5 ms·

There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business, even where it causes harm, but practical support for interveni

There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business, even where it causes harm, but practical support for intervening in protection of certain groups seen as annointed, vulnerable, etc. There's no secret to it. If you're just not down with annoting vets with special treatment, that's fine and I think I'm with you, but your rehetorical question evaporates when you accept that politics is real and done in the open.

throwanem 3y ago
They agreed to curtail their liberty and risk life and limb on behalf of, and at the direction of, the state. Whatever you think of such a decision, it's absurd, especially for anyone who's ever taken compensation in equity, to imagine the state should not consider itself under some reciprocal obligation.
nosefurhairdo 3y ago
> There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. I suppose you could make the case that modern Republicans are relatively focused on "non-interference", but that's certainly not new (Reagan) and it's certainly not a general American political trend. Really curious what you mean by this, because the way I'm reading this there is no basis in reality.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  No worries. I think you're just taking the wrong sense of current. Non-interference in business is the prevailing current in the US, at the federal level, since its founding. Interference needs to be constitutionally justified, and (historically) needs to not be better applied by more local jurisdictions. This is why the past shows has comparitively lax regulation for long. You're right that this is a more pressed issue lately and that we can see a local relative current towards regulation tempers that prevailing one, but in net its actually still relatively non-interfering compared to what you see in peer nations. Leaning on the metaphor: The prevailing Atlantic current mostly goes north up the US coast, but you can still find local currents in all directions amidst that prevailing flow.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    That clarified my misunderstanding, thanks!
- Animats 3y ago
  > At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? 1930-1970.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    Which sector of our economy is subject to less regulation today than in the period between 1930-1970?
    - Animats 3y ago
      Airlines, for one. And that's all the history homework I'm going to do.
      - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
        You got me there.
    - the-dude 3y ago
      Banking?
      - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
        Certainly not after 2008 and the Dodd-Frank Act.
    - 93po 3y ago
      Advertising, if you consider it as a ratio of impact versus regulation. Advertising has a thousand fold impact on people today but not a thousand fold increase in regulation.
- ameister14 3y ago
  >At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. In a specific and literal 'number of regulations, period' way, you're right. But in a more general sense involving the FTC, prior to 1978 the economy was significantly more regulated. So there may be more restrictions on the product to qualify as natural or organic, for example, but there are less restrictions on the ability of the company that makes the product to engage in non-competitive behavior. Banking is a good example - there are more restrictions and requirements for disclosure, but before the 90's, banks were not allowed to have branches in multiple states. Additionally, now you have a number of tech companies behaving like banks but acting in a significantly less regulated way that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago. From a 'whole economy' perspective, the required reserve balance reductions in the 90's resulted in less ability for the federal govt to control the economy without major shocks. The government has less control over the economy today than it has had in decades, and since the late 70's a failure of antitrust enforcement and changes in financial rules have resulted in market concentration in every major market to a degree that they have all become oligopolies.

throwanem 3y ago

They agreed to curtail their liberty and risk life and limb on behalf of, and at the direction of, the state. Whatever you think of such a decision, it's absurd, especially for anyone who's ever taken compensation in equity, to imagine the state should not consider itself under some reciprocal obligation.

nosefurhairdo 3y ago

> There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. I suppose you could make the case that modern Republicans are relatively focused on "non-interference", but that's certainly not new (Reagan) and it's certainly not a general American political trend. Really curious what you mean by this, because the way I'm reading this there is no basis in reality.

swatcoder 3y ago
No worries. I think you're just taking the wrong sense of current. Non-interference in business is the prevailing current in the US, at the federal level, since its founding. Interference needs to be constitutionally justified, and (historically) needs to not be better applied by more local jurisdictions. This is why the past shows has comparitively lax regulation for long. You're right that this is a more pressed issue lately and that we can see a local relative current towards regulation tempers that prevailing one, but in net its actually still relatively non-interfering compared to what you see in peer nations. Leaning on the metaphor: The prevailing Atlantic current mostly goes north up the US coast, but you can still find local currents in all directions amidst that prevailing flow.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  That clarified my misunderstanding, thanks!
Animats 3y ago
> At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? 1930-1970.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  Which sector of our economy is subject to less regulation today than in the period between 1930-1970?
  - Animats 3y ago
    Airlines, for one. And that's all the history homework I'm going to do.
    - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
      You got me there.
  - the-dude 3y ago
    Banking?
    - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
      Certainly not after 2008 and the Dodd-Frank Act.
  - 93po 3y ago
    Advertising, if you consider it as a ratio of impact versus regulation. Advertising has a thousand fold impact on people today but not a thousand fold increase in regulation.
ameister14 3y ago
>At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. In a specific and literal 'number of regulations, period' way, you're right. But in a more general sense involving the FTC, prior to 1978 the economy was significantly more regulated. So there may be more restrictions on the product to qualify as natural or organic, for example, but there are less restrictions on the ability of the company that makes the product to engage in non-competitive behavior. Banking is a good example - there are more restrictions and requirements for disclosure, but before the 90's, banks were not allowed to have branches in multiple states. Additionally, now you have a number of tech companies behaving like banks but acting in a significantly less regulated way that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago. From a 'whole economy' perspective, the required reserve balance reductions in the 90's resulted in less ability for the federal govt to control the economy without major shocks. The government has less control over the economy today than it has had in decades, and since the late 70's a failure of antitrust enforcement and changes in financial rules have resulted in market concentration in every major market to a degree that they have all become oligopolies.