3 ms·

It's not preventing me, but it periodically takes me away from more important things and makes my company less efficient. It's not the most important thing they

by ericd 15y ago

It's not preventing me, but it periodically takes me away from more important things and makes my company less efficient. It's not the most important thing they could do, but it would be an accross-the-board efficiency gain, and simplifying things would likely close some of the tax loopholes.

mapster 15y ago
There are many countries with little business oversight or regulations. They are not the places intl investors want to put their money into.
- ericd 15y ago
  That's not the cause of those places being bad places to invest - that's much more because of corruption, which has nothing to do with a lack of regulations on the books. I'm not advocating for absolute laissez-faire, I was just saying that the current business regulations are a clusterfuck, and are in need of a good cleaning out.
  - mapster 15y ago
    It clearly seems one party in the USA is advocating for regulatory cleansing. As you stated, lack of regulations and corruption are often found in the same place, one can see WHY regulation is needed, now more than ever, as this world becomes more complex, populated, polluted, and markets game-able.
    - ericd 15y ago
      No, I'm saying that you can't use a correlation like that as justification for saying that we need more regulations. In a country like the US, where the tolerance for overt, obvious corruption is very low, adding more complexity to the regulatory system creates more places for corruption to hide, thus making it more feasible. The tax code is a great example of this, but the same can be said for many of the regulatory agencies.
Cushman 15y ago
Yeah, this is basically where I'm coming from-- I don't doubt it's inconvenient, and surely we could boost efficiency (and compliance!) by making compliance more convenient. Totally with you on that. It's just when someone suggests that the inconvenience of complying with the law means the law ought to go, I start wondering whose side they're really on.

by ericd 15y ago

mapster 15y ago

There are many countries with little business oversight or regulations. They are not the places intl investors want to put their money into.

ericd 15y ago
That's not the cause of those places being bad places to invest - that's much more because of corruption, which has nothing to do with a lack of regulations on the books. I'm not advocating for absolute laissez-faire, I was just saying that the current business regulations are a clusterfuck, and are in need of a good cleaning out.
- mapster 15y ago
  It clearly seems one party in the USA is advocating for regulatory cleansing. As you stated, lack of regulations and corruption are often found in the same place, one can see WHY regulation is needed, now more than ever, as this world becomes more complex, populated, polluted, and markets game-able.
  - ericd 15y ago
    No, I'm saying that you can't use a correlation like that as justification for saying that we need more regulations. In a country like the US, where the tolerance for overt, obvious corruption is very low, adding more complexity to the regulatory system creates more places for corruption to hide, thus making it more feasible. The tax code is a great example of this, but the same can be said for many of the regulatory agencies.

Cushman 15y ago

Yeah, this is basically where I'm coming from-- I don't doubt it's inconvenient, and surely we could boost efficiency (and compliance!) by making compliance more convenient. Totally with you on that. It's just when someone suggests that the inconvenience of complying with the law means the law ought to go, I start wondering whose side they're really on.