4 ms·

I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue. The more things you tell people they can't do, and instead mandate they do things

I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue. The more things you tell people they can't do, and instead mandate they do things they may not want to or need to do, the less opportunity they have to do things they want to do, which is what people generally are willing to pay for (an thus increases economic growth).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
beisner 10y ago
It hasn't been mentioned because compared to the last 70 years of high growth there are now fewer regulations on business and industry than ever before, in the US at least.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  That's not at all true: http://madisonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/regulations.png http://madisonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/regulat...
  - beisner 10y ago
    I'm not sure that simply showing the absolute number of regulatory policies helps to show that the economy is more regulated than ever. For instance, how many of those regulations have to do with the explosion of computers and the Internet, which were industries that simply didn't exist before 1997? I'd like to see a breakdown of the scopes of the regulations and types of the regulations. I'd be inclined to agree with you if the majority of regulations were economically focused, but I suspect that a majority of the regulations are environmental, health, and information related.
Animats 10y ago
Nah. The US isn't that heavily regulated. Anybody can start a business. It's been decades since the ICC limited entry into trucking and the CAB limited entry into the airline business. Whining about regulation is mostly complaining that you can't dump your externalities (pollution, employee injuries, etc.) on other people.
- politician 10y ago
  Banking?
  - warcher 10y ago
    The bankers definitely take their fair share of benefit in that regulatory arrangement.
    - collyw 10y ago
      I would say they take way more than their fair share.
bunderbunder 10y ago
Interesting, then, that this slowdown should coincide so closely with a period of increasing de-regulation.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Regulation isn't all one thing - some is increasing, some is declining.
- CountSessine 10y ago
  should coincide so closely with a period of increasing de-regulation ? The last 16 years has seen little or no de-regulation. The last serious bout of de-regulation that I can remember was back in the 80's when Reagan threw out the rulebook on airlines or when the RBOCs were allowed to reconstitute themselves.
  - bunderbunder 10y ago
    Yeah, it's true, the big stuff was all pretty much done by the end of the last century. I'm aware, and I'm not worried about that. I assume no big regulatory change is going to have immediate effects - companies take time to re-align, especially ones in the kinds of mature industries that get to be heavily regulated in the first place. So for my purposes it's good that this is the case, since it means we've had enough time to sit back and observe what happens. So, on that front: We have this hypothesis that regulation is a huge drag on the economy, and that we should therefore deregulate in order to stimulate greater economic growth. If this is true, then you would expect that we'd see the US economy to take off during or shortly after the bulk of the deregulation. With that prediction in mind, go back and look at the graph of GDP growth by year. In the three economies shown, de-regulation instead coincides with periods of consistently declining or perennially weak growth. Which, to me, suggests that it's not reasonable to be so confident about the idea that regulation will have this or that profound effect on the overall economy. The idea that regulation is a horrible drag doesn't seem to have much of an empirical leg to stand on. I don't see much evidence that the opposite is true, either. The two regions that entered the graph with higher growth were also just exiting a period of rebuilding and recovery following a very destructive war, for example, so it's tough to say the pattern you see for them isn't a reflection of outside factors.
rsync 10y ago
"I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue." I think regulation (and the notion of over/under regulation) is a fascinating and worthwhile discussion to pursue. Honestly, it's something people should be debating. However, I insist that you describe the low, or no, regulation regimes you have lived under (or visited for significant periods ... months/years). When and where ?[1] There is a "must be this tall to ride" barrier for discussing small government and/or over regulation, and this is it. As a community we should insist on this basic test of legitimacy. [1] Yes, I'll accept NOLA. Maybe even Houston in the 90s ...
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  > However, I insist that you describe the low, or no, regulation regimes you have lived under (or visited for significant periods ... months/years). Seriously? So we can't ever discuss the way things should be without firsthand experience of living under those conditions? Scenario: You are a slave living in a mining pit. Each day you look up from your drudgery and see free people picnicking in the grass high on the edge of your pit. You turn to the man chained next to you and say, "I believe a world where we were free would be better than this one. Look at those people up there." He turns to you and says, "I insist that you describe the low / no slavery regimes you have lived under before we can debate the merits of your proposal." You stare incredulously at your fellow slave.
  - eropple 10y ago
    The cheap rhetorical trick of dressing yourself in the language of oppression because somebody is paid to make sure that canned goods aren't vectors for botulism is straight-up disgusting behavior that cheapens actual, you know, fucking slavery. I dunno if it's the Austrianized ignore-history,-thinkpiece-as-governance culture that might make this seem like something that is A-OK, but it's super not and you should be better than this.
    - plcancel 10y ago
      Will you tell me your story? I’d love to know how you came to this point of view.
someguydave 10y ago
"I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue. " HN isn't known for being skeptical of authoritarian statist solutions to your problems.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

beisner 10y ago

It hasn't been mentioned because compared to the last 70 years of high growth there are now fewer regulations on business and industry than ever before, in the US at least.

bsbechtel 10y ago
That's not at all true: http://madisonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/regulations.png http://madisonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/regulat...
- beisner 10y ago
  I'm not sure that simply showing the absolute number of regulatory policies helps to show that the economy is more regulated than ever. For instance, how many of those regulations have to do with the explosion of computers and the Internet, which were industries that simply didn't exist before 1997? I'd like to see a breakdown of the scopes of the regulations and types of the regulations. I'd be inclined to agree with you if the majority of regulations were economically focused, but I suspect that a majority of the regulations are environmental, health, and information related.

Animats 10y ago

Nah. The US isn't that heavily regulated. Anybody can start a business. It's been decades since the ICC limited entry into trucking and the CAB limited entry into the airline business. Whining about regulation is mostly complaining that you can't dump your externalities (pollution, employee injuries, etc.) on other people.

politician 10y ago
Banking?
- warcher 10y ago
  The bankers definitely take their fair share of benefit in that regulatory arrangement.
  - collyw 10y ago
    I would say they take way more than their fair share.

bunderbunder 10y ago

Interesting, then, that this slowdown should coincide so closely with a period of increasing de-regulation.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Regulation isn't all one thing - some is increasing, some is declining.
CountSessine 10y ago
should coincide so closely with a period of increasing de-regulation ? The last 16 years has seen little or no de-regulation. The last serious bout of de-regulation that I can remember was back in the 80's when Reagan threw out the rulebook on airlines or when the RBOCs were allowed to reconstitute themselves.
- bunderbunder 10y ago
  Yeah, it's true, the big stuff was all pretty much done by the end of the last century. I'm aware, and I'm not worried about that. I assume no big regulatory change is going to have immediate effects - companies take time to re-align, especially ones in the kinds of mature industries that get to be heavily regulated in the first place. So for my purposes it's good that this is the case, since it means we've had enough time to sit back and observe what happens. So, on that front: We have this hypothesis that regulation is a huge drag on the economy, and that we should therefore deregulate in order to stimulate greater economic growth. If this is true, then you would expect that we'd see the US economy to take off during or shortly after the bulk of the deregulation. With that prediction in mind, go back and look at the graph of GDP growth by year. In the three economies shown, de-regulation instead coincides with periods of consistently declining or perennially weak growth. Which, to me, suggests that it's not reasonable to be so confident about the idea that regulation will have this or that profound effect on the overall economy. The idea that regulation is a horrible drag doesn't seem to have much of an empirical leg to stand on. I don't see much evidence that the opposite is true, either. The two regions that entered the graph with higher growth were also just exiting a period of rebuilding and recovery following a very destructive war, for example, so it's tough to say the pattern you see for them isn't a reflection of outside factors.

rsync 10y ago

"I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue." I think regulation (and the notion of over/under regulation) is a fascinating and worthwhile discussion to pursue. Honestly, it's something people should be debating. However, I insist that you describe the low, or no, regulation regimes you have lived under (or visited for significant periods ... months/years). When and where ?[1] There is a "must be this tall to ride" barrier for discussing small government and/or over regulation, and this is it. As a community we should insist on this basic test of legitimacy. [1] Yes, I'll accept NOLA. Maybe even Houston in the 90s ...

clarkmoody 10y ago
> However, I insist that you describe the low, or no, regulation regimes you have lived under (or visited for significant periods ... months/years). Seriously? So we can't ever discuss the way things should be without firsthand experience of living under those conditions? Scenario: You are a slave living in a mining pit. Each day you look up from your drudgery and see free people picnicking in the grass high on the edge of your pit. You turn to the man chained next to you and say, "I believe a world where we were free would be better than this one. Look at those people up there." He turns to you and says, "I insist that you describe the low / no slavery regimes you have lived under before we can debate the merits of your proposal." You stare incredulously at your fellow slave.
- eropple 10y ago
  The cheap rhetorical trick of dressing yourself in the language of oppression because somebody is paid to make sure that canned goods aren't vectors for botulism is straight-up disgusting behavior that cheapens actual, you know, fucking slavery. I dunno if it's the Austrianized ignore-history,-thinkpiece-as-governance culture that might make this seem like something that is A-OK, but it's super not and you should be better than this.
  - plcancel 10y ago
    Will you tell me your story? I’d love to know how you came to this point of view.

someguydave 10y ago

"I'm shocked to see no one here has even discussed over-regulation as an issue. " HN isn't known for being skeptical of authoritarian statist solutions to your problems.