons for the practical importance of that science. Plato, not only in the Republic, but even more elaborately in the Laws, set up possible plans which would affect all the inhabitants of the city-state. That Aristotle went almost as far….

Economic planning is merely one facet of central planning.

[Green Arrow]

Yet your entire argument is over the meaning of words, socialism, central planning, etc when no one is in charge of how words are used, one place there is no central planning.

I find your complaints rather disingenuous, considering you are all about proper meanings when someone wrongly defines libertarianism or anarchism in their criticism.

[Chris]

I find your complaints rather disingenuous, considering you are all about proper meanings when someone wrongly defines libertarianism or anarchism in their criticism.

Complaints, where? You're complaing about people using words in ways you dislike. I'm pointing out you don't control it.

[del]

lol

[Green Arrow]

Complaints, where? You're complaing about people using words in ways you dislike. I'm pointing out you don't control it.

Actually, I was making an argument about what is and is not socialism and what is and is not central planning. You diverted it onto semantics, I was simply arguing the ideology presented.

[Chris]

Actually, I was making an argument about what is and is not socialism and what is and is not central planning. You diverted it onto semantics, I was simply arguing the ideology presented.

You're arguing nothing but your preferred meanings. And this is getting stupid. Done.

[del]

lol.

[Green Arrow]

You're arguing nothing but your preferred meanings. And this is getting stupid. Done.

Now you say something I agree with. Cool.

[Safety]

Cigar strikes again.

[Green Arrow]

@Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) strikes again.

I hate to say I told ya so...:tongue:

[Dr. Who]

Not according to your definition, but according to mine it is. All of these require allocation of resources. Some are run at state level, but that's central planning too--the OP meme is just a lousy meme.

We can argue semantics all day long but the question should be whether any of these do better than society itself performing them. Does, according to a definition I heard the other day, central planning lower transaction and opportunity costs.
It does avoid the aspect of a third world nation or Victorian England.

[Chris]

It does avoid the aspect of a third world nation or Victorian England.

It also tends to keep people in poverty.

[Dr. Who]

It also tends to keep people in poverty.
Not really - real poverty is seen in the third world and what was common in Victorian England. America has relative poverty. If it had real poverty, crime would be really off the charts and you might be at risk of kidnapping every time you left your home. You would have an electrified fence around your property, several German Shepherds and/or Rottweilers along with an arsenal of weapons and cheaply hired security persons guarding the place.

[Chris]

Not really - real poverty is seen in the third world and what was common in Victorian England. America has relative poverty. If it had real poverty, crime would be really off the charts and you might be at risk of kidnapping every time you left your home. You would have an electrified fence around your property, several German Shepherds and/or Rottweilers along with an arsenal of weapons and cheaply hired security persons guarding the place.

And yet, under the free market, despite central planning interference, the rate of poverty is declining, even more so throughout the world faster than here.

[del]

lol

[Green Arrow]

And yet, under the free market, despite central planning interference, the rate of poverty is declining, even more so throughout the world faster than here.

How is that possible, considering the U.S. does not (and has never) operate under a free market?

[Dr. Who]

And yet, under the free market, despite central planning interference, the rate of poverty is declining, even more so throughout the world faster than here.
Really, where?

[texan]

The host of the thread in another inaccurate fly by disappears speechless after called out again.

One time in all my time on here has he actually posted a real thought and I complimented him for it...........I miss that guy.

[del]

Really, where?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mborokua

[donttread]

http://36.media.tumblr.com/8bfafd39dfad0f6fb80cd66b63586d81/tumblr_o096cl8qTh1s11xheo1_500.jpg

Some of those are unconstitutional as well

[Chris]

How is that possible, considering the U.S. does not (and has never) operate under a free market?

The free market is what the oligarchy tries to manage. That trying doesn't negate it. It's not either or.

[Chris]

Really, where?

This has been presented several times. Income Inequality Is Not Rising Globally. It's Falling. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/upshot/income-inequality-is-not-rising-globally-its-falling-.html?_r=0): "Income inequality has surged as a political and economic issue, but the numbers don’t show that inequality is rising from a global perspective. Yes, the problem has become more acute within most individual nations, yet income inequality for the world as a whole </a> has been falling for most of the last 20 years."


Here's comparison of US to sodme other countries:

http://i.snag.gy/gKBTL.jpg

[Chris]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mborokua

No one lives there. Why make things up? Oh, wait, that's del.

[Green Arrow]

The free market is what the oligarchy tries to manage. That trying doesn't negate it. It's not either or.

If I say America is a free country, but all our freedoms are restricted by the U.S. government, then we are not a free country.

[Chris]

If I say America is a free country, but all our freedoms are restricted by the U.S. government, then we are not a free country.

Restricted doesn't mean unprotected completely. Matter of degree.

And remember, rights are inherent in who we are whether they're protected or not.


Here's the thing. Wealth is being generated. It is generated through exchange and trade. It is not generated through regulation or redistribution. Therefore, the free market still works to the extent wealth is being generated.

[del]

No one lives there. Why make things up? Oh, wait, that's del.

^

irony

[Green Arrow]

Restricted doesn't mean unprotected completely. Matter of degree.

And remember, rights are inherent in who we are whether they're protected or not.


Here's the thing. Wealth is being generated. It is generated through exchange and trade. It is not generated through regulation or redistribution. Therefore, the free market still works to the extent wealth is being generated.

How can you attribute that solely to the free market when the free market is regulated by government?

[The Xl]

Cigar strikes again.

Lmao.

[texan]

Strikes is an overstated word for him. Cigar posts without reading again is more appropriate.

[Chris]

How can you attribute that solely to the free market when the free market is regulated by government?

Where does wealth come from? Not the government. Regulation reduces the generation of wealth. How is it generated despite that?

[del]

Where does wealth come from? Not the government. Regulation reduces the generation of wealth. How is it generated despite that?

tell that to the catalytic converter, seat belt and air bag manufacturers, among others.

[Green Arrow]

Where does wealth come from? Not the government. Regulation reduces the generation of wealth. How is it generated despite that?

There's no evidence that regulation reduces the amount of wealth generated. As you yourself stated, despite regulations deemed excessive, wealth is being generated and the gap between rich and poor is closing everywhere except the U.S.

[Dr. Who]

Where does wealth come from? Not the government. Regulation reduces the generation of wealth. How is it generated despite that?
Wait - some regulation (i.e. that favors specific mega corps) increases the generation of wealth for some, though likely at the expense of others. Other regulation prevents unscrupulous business from selling defective and dangerous products, thus ensuring that the cost of safety is not being borne by the consumer after something catastrophic happens. In the same vein, many regulations are there to protect citizens in a variety of segments of society. Consider building codes, road safety regs, employee safety regulations, pollution regulations, labor laws - all of these things ensure that people don't get killed, made ill or abused, thus ensuring that whatever incomes they make is not spent hiring lawyers, litigating, or on medical or funeral bills. A business free for all can have hideous human consequences.

[Chris]

There's no evidence that regulation reduces the amount of wealth generated. As you yourself stated, despite regulations deemed excessive, wealth is being generated and the gap between rich and poor is closing everywhere except the U.S.

Generated by the free market, exchange and trade among individuals.

Regulation hurts the economy. Just take protectionist policies like tariffs: They do not penalize those we import from but those who import, we, American consumers who must pay higher prices, such that our wealth is redirected to redistribution of wealth instead of savings and investment in production of goods and services that, well, generate wealth.

[Dr. Who]

Where does wealth come from? Not the government. Regulation reduces the generation of wealth. How is it generated despite that?
By operating within the scope of the regulations. The regs don't make it impossible to do business, but often just impose a requirement to be a good corporate citizen so as not to operate at the expense and safety of others.

[Chris]

By operating within the scope of the regulations. The regs don't make it impossible to do business, but often just impose a requirement to be a good corporate citizen so as not to operate at the expense and safety of others.

Regulations regulate, limit, restrict.

And they do make it impossible in cases. Consider medallioned cabs vs Uber. Government regulation requires medallions that are prohibitive to entry into the taxi business.

[MisterVeritis]

Wait - some regulation (i.e. that favors specific mega corps) increases the generation of wealth for some, though likely at the expense of others. Other regulation prevents unscrupulous business from selling defective and dangerous products, thus ensuring that the cost of safety is not being borne by the consumer after something catastrophic happens. In the same vein, many regulations are there to protect citizens in a variety of segments of society. Consider building codes, road safety regs, employee safety regulations, pollution regulations, labor laws - all of these things ensure that people don't get killed, made ill or abused, thus ensuring that whatever incomes they make is not spent hiring lawyers, litigating, or on medical or funeral bills. A business free for all can have hideous human consequences.
Most regulations punish some for the benefit of others. Politics. It is the root of a great amount of evil.

[MisterVeritis]

By operating within the scope of the regulations. The regs don't make it impossible to do business, but often just impose a requirement to be a good corporate citizen so as not to operate at the expense and safety of others.
If this was true we would not have many hundreds of thousands of regulations. We would have just a few.

[Dr. Who]

Regulations regulate, limit, restrict.

And they do make it impossible in cases. Consider medallioned cabs vs Uber. Government regulation requires medallions that are prohibitive to entry into the taxi business.

Regulations like anything need to keep pace with technology. The medallion or licensing system for taxis was created to regulate the cab industry and avoid the crazy free for all where there was no standard for fares or service, nor any accountability and to ensure that the number of cab drivers was limited to a number that met the needs of the population, but not so many that the drivers would consider driving to the point of utter exhaustion in order to make a living. Uber has bypassed the regs by making it a private transaction between individuals, like a buy and sell website. The same pitfalls exist with Uber as existed in the cab industry before 1937 and people get caught with surge pricing that makes a 20 mile trip cost the same as a flight to England.

[Dr. Who]

If this was true we would not have many hundreds of thousands of regulations. We would have just a few.
There are thousands and thousands of ways people have found to harm either through negligence, greed or ignorance and the legal history of those events have led to the preponderance of the thousands and thousands of regulations.

[MisterVeritis]

There are thousands and thousands of ways people have found to harm either through negligence, greed or ignorance and the legal history of those events have led to the preponderance of the thousands and thousands of regulations.
No. Political power can be bought or sold. This is a fantastic means to cash in. One can buy a regulation to limit or destroy one's competition.

It is immoral and corrupt. The Congress is complicit and they must be stopped. The lawful way is through an Article V convention of states.

[Chris]

Regulations like anything need to keep pace with technology. The medallion or licensing system for taxis was created to regulate the cab industry and avoid the crazy free for all where there was no standard for fares or service, nor any accountability and to ensure that the number of cab drivers was limited to a number that met the needs of the population, but not so many that the drivers would consider driving to the point of utter exhaustion in order to make a living. Uber has bypassed the regs by making it a private transaction between individuals, like a buy and sell website. The same pitfalls exist with Uber as existed in the cab industry before 1937 and people get caught with surge pricing that makes a 20 mile trip cost the same as a flight to England.

The medallion system was created to reduce competition. Like most licensing.

No one is urging the free market is perfect, just better and it is where wealth generation arises, not regulation which adds costs.

[Dr. Who]

No. Political power can be bought or sold. This is a fantastic means to cash in. One can buy a regulation to limit or destroy one's competition.

It is immoral and corrupt. The Congress is complicit and they must be stopped. The lawful way is through an Article V convention of states.The fact that lobbying is protected by the Constitution under the right to petition government and as free speech has been abused, particularly when combined with corporate campaign contributions. This is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. I believe that the whole electoral system needs revamping to exclude the need for campaign contributions, and thus obligations that need repaying.

[MisterVeritis]

The fact that lobbying is protected by the Constitution under the right to petition government and as free speech has been abused, particularly when combined with corporate campaign contributions. This is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. I believe that the whole electoral system needs revamping to exclude the need for campaign contributions, and thus obligations that need repaying.
Nearly all regulations are created by the nearly 500 administrative agencies outside of the Constitution. The solution is to move the rule-making back to the Congress for a vote.

[Dr. Who]

The medallion system was created to reduce competition. Like most licensing.

No one is urging the free market is perfect, just better and it is where wealth generation arises, not regulation which adds costs.
They needed to reduce competition because it became an unreliable wild west situation where some people were being gouged and some drivers were working excessive hours to the point where it was unsafe, in order to make a living. Customers were being victimized either in terms of unreasonable charges or dangerous driving. The fact is that some people are greedy and some people are desperate, which leaves the consumer in peril.

[Chris]

The fact that lobbying is protected by the Constitution under the right to petition government and as free speech has been abused, particularly when combined with corporate campaign contributions. This is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. I believe that the whole electoral system needs revamping to exclude the need for campaign contributions, and thus obligations that need repaying.

The intent was to allow citizens the ability to lobby for political matters, just as free speech concerned only political speech.

[Dr. Who]

Nearly all regulations are created by the nearly 500 administrative agencies outside of the Constitution. The solution is to move the rule-making back to the Congress for a vote.
Of course that would mean that needed regulations would take years to even get a reading, never mind being passed and many citizens would pay the price with their health, lives and savings. Imagine all of the building codes that are constantly changing to keep pace with construction techniques and materials having to go through Congress? It would be unworkable.

[Dr. Who]

The intent was to allow citizens the ability to lobby for political matters, just as free speech concerned only political speech.
Perhaps then the Constitution should have an Amendment to that effect, but I suspect that the legal wordsmiths would find a way around any strict interpretation.

[Chris]

Perhaps then the Constitution should have an Amendment to that effect, but I suspect that the legal wordsmiths would find a way around any strict interpretation.

To allow lobbying for economic favors. Lawmakers would be too embarrassed to suggest that.

[BleedingHeadKen]

http://36.media.tumblr.com/8bfafd39dfad0f6fb80cd66b63586d81/tumblr_o096cl8qTh1s11xheo1_500.jpg

And?

[Dr. Who]

To allow lobbying for economic favors. Lawmakers would be too embarrassed to suggest that.
Uh no, I meant the opposite, to prohibit lobbying for economic favors.

[MisterVeritis]

They needed to reduce competition because it became an unreliable wild west situation where some people were being gouged and some drivers were working excessive hours to the point where it was unsafe, in order to make a living. Customers were being victimized either in terms of unreasonable charges or dangerous driving. The fact is that some people are greedy and some people are desperate, which leaves the consumer in peril.
This is kook talk. Increasing competition resolves problems. Selling monopolies always ends badly for customers.

[MisterVeritis]

Of course that would mean that needed regulations would take years to even get a reading, never mind being passed and many citizens would pay the price with their health, lives and savings. Imagine all of the building codes that are constantly changing to keep pace with construction techniques and materials having to go through Congress? It would be unworkable.
I am aware you are a big government authoritarian statist. There is no need to remind me.

There are many voluntary ways to set standards that are far more flexible that having two million plus busybody bureaucrats hammer away at making laws that terrorize the productive.

[Dr. Who]

This is kook talk. Increasing competition resolves problems. Selling monopolies always ends badly for customers.
No it's not. Read the history - it started in NYC. People were being victimized and the City brought about regulations to protect both the public and the drivers.

[Dr. Who]

I am aware you are a big government authoritarian statist. There is no need to remind me.

There are many voluntary ways to set standards that are far more flexible that having two million plus busybody bureaucrats hammer away at making laws that terrorize the productive.

Like you see in India or China, where buildings regularly collapse on people? That kind of voluntary commitment to standards? Before you say anything about that being the third world, similar situations happened in America in the past, hence the bureaucracy of minions ensuring that engineering best practices are codified and applied. You and others who condemn statism forget one important ingredient - greed. Greedy people take short-cuts and even to themselves minimize dangers. Recognizing dangers is expensive, so if it's like perhaps a 25% chance of failure, they will take the chance. They will later plead ignorance.

[Green Arrow]

Generated by the free market, exchange and trade among individuals.

Regulation hurts the economy. Just take protectionist policies like tariffs: They do not penalize those we import from but those who import, we, American consumers who must pay higher prices, such that our wealth is redirected to redistribution of wealth instead of savings and investment in production of goods and services that, well, generate wealth.

And yet you can supply no evidence of this harm.

[Chris]

And yet you can supply no evidence of this harm.

And yet I just did. Tariffs.

[Green Arrow]

And yet I just did. Tariffs.

Tariffs are only one form of regulation. All that indicates is that tariffs hurt the economy.

[BleedingHeadKen]

Like you see in India or China, where buildings regularly collapse on people? That kind of voluntary commitment to standards? Before you say anything about that being the third world, similar situations happened in America in the past, hence the bureaucracy of minions ensuring that engineering best practices are codified and applied. You and others who condemn statism forget one important ingredient - greed. Greedy people take short-cuts and even to themselves minimize dangers. Recognizing dangers is expensive, so if it's like perhaps a 25% chance of failure, they will take the chance. They will later plead ignorance.

It should be relatively easy to prove the efficacy of regulations. One simply would pick some regulatory framework or body and then provide certain statistics. For instance, if you wanted to prove that building safety regulations were actually efficacious, you would look at the rate of increase (or decrease) in building safety prior to the regulations, and then the increase in the rate of that increase (or decrease of the rate of decrease). Simple. Yet, I've never found a statist willing to do it. They just argue in circles. Regulations were needed so regulations were created, and regulations were created, so they must have been needed.

[BleedingHeadKen]

And yet you can supply no evidence of this harm.

Can you supply evidence of the benefit?

[Safety]

It should be relatively easy to prove the efficacy of regulations. One simply would pick some regulatory framework or body and then provide certain statistics. For instance, if you wanted to prove that building safety regulations were actually efficacious, you would look at the rate of increase (or decrease) in building safety prior to the regulations, and then the increase in the rate of that increase (or decrease of the rate of decrease). Simple. Yet, I've never found a statist willing to do it. They just argue in circles. Regulations were needed so regulations were created, and regulations were created, so they must have been needed.

I do it every quarter with safety regulations in the workplace. Employees are always complaining about a new standard in safety regarding their work procedures, but my job is to make sure they leave the site the same way they arrived. Now, if they choose to use that table saw at home without the guard, then that's on them.

[BleedingHeadKen]

I do it every quarter with safety regulations in the workplace. Employees are always complaining about a new standard in safety regarding their work procedures, but my job is to make sure they leave the site the same way they arrived. Now, if they choose to use that table saw at home without the guard, then that's on them.

Again, we are talking about government regulations, not safety standards implemented in the work place. Most regulations are paperwork-related and have little to do with standards, and which is why almost all OSHA violations are purely about mistakes or missing paperwork. Employers are going to implement safety standards regardless of what government does. And, if you believe that they won't, I've given you a great way to prove that they won't. Either things got a lot better after regulations because of those regulations, or they didn't. If they did, then you can show a statistically significant increase in the rate of safety after the regulations versus prior to the regulations. Think of something like a hockey stick graph, though maybe not that dramatic.

[del]

Again, we are talking about government regulations, not safety standards implemented in the work place. Most regulations are paperwork-related and have little to do with standards, and which is why almost all OSHA violations are purely about mistakes or missing paperwork. Employers are going to implement safety standards regardless of what government does. And, if you believe that they won't, I've given you a great way to prove that they won't. Either things got a lot better after regulations because of those regulations, or they didn't. If they did, then you can show a statistically significant increase in the rate of safety after the regulations versus prior to the regulations. Think of something like a hockey stick graph, though maybe not that dramatic.

:rofl:

good one

you're funny

[Safety]

Again, we are talking about government regulations, not safety standards implemented in the work place. Most regulations are paperwork-related and have little to do with standards, and which is why almost all OSHA violations are purely about mistakes or missing paperwork. Employers are going to implement safety standards regardless of what government does.

OSHA is totally about government regulation. And no, almost all violations are not about mistakes or paperwork. Employers will do whatever they can to skirt safety regs, just like paying tax. I've seen it, lived it, and worked it.

[del]

OSHA is totally about government regulation. And no, almost all violations are not about mistakes or paperwork. Employers will do whatever they can to skirt safety regs, just like paying tax. I've seen it, lived it, and worked it.

but, but...statist

[Safety]

but, but...statist

Yea, sometimes that knee-jerk reaction makes them look pretty stupid. If someone wants to argue that there are too many regulations, then we can debate it, but to make an asinine comment that regulations don't save lives is pretty...well, asinine.

[del]

Yea, sometimes that knee-jerk reaction makes them look pretty stupid. If someone wants to argue that there are too many regulations, then we can debate it, but to make an asinine comment that regulations don't save lives is pretty...well, asinine.

i know i would have retrofitted all the machines in my factory with appropriate safeguards if the govt didn't insist on it

then i would have fed the unicorns and gone home.

[Dr. Who]

It should be relatively easy to prove the efficacy of regulations. One simply would pick some regulatory framework or body and then provide certain statistics. For instance, if you wanted to prove that building safety regulations were actually efficacious, you would look at the rate of increase (or decrease) in building safety prior to the regulations, and then the increase in the rate of that increase (or decrease of the rate of decrease). Simple. Yet, I've never found a statist willing to do it. They just argue in circles. Regulations were needed so regulations were created, and regulations were created, so they must have been needed.
Perhaps because I work in the insurance industry where regulations form part of the ammunition used by plaintiffs, I can tell you with complete certainty that avoidance of regulations make a distinct difference in outcome. The regs are not made for no reason or because people need something to do. As engineering advances, and statistics are accumulated, it knows more and that knowledge is translated into building codes. The want of a thousand dollar amendment to a design to bring it to code can make the difference between a good build and one that will cost multiples of thousands to remedy a disaster.

[Green Arrow]

Again, we are talking about government regulations, not safety standards implemented in the work place. Most regulations are paperwork-related and have little to do with standards, and which is why almost all OSHA violations are purely about mistakes or missing paperwork. Employers are going to implement safety standards regardless of what government does. And, if you believe that they won't, I've given you a great way to prove that they won't. Either things got a lot better after regulations because of those regulations, or they didn't. If they did, then you can show a statistically significant increase in the rate of safety after the regulations versus prior to the regulations. Think of something like a hockey stick graph, though maybe not that dramatic.

We tried that. It didn't work.

[Green Arrow]

Can you supply evidence of the benefit?

Well, yeah. Government took a very robust role in the early 1900s in establishing a minimum wage, workplace safety regulations, employee benefits regulations, and other such things. The result was America became a global superpower and the wealthiest nation on the planet.

[BleedingHeadKen]

:rofl:

good one

you're funny

As I said, you'd take the typical tack of a non-thinker follower. Like your religious fundie counterparts, you are basically a government creationist. If the government creates something, it must be good and holy.

[Dr. Who]

Again, we are talking about government regulations, not safety standards implemented in the work place. Most regulations are paperwork-related and have little to do with standards, and which is why almost all OSHA violations are purely about mistakes or missing paperwork. Employers are going to implement safety standards regardless of what government does. And, if you believe that they won't, I've given you a great way to prove that they won't. Either things got a lot better after regulations because of those regulations, or they didn't. If they did, then you can show a statistically significant increase in the rate of safety after the regulations versus prior to the regulations. Think of something like a hockey stick graph, though maybe not that dramatic.
You must be the eternal optimist, thinking that businesses are generally honorable and altruistic. Perhaps, once upon a time in Leave it to Beaver land, but no more. Business will do only what it absolutely has to. Every penny it saves goes to the bottom line and attracts investors. In the building industry, corners are cut as much as possible where the inspectors may not look. If TSHTF five years later, they don't care. There is a reason why each project is separately incorporated.

[Safety]

As I said, you'd take the typical tack of a non-thinker follower. Like your religious fundie counterparts, you are basically a government creationist. If the government creates something, it must be good and holy.

Well, that's one way to do it, create a strawman and kick the crap out of it.

[del]

As I said, you'd take the typical tack of a non-thinker follower. Like your religious fundie counterparts, you are basically a government creationist. If the government creates something, it must be good and holy.

that's not blood running out of your ear, kenny

[BleedingHeadKen]

OSHA is totally about government regulation. And no, almost all violations are not about mistakes or paperwork. Employers will do whatever they can to skirt safety regs, just like paying tax. I've seen it, lived it, and worked it.

And, now, anecdote are proof. Got it.

Here are the touts of OSHA on their webpage. All you would have to do is find out what was the rate of decrease in workplace accidents prior to OSHA to show that they've had significant effect. Of course, you'll do like all creationists and declare that since government created OSHA and declares it effective, it must be effective.


In four decades, OSHA and our state partners, coupled with the efforts of employers, safety and health professionals, unions and advocates, have had a dramatic effect on workplace safety.
Since 1970, workplace fatality rates have been reduced by more than 66 percent and occupational injury and illness rates have declined by 67 percent. At the same time, U.S. employment has almost doubled.
Worker deaths in America are down–on average, from about 38 worker deaths a day in 1970 to 13 a day in 2014.
Worker injuries and illnesses (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.nr0.htm) are down–from 10.9 incidents per 100 workers in 1972 to 3.2 per 100 in 2014.


It's simple. If you chart the decrease of incidents per 100 workers from 1972 to 2014, which is roughly 330% over 42 years, you ought to be able to show that the rate of decrease in accidents from 1930 to 1972 was significantly lower.

So, doing some of your work for you (because thinking is for eggheads; statists just parrot the words of politicians), I came across this nugget:
In 1913, the Bureau of Labor Statistics documented approximately 23,000 industrial deaths among a workforce of 38 million, equivalent to a rate of 61 deaths per 100,000 workers (4). (Corn JK. Response to occupational health hazards: a historical perspective. New York, New York: Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.)

Alright, so now we have a death rate in 1913(!). OSHA estimates that 14,000 industrial deaths occurred every year, presumably up until 1970. So, right off the bat, we know that from 1913, the actual number of deaths per year fell from 23,000 to 14,000 by 1970, even as the number of industrial workers exploded. The 2015 numbers for industrial deaths are approximately 4,380.

This is complicated data to put together in a short amount of time. I can understand why you'd not be inclined to prove your case, but simply rely on authority to tell you what to think. Here's another nugget: under a different reporting system, data from the National Safety Council from 1933 through 1997 indicate that deaths from unintentional work-related injuries declined 90%, from 37 per 100,000 workers to 4 per 100,000 (3). The corresponding annual number of deaths decreased from 14,500 to 5100; during this same period, the workforce more than tripled, from 39 million to approximately 130 million (3).

So we know that from 1933 to 1997 workplace deaths fell dramatically. OSHA was founded in 1972. Presumably, it took them a few years to ramp up and start handing out all those paperwork violations (70% of all violations in 1997 were for paperwork. I have no reason to believe that has changed - maybe you do? You seem to appeal to your own authority on the subject.) OSHA says that there were roughly 13,870 deaths per year in 1972. So, what we know is that from 1912 to 1970, workplace deaths decreased 50% even as the number of workers tripled (possibly even more, as industrial employment has decreased in the last two decades).

The question is, how did the workplace become safer from 1912 to 1972 without OSHA such that the rate of decrease in deaths was approximately 600%? By your account, that should not be possible as no employer is willing to risk money for safety.

[BleedingHeadKen]

that's not blood running out of your ear, kenny

I'm open minded. Most statists can't think their way out of a paperbag. I love how those on the left claim to be scientific when discussing their right-wing colleagues creationism, but when it comes to gathering simple evidence to prove the benefit of their favorite government program, they can't be bothered. They assume it must have been done by somebody or their all-benevolet leaders would not have created such programs to fight the evil private sector. I can see that you are one of them.

[BleedingHeadKen]

You must be the eternal optimist, thinking that businesses are generally honorable and altruistic.

Not really. I prefer evidence, particularly empirical evidence. Statistics will often do.

If anyone is an optimist, it is you. You are optimistic about whatever your favorite politicians pitch to you. If they are saying it, it must be true. After all, you can attack me plenty. I enjoy the fire. However, you can't find any evidence that what you support is actually having a significant impact, especially in light of the costs. You'll point to polemics and propaganda, but never hard evidence. So, basically all you have is fallacy. In my mind, you are no different than the average fundie who believes because he believes. Only his God doesn't affect me.



Perhaps, once upon a time in Leave it to Beaver land, but no more. Business will do only what it absolutely has to. Every penny it saves goes to the bottom line and attracts investors. In the building industry, corners are cut as much as possible where the inspectors may not look. If TSHTF five years later, they don't care. There is a reason why each project is separately incorporated.

One could simply answer that cutting corners is the result of too much regulation. If bureaucrats are going to look in a certain area, the costs must allocated to making sure those areas look good, and those costs can be significant. Can you prove otherwise? to me, this is a problem created by government regulation, not in spite of it. You insist that the police powers of the state ought to be used to punish people before they've committed an offense, so it ought to be on you to prove that they would commit those violations without your intervention.

[del]

I'm open minded. Most statists can't think their way out of a paperbag. I love how those on the left claim to be scientific when discussing their right-wing colleagues creationism, but when it comes to gathering simple evidence to prove the benefit of their favorite government program, they can't be bothered. They assume it must have been done by somebody or their all-benevolet leaders would not have created such programs to fight the evil private sector. I can see that you are one of them.

cool

i've never met anyone with a transparent colon before.

[Safety]

And, now, anecdote are proof. Got it.

Here are the touts of OSHA on their webpage. All you would have to do is find out what was the rate of decrease in workplace accidents prior to OSHA to show that they've had significant effect. Of course, you'll do like all creationists and declare that since government created OSHA and declares it effective, it must be effective.


In four decades, OSHA and our state partners, coupled with the efforts of employers, safety and health professionals, unions and advocates, have had a dramatic effect on workplace safety.
Since 1970, workplace fatality rates have been reduced by more than 66 percent and occupational injury and illness rates have declined by 67 percent. At the same time, U.S. employment has almost doubled.
Worker deaths in America are down–on average, from about 38 worker deaths a day in 1970 to 13 a day in 2014.
Worker injuries and illnesses (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.nr0.htm) are down–from 10.9 incidents per 100 workers in 1972 to 3.2 per 100 in 2014.


It's simple. If you chart the decrease of incidents per 100 workers from 1972 to 2014, which is roughly 330% over 42 years, you ought to be able to show that the rate of decrease in accidents from 1930 to 1972 was significantly lower.

So, doing some of your work for you (because thinking is for eggheads; statists just parrot the words of politicians), I came across this nugget:
In 1913, the Bureau of Labor Statistics documented approximately 23,000 industrial deaths among a workforce of 38 million, equivalent to a rate of 61 deaths per 100,000 workers (4). (Corn JK. Response to occupational health hazards: a historical perspective. New York, New York: Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.)

Alright, so now we have a death rate in 1913(!). OSHA estimates that 14,000 industrial deaths occurred every year, presumably up until 1970. So, right off the bat, we know that from 1913, the actual number of deaths per year fell from 23,000 to 14,000 by 1970, even as the number of industrial workers exploded. The 2015 numbers for industrial deaths are approximately 4,380.

This is complicated data to put together in a short amount of time. I can understand why you'd not be inclined to prove your case, but simply rely on authority to tell you what to think. Here's another nugget: under a different reporting system, data from the National Safety Council from 1933 through 1997 indicate that deaths from unintentional work-related injuries declined 90%, from 37 per 100,000 workers to 4 per 100,000 (3). The corresponding annual number of deaths decreased from 14,500 to 5100; during this same period, the workforce more than tripled, from 39 million to approximately 130 million (3).

So we know that from 1933 to 1997 workplace deaths fell dramatically. OSHA was founded in 1972. Presumably, it took them a few years to ramp up and start handing out all those paperwork violations (70% of all violations in 1997 were for paperwork. I have no reason to believe that has changed - maybe you do? You seem to appeal to your own authority on the subject.) OSHA says that there were roughly 13,870 deaths per year in 1972. So, what we know is that from 1912 to 1970, workplace deaths decreased 50% even as the number of workers tripled (possibly even more, as industrial employment has decreased in the last two decades).

The question is, how did the workplace become safer from 1912 to 1972 without OSHA such that the rate of decrease in deaths was approximately 600%? By your account, that should not be possible as no employer is willing to risk money for safety.

Easily, OSHA is a government regulatory agency tasked with making the workplace safer. Every state can choose to create their own agency as long as it is either as strict or more stringent in regulations and enforcement. Although workplace fatalities or hospital stays require OSHA notification within 8 hours, accidents or mishaps that does not fall under those categories are not tracked and is kept in the employers records.

The industrial period before OSHA was implemented was basically nothing more than a trial and error, and "let's learn from our mistakes", time in history. To assume that because the number of fatalities fell before OSHA was created is a non starter. Many states, like Massachusetts had already established regulations in 1877 in regards to placing guards on belt driven drives on elevators, fire safety, etc., and in 1934 the bureau of labor standards was created to address workplace safety, which moved the responsibility of occupational safety and health to what OSHA is today.

So, to answer your question, the decrease in fatalities between 1912 to 1972 was probably due to some of the states implementing regulations that addressed worker safety, which the federal government decided was just cause to involve the rest of the states who haven't "evolved" to the point of safeguarding their employees. Key point for you, "regulations save lives".

[Dr. Who]

Not really. I prefer evidence, particularly empirical evidence. Statistics will often do.

If anyone is an optimist, it is you. You are optimistic about whatever your favorite politicians pitch to you. If they are saying it, it must be true. After all, you can attack me plenty. I enjoy the fire. However, you can't find any evidence that what you support is actually having a significant impact, especially in light of the costs. You'll point to polemics and propaganda, but never hard evidence. So, basically all you have is fallacy. In my mind, you are no different than the average fundie who believes because he believes. Only his God doesn't affect me.



One could simply answer that cutting corners is the result of too much regulation. If bureaucrats are going to look in a certain area, the costs must allocated to making sure those areas look good, and those costs can be significant. Can you prove otherwise? to me, this is a problem created by government regulation, not in spite of it. You insist that the police powers of the state ought to be used to punish people before they've committed an offense, so it ought to be on you to prove that they would commit those violations without your intervention.
No, regulation doesn't cause cost cutting, greed does. Not doing what is safe and scientifically prudent is not a function of bad regulations, it is a function of avoiding those regulations to save a few dollars. That doesn't mean that there may not be redundant or silly regulations on the books, but to generalize and suggest that most regulations are without merit is to disregard the history of damage to citizens at the hands of business. Your house should not collapse from snow load and you shouldn't buy a coffee maker that starts a fire and burns your house down. Furthermore, there shouldn't be defects in your car that compromise your life, nor should the crib that you buy for your infant be a death trap. The industry in your community shouldn't make the drinking water unpotable, nor should you have toxic waste seeping into your basement. The windmill in your community should not be rattling your teeth at night. You should know whether you are eating frankenfood and your food should not be full of chemicals. Your meat shouldn't be full of hormones that cause your children to develop breasts at 7 years old. The clothing that you buy for your children should not be flammable. These are just a tiny portion of the things where regulations protect your rights as a citizen. If you would prefer otherwise, move to the third world.

[Safety]

No, regulation doesn't cause cost cutting, greed does. Not doing what is safe and scientifically prudent is not a function of bad regulations, it is a function of avoiding those regulations to save a few dollars. That doesn't mean that there may not be redundant or silly regulations on the books, but to generalize and suggest that most regulations are without merit is to disregard the history of damage to citizens at the hands of business. Your house should not collapse from snow load and you shouldn't buy a coffee maker that starts a fire and burns your house down. Furthermore, there shouldn't be defects in your car that compromise your life, nor should the crib that you buy for your infant be a death trap. The industry in your community shouldn't make the drinking water unpotable, nor should you have toxic waste seeping into your basement. The windmill in your community should not be rattling your teeth at night. You should know whether you are eating frankenfood and your food should not be full of chemicals. Your meat shouldn't be full of hormones that cause your children to develop breasts at 7 years old. The clothing that you buy for your children should not be flammable. These are just a tiny portion of the things where regulations protect your rights as a citizen. If you would prefer otherwise, move to the third world.

But...'murica

[del]

and freedom

[MisterVeritis]

No it's not. Read the history - it started in NYC. People were being victimized and the City brought about regulations to protect both the public and the drivers.
I understand the fig leaf. The reality is that regulations stifle competition to the benefit of those already in business. It always involves corruption, seen or unseen.

[MisterVeritis]

Like you see in India or China, where buildings regularly collapse on people? That kind of voluntary commitment to standards? Before you say anything about that being the third world, similar situations happened in America in the past, hence the bureaucracy of minions ensuring that engineering best practices are codified and applied. You and others who condemn statism forget one important ingredient - greed. Greedy people take short-cuts and even to themselves minimize dangers. Recognizing dangers is expensive, so if it's like perhaps a 25% chance of failure, they will take the chance. They will later plead ignorance.
Statism is always bad for everybody except the statists.

Laws can, and should, still be created to protect the innocent from the evil. That does not mean, nor can it excuse, the hundreds of thousand of regulations covering every aspect of everything we do. We have become fascists. We destroy the best efforts of people without fascism.

I understand the desire of fascists, like you, to control every possible thing, if you can. It is seductive. And you are seduced. Your fascism will not save you.

[MisterVeritis]

Yea, sometimes that knee-jerk reaction makes them look pretty stupid. If someone wants to argue that there are too many regulations, then we can debate it, but to make an asinine comment that regulations don't save lives is pretty...well, asinine.
I suppose it should be easy to identify those regulations that actually save lives and limbs from the ones that do not. Do we really need more than 20 pages of regulations covering how to pick cabbages?

I looked at the OSHA regulations covering a very tiny aspect of an engineering problem I was working on. The regulations went on for more than one hundred pages. It is the same for all government regulations. Busybody bureaucrats have to justify their existence and importance or their agency will not grow at twice the rate of the economy. That is why political philosophers call government Leviathan.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, yeah. Government took a very robust role in the early 1900s in establishing a minimum wage, workplace safety regulations, employee benefits regulations, and other such things. The result was America became a global superpower and the wealthiest nation on the planet.
Americans, at least in the early days when the government was still growing into the monster it is today were able to overcome what government did to it.

Government is a necessary evil when it is on its best behavior. We have not seen that for a very long time.

[Dr. Who]

Statism is always bad for everybody except the statists.

Laws can, and should, still be created to protect the innocent from the evil. That does not mean, nor can it excuse, the hundreds of thousand of regulations covering every aspect of everything we do. We have become fascists. We destroy the best efforts of people without fascism.

I understand the desire of fascists, like you, to control every possible thing, if you can. It is seductive. And you are seduced. Your fascism will not save you.
Yes, you know me so well that you can call me a fascist. Please. I'm not particularly in favor of authoritarian governments. On the other hand, I'm not in favor of letting business have free rein.

[Safety]

I suppose it should be easy to identify those regulations that actually save lives and limbs from the ones that do not. Do we really need more than 20 pages of regulations covering how to pick cabbages?

I looked at the OSHA regulations covering a very tiny aspect of an engineering problem I was working on. The regulations went on for more than one hundred pages. It is the same for all government regulations. Busybody bureaucrats have to justify their existence and importance or their agency will not grow at twice the rate of the economy. That is why political philosophers call government Leviathan.

When the first computer was created, it filled the size of a room, now your smartphone is hundreds of times more powerful and it fits in the palm of your hand. Safety regulations and procedures are dynamic and have to evolve with new technology and how things are done today.

[Dr. Who]

I understand the fig leaf. The reality is that regulations stifle competition to the benefit of those already in business. It always involves corruption, seen or unseen.
There is plenty of competition in the NYC taxi industry, just not anarchy. Could it be better. Perhaps, but removing all regulations would throw the consumers to the wolves.

[Chris]

Tariffs are only one form of regulation. All that indicates is that tariffs hurt the economy.

I said it was just one example. I've given others like licensing. I recently posted about the cronyism involved in farm bills that cost us 42% of each dollar handed out just to implement.

[MisterVeritis]

When the first computer was created, it filled the size of a room, now your smartphone is hundreds of times more powerful and it fits in the palm of your hand. Safety regulations and procedures are dynamic and have to evolve with new technology and how things are done today.
The irrelevant regulations never go away. We have an unconstitutional administrative state. It is time to begin reversing it.

[MisterVeritis]

There is plenty of competition in the NYC taxi industry, just not anarchy. Could it be better. Perhaps, but removing all regulations would throw the consumers to the wolves.
Or, more likely it world result in competition that gives consumers more choices across a wide range of prices. I know you are intelligent. Do you believe you would be unable to cope, to think, to reason, without a busybody bureaucrat eliminating most of your choices?

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, you know me so well that you can call me a fascist. Please. I'm not particularly in favor of authoritarian governments. On the other hand, I'm not in favor of letting business have free rein.
Fascism is state control of businesses. Isn't that what you are demanding in post after post?

[Dr. Who]

Or, more likely it world result in competition that gives consumers more choices across a wide range of prices. I know you are intelligent. Do you believe you would be unable to cope, to think, to reason, without a busybody bureaucrat eliminating most of your choices?
I would rather have a few less choices and know that someone is not going to try to rip me off or threaten my life if I refuse to pay an arbitrarily inflated fare. NYC brought in the medallion system as a result of the existing wild west competition among cabbies and passengers being victimized, resulting in citizen demands for regulation. All of this lack of regulation looks good on paper, but the reality is that there are some pretty unscrupulous people out there who would rip-off their own grandmothers given half a chance and typically they will pick on the most vulnerable to target.

[Dr. Who]

Fascism is state control of businesses. Isn't that what you are demanding in post after post?
Look there is at times regulatory overreach, but there are also sensible regulations that operate to protect the public from unscrupulous enterprise.

[MisterVeritis]

I would rather have a few less choices and know that someone is not going to try to rip me off or threaten my life if I refuse to pay an arbitrarily inflated fare.
If you are unable to cope with life please have one of your younger relatives help you out. Leave the rest of us alone.

NYC brought in the medallion system as a result of the existing wild west competition among cabbies and passengers being victimized, resulting in citizen demands for regulation.
That may be what the politicians said to sell the dumbest among us. What it really did was prevent future competition. You are smart enough to know this. Why don't you?


All of this lack of regulation looks good on paper, but the reality is that there are some pretty unscrupulous people out there who would rip-off their own grandmothers given half a chance and typically they will pick on the most vulnerable to target.
We can have laws to prevent the evil from preying upon the ignorant without putting government officials in a position to sell their office to the highest bidders. I suppose I must ask the question. Are you gullible, stupid, or lying?

[MisterVeritis]

Look there is at times regulatory overreach, but there are also sensible regulations that operate to protect the public from unscrupulous enterprise.
At times? How about nearly always?

Sensible regulations are a bit like sensible gun control. Those words are used by the evil among us. Why do you use them? If Congress wants to make a law then let it make a law. That is not what happens. Instead, the tyrants create a broad statement and let the administration craft laws, they call them regulations. They are wholly unconstitutional.

The idea, advanced by the Progressives and the Marxists, is that Man can be perfected by the pressures, laws, created by experts. And you have bought into it. Let me suggest that you should reconsider. Because...you are bright. This is the path to tyranny. This is why we are at this point in history where everything we have ever done or have thought of doing is regulated by a fascistic state. So far you support it.

[Dr. Who]

If you are unable to cope with life please have one of your younger relatives help you out. Leave the rest of us alone.

That may be what the politicians said to sell the dumbest among us. What it really did was prevent future competition. You are smart enough to know this. Why don't you?


We can have laws to prevent the evil from preying upon the ignorant without putting government officials in a position to sell their office to the highest bidders. I suppose I must ask the question. Are you gullible, stupid, or lying?
Ignoring your attempts to poison the well, you are making a false cause argument. The corruptibility of government officials is a separate and distinct issue from government regulations. You might as well say that snow causes bad drivers, because there are more accidents when it snows, and bad drivers get into more accidents.

Regulations are preemptive, thus eliminating the source of harm to citizens, rather than being reactive like laws, which punish the criminal or tort-feasor after the harm has been done, but often not compensating the victim, if the wrong-doer is uninsured and impecunious.

[MisterVeritis]

Ignoring your attempts to poison the well, you are making a false cause argument. The corruptibility of government officials is a separate and distinct issue from government regulations. You might as well say that snow causes bad drivers, because there are more accidents when it snows, and bad drivers get into more accidents.

Regulations are preemptive, thus eliminating the source of harm to citizens, rather than being reactive like laws, which punish the criminal or tort-feasor after the harm has been done, but often not compensating the victim, if the wrong-doer is uninsured and impecunious.
They go together. I am actually surprised you do not know this. I believed you were both smart and mature. You may be smart but you are a babe in the woods.

Regulations, most of them, eliminate competition. The ones who benefit tend to provide money, in the form of campaign contributions, to the ones who support them. Some regulations do nothing more than increase the power of the administrative state that creates them. It also costs the consumers enormous sums of money, estimated to be above a trillion dollars each year.

It is time to start rolling back the enormous administrative state started by Winson and Roosevelt.

[MisterVeritis]

There is plenty of competition in the NYC taxi industry, just not anarchy. Could it be better. Perhaps, but removing all regulations would throw the consumers to the wolves.
This is not correct. The government completely controls taxis. It has effectively squashed all competition.
Do you simply not know? If so why didn't you do the least amount of investigation?

"The taxicabs of New York City are widely recognized icons of the city,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-nyc.gov-1)come in two varieties: yellow and green. Taxis painted canary yellow (medallion taxis) are able to pick up passengers anywhere in the five boroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_(New_York_City)). Those painted apple green (street hail livery vehicles,[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-2) or commonly known as boro taxis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boro_taxi)),[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-3) which began to appear in August 2013, are allowed to pick up passengers in Upper Manhattan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Manhattan), the Bronx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bronx), Brooklyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn),Queens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens) (excluding LaGuardia Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaGuardia_Airport) and John F. Kennedy International Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport)), and Staten Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staten_Island).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-4) Both types have the same fare structure.Taxicabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab) are operated by private companies and licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Taxi_and_Limousine_Commission) (TLC).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-TLCabout-6) It also oversees over 40,000 other for-hire vehicles, including "black cars", commuter vans and ambulettes.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-nyc.gov-1)"

[Dr. Who]

At times? How about nearly always?

Sensible regulations are a bit like sensible gun control. Those words are used by the evil among us. Why do you use them? If Congress wants to make a law then let it make a law. That is not what happens. Instead, the tyrants create a broad statement and let the administration craft laws, they call them regulations. They are wholly unconstitutional.

The idea, advanced by the Progressives and the Marxists, is that Man can be perfected by the pressures, laws, created by experts. And you have bought into it. Let me suggest that you should reconsider. Because...you are bright. This is the path to tyranny. This is why we are at this point in history where everything we have ever done or have thought of doing is regulated by a fascistic state. So far you support it.
A great many, if not the majority of regulations arise at the State or Municipal level. Federal regulations may affect areas such as interstate commerce, but does not regulate things like the taxi industry or the framework within which businesses operate in New Jersey or Texas. Thus, if we are having a conversation about taxi medallions, Congress would have no constitutional mandate to even address how a municipality regulates industry within its own purview, unless in doing so, it is violating some aspect of the Constitution.

[MisterVeritis]

A great many, if not the majority of regulations arise at the State or Municipal level. Federal regulations may affect areas such as interstate commerce, but does not regulate things like the taxi industry or the framework within which businesses operate in New Jersey or Texas. Thus, if we are having a conversation about taxi medallions, Congress would have no constitutional mandate to even address how a municipality regulates industry within its own purview, unless in doing so, it is violating some aspect of the Constitution.
And yet it is a great example of the corruption that comes with the power to regulate.

There are more than one hundred thousand regulations, many with criminal penalties. The Congress did not approve any of those laws. They are outside the Constitution.

It is time to burn down the administrative state. Article V offers the only lawful way to counter what government has done to us.

[del]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/27/1b/22/271b224024868517306076092f6f8736.jpg

[Dr. Who]

They go together. I am actually surprised you do not know this. I believed you were both smart and mature. You may be smart but you are a babe in the woods.

Regulations, most of them, eliminate competition. The ones who benefit tend to provide money, in the form of campaign contributions, to the ones who support them. Some regulations do nothing more than increase the power of the administrative state that creates them. It also costs the consumers enormous sums of money, estimated to be above a trillion dollars each year.

It is time to start rolling back the enormous administrative state started by Winson and Roosevelt.
I believe that we are arguing at cross-purposes. I fully endorse lobby reform to eliminate the corrupt connection between campaign contributions and special interests. I find that connection despicable and harmful to any economy. It constitutes a conflict of interest for any politician and should not be permitted.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe that we are arguing at cross-purposes. I fully endorse lobby reform to eliminate the corrupt connection between campaign contributions and special interests. I find that connection despicable and harmful to any economy. It constitutes a conflict of interest for any politician and should not be permitted.
Since I have been warned we are done.

[Dr. Who]

This is not correct. The government completely controls taxis. It has effectively squashed all competition.
Do you simply not know? If so why didn't you do the least amount of investigation?

"The taxicabs of New York City are widely recognized icons of the city,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-nyc.gov-1)come in two varieties: yellow and green. Taxis painted canary yellow (medallion taxis) are able to pick up passengers anywhere in the five boroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_(New_York_City)). Those painted apple green (street hail livery vehicles,[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-2) or commonly known as boro taxis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boro_taxi)),[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-3) which began to appear in August 2013, are allowed to pick up passengers in Upper Manhattan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Manhattan), the Bronx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bronx), Brooklyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn),Queens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens) (excluding LaGuardia Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaGuardia_Airport) and John F. Kennedy International Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport)), and Staten Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staten_Island).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-4) Both types have the same fare structure.Taxicabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab) are operated by private companies and licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Taxi_and_Limousine_Commission) (TLC).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-TLCabout-6) It also oversees over 40,000 other for-hire vehicles, including "black cars", commuter vans and ambulettes.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#cite_note-nyc.gov-1)"




Taxicabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab) are operated by private companies and licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Taxi_and_Limousine_Commission) (TLC).
Where is there a lack of competition in that statement? They are painted the same color to ensure that they are easily identified, but they are nevertheless in competition. Now do I think that the exorbitant cost of medallions is justified? Not really, but the taxi industry is now in a state of flux, with owner-operators competing with fleets and all competing with Uber. Perhaps it ultimately won't matter in a few years when driverless cabs will become the norm.

[MisterVeritis]

Where is there a lack of competition in that statement? They are painted the same color to ensure that they are easily identified, but they are nevertheless in competition. Now do I think that the exorbitant cost of medallions is justified? Not really, but the taxi industry is now in a state of flux, with owner-operators competing with fleets and all competing with Uber. Perhaps it ultimately won't matter in a few years when driverless cabs will become the norm.
Since I have been warned we are done.

[Dr. Who]

Since I have been warned we are done.
Warned?

[MisterVeritis]

Warned?
Yes. Mods stick together. Anyway, we are done.

I hate to admit it but I think I like you. But once the moderators issue a warning we are done.

[Brett Nortje]

Yes. Mods stick together. Anyway, we are done.

I hate to admit it but I think I like you. But once the moderators issue a warning we are done.

lol.

[MisterVeritis]

lol.
She is smart and persistent. I admit that she is wrong but that can be corrected.

[onecut]

It's central planning.

How can large projects not be "centrally planned"?

[Chris]

How can large projects not be "centrally planned"?

They're centrally planned in business all the time. But the government is not a business. It's constitutional purpose is to protect society, from individuals to groups to businesses, planning and acting on their own.