The deregulation con - who really benefits?

sprout said:

So... perhaps it depends on the regulation. For example, is the regulation from a lobbyist, and benefits the businesses who already have amassed wealth and want to maintain an advantage? Or does it benefit the general population?

Elon Musk said about CO2 emissions:

"When you have an un-priced externality, then the normal market mechanisms don’t work and then it’s the government’s role to intervene in a way that’s sensible."

Which is why an unpriced externality should be priced through taxation.

But of course Tesla would not be able to have gotten off the ground without tax credits. So in effect CO2 is being taxed through a negative tax on its absence. Kind of *** backwards but still...

Baby steps... Zoinks just agreed that some things do need positive and negative reinforcement by the government. He just isn't ready for the "R" word yet.

ml1 said:
that's nonsense. it's all "regulation." Also known as "laws."

Gilgul said:

Taxation is very different from regulation. No one is trying to manage what can or can not be done or how it can be done. Rather they just make the full cost of doing something be paid.

Look back - I have always supported taxation to deal with commons costs.

Personally, I'm glad meat and new construction are inspected.

One A.C.A. change. An uninsured person pays a tax penalty to the gub'mint. Under the new plan, penalty goes to the bottom line of the insurance company.... 30% increase in premium.

.......Doing away with the fuel efficiency regulations..... I would have liked a car with 52 M.P.G. I guess Paul Ryan makes enough that he doesn't need such a car.

@drummerboy, a law is a law, even if unwritten, if we all follow it. The law against spitting in someone's face is not written, but still, I wouldn't spit in your face.

the absence of a rule is not a rule, that's all I'm sayin'.

Tom_Reingold said:

@drummerboy, a law is a law, even if unwritten, if we all follow it. The law against spitting in someone's face is not written, but still, I wouldn't spit in your face.

It constitutes assault, a crime or misdemeanor.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

One A.C.A. change. An uninsured person pays a tax penalty to the gub'mint. Under the new plan, penalty goes to the bottom line of the insurance company.... 30% increase in premium

Are they setting that up like a reconnection fee? Is it the same no matter how long you were without insurance? I paid a tax penalty for being uninsured for 6 months last year and I'm sure it would have been less if I was uninsured for a week.

It's been awhile, but this interesting article cropped up recently. A libertarian economist set out to show how regulation hurts growth, and oops! - couldn't find the effect.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2018/null-hypothesis/