(01-04-2018 12:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, basically libertarian views but don't go for the crazy wing nut stuff. My first recollection of stating that position was in my alumni interview for Rice, when I was asked if I were liberal or conservative and I responded conservative on fiscal issues, liberal on social issues. I don't think that has changed much, if at all, since then.

Among the major policies I probably align most closely with the Main Street, business-friendly republicans. I have little use for the religious right, and can't really support that part of the republican platform. I could be a democrat of they had anybody who was friendly to business. So here's my question, primarily addressed to lefties, but anyone feel free to chime in. Are there any business-friendly democrats left?

I know they had some at one time. I would consider Bill Clinton one while he was president, but he was the last, and his views have shifted left with the rest of the party since. JFK was one, but not Teddy. Anyhow, does anybody know any now?

Michael Bloomberg comes to mind - obviously his party affiliation has been flexible over the years and he's positioned himself as an independent these days, but with his endorsement of H Clinton . . .

(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

After all, it is only the other fellow who is greedy.

(01-04-2018 12:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Obama was actually quite friendly to businesses in many ways (see: bail out and lack of Wall St regs, green energy initiatives, attempt to pass infrastructure spending, training programs) . . .

Huge, market-ignoring, taxpayer handouts to hand-picked favorites may be a Democrat's idea of "business-friendly", but it is not mine.

I mean, that proves the point I made later in the sentence - it's not about being business-friendly, it's about being for lower regulation/reducing the influence of government.

Let's call a spade a spade.

(01-04-2018 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.

As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.

Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.

So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.

Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?

And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.

Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

Now i am confused about your point. However, we are in danger of hijacking the thread, so I suggest we go to PMs.

Please keep it going... a good read so far....

To further exemplify how the idea of being business-friendly is kind of farcical because of how simple it sounds, look at pot. A VERY pro-business approach would be to support the legalization of weed. By doing that, you take a significant amount of money off the black market and put it into the real economy. You create an industry that can support new jobs, can grow, can be profitable, and can provide needed tax revenue streams.

The current Republican admin today announced that they will no longer follow the Obama admin's policy of letting states set their own policy and not having the feds interfere (because it is illegal federally).

Now, I don't yet see a massive movement at the federal level by Dems to legalize pot nationwide, but I'm certain they will rally to that before the Reps do, and this certainly is a big, business-friendly position.

(01-04-2018 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To further exemplify how the idea of being business-friendly is kind of farcical because of how simple it sounds, look at pot. A VERY pro-business approach would be to support the legalization of weed. By doing that, you take a significant amount of money off the black market and put it into the real economy. You create an industry that can support new jobs, can grow, can be profitable, and can provide needed tax revenue streams.

The current Republican admin today announced that they will no longer follow the Obama admin's policy of letting states set their own policy and not having the feds interfere (because it is illegal federally).

Now, I don't yet see a massive movement at the federal level by Dems to legalize pot nationwide, but I'm certain they will rally to that before the Reps do, and this certainly is a big, business-friendly position.

The Democrats are very selective in their business friendships, choosing for or against business sectors according to political expediency. They aren't business-friendly per se.

Arguably, the Republicans do the exact same thing. Some business sectors are backed by the Blue Team, others by the Red Team.

I agree a whole generation is about to become worse off than their parents. I don't think the stuff you mention will help them much if their jobs are in Bangladesh. I think encouraging business to come back and/or expmnd here will do more for the shrinking middle class and their shrinking wages than any laws you might pass.

You mention minimum wages. We have redefined the MW from a low wage to encourage people to step on the first rung of the work ladder to a living wage for a family of four, so that they may spend their entire lives comfortably at MW. Might as well redefine a screwdriver as a hammer, and then complain it doesn't drive nails very well.

If raising the MW is the answer, then let's not stop at $15/hr. let's rai e the MW to $100/hr. and eliminate poverty. Surely $200K/yr will be enough.:


IMO, bring jobs back, and the competition for labor will raise wages even for the McDonald's workers.

When i hired people, I had to pay competitive wages, and so did not offer MW. When my employees had kids, I asked them when they wanted to return to work. I guess I didn't run a 1915 garment sweat shop, as seems to he notion nowadays of what businesses do.

yes, wages and benefits have increased over the years. Maybe that's what we cannot buy a car for $500, as my father did. Like I said, the only way to pay for the increased cost of higher wages and higher benefits is higher prices.

personally, I hope this tax bill will result in more jobs at higher wages for Americans. I think it will, in time. But not in one day. The pump must be primed.

The question was business-friendly Democrats. You had zero business-friendly ideas. I just noted that.





Clearly, i think the tax bill will ultimately help the working class. Which Democrats are for the tax bill? Those are the business friendly ones.

(01-04-2018 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I agree a whole generation is about to become worse off than their parents. I don't think the stuff you mention will help them much if their jobs are in Bangladesh. I think encouraging business to come back and/or expmnd here will do more for the shrinking middle class and their shrinking wages than any laws you might pass.

You mention minimum wages. We have redefined the MW from a low wage to encourage people to step on the first rung of the work ladder to a living wage for a family of four, so that they may spend their entire lives comfortably at MW. Might as well redefine a screwdriver as a hammer, and then complain it doesn't drive nails very well.

If raising the MW is the answer, then let's not stop at $15/hr. let's rai e the MW to $100/hr. and eliminate poverty. Surely $200K/yr will be enough.:


IMO, bring jobs back, and the competition for labor will raise wages even for the McDonald's workers.

When i hired people, I had to pay competitive wages, and so did not offer MW. When my employees had kids, I asked them when they wanted to return to work. I guess I didn't run a 1915 garment sweat shop, as seems to he notion nowadays of what businesses do.

yes, wages and benefits have increased over the years. Maybe that's what we cannot buy a car for $500, as my father did. Like I said, the only way to pay for the increased cost of higher wages and higher benefits is higher prices.

personally, I hope this tax bill will result in more jobs at higher wages for Americans. I think it will, in time. But not in one day. The pump must be primed.

The question was business-friendly Democrats. You had zero business-friendly ideas. I just noted that.





Clearly, i think the tax bill will ultimately help the working class. Which Democrats are for the tax bill? Those are the business friendly ones.

OO, thanks for responding in the thread. I hope you didn't take me not responding to your PM as me ignoring you.

I tried to respond back via PM just now, but it got bumped back... Oh well.

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

Also, if the courts are to resolve pollution claims, won't they need an operating definition of "pollution"?

Tanq, I’m not going to quote for brevity. I understand the commons problem, but a cause of action already exists there within the regulatory scheme.

I do like the idea of a market on the commons. I think that would be a much better way to handle many issues. And totally agree that there needs to be some compromise between an unfettered free market and excessive regulation.

I still like the ideas of more congressional supervision and review of executive agencies and removing the adjudication function from captive agency ALJs to separate Article III administrative courts.

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Relying on lawsuits to handle issues of the commons seems like an inefficient way to do that. In that situation, in order for someone to be protected from inhaling as much smog as possible (because it is cheaper to pollute than to say, scrub emissions), all of the burden is put on to them. They must move, or they must go and collect evidence to justify the lawsuit, or they must prove that they have been caused harm, and on and on.

We must put some onus on the company to protect the general health of the public, even if it does not make economic sense. It's just figuring out how to balance the safety and economic sense that is important, especially when common folk do not have the ability to quickly, easily, or cheaply, cause change (e.g. move areas).

And I definitely did not make things up to respond to, I just couldn't decipher the overall point you were trying to make when you responded to me. I even said that I was confused and asked if I understood your point correctly.

I had stated that I felt that we have swung too far from worker protections, and your response wasn't clear on if you agreed or disagreed. I still am trying to figure out if you agree or disagree with my main point, as it appears like you mostly just discussed the differences in our worker protection laws and then discussed how our taxes are different. I think you pivoted from the point I was making, to make your own about how us and the EU differ, is that what happened?

I guess I'll just ask directly - do you think we currently do enough to protect workers in the absolute sense? And, now that we are on equal footing with the EU on corporate taxes, in comparison to them?

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

One of the issues is defining market boundaries within the US. Also, would such a system supercede or complement current regional regulatory limits, such as those in "non-attainment areas"?

(01-04-2018 03:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

One of the issues is defining market boundaries within the US. Also, would such a system supercede or complement current regional regulatory limits, such as those in "non-attainment areas"?

You would likely be able to treat these markets in the same way states treat environmental issues, in general. There is a federal floor that you must meet, and should a state want to make stricter requs, they are free to do so. In the Cap and Trade bill that passed the house back in 2009, the federal rule allowed states with existing programs to merge theirs with the federal program. Not sure if it allowed them to potentially require companies operating in their state to hold more permits than they actually would emit, or increase alternative energy production.

The questions you have, do you view those issues as insurmountable mountains towards creating these markets? Or just issues that need to get hammered out?

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

When I was in college, the idea was discussed a lot in my Econ classes. The conservatives in the class mostly found the idea in interesting, while the liberals mostly were aghast at the very suggestion ("You mean you let people PAY to POLLUTE?!?!?!?!?!").

(01-04-2018 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

One of the issues is defining market boundaries within the US. Also, would such a system supercede or complement current regional regulatory limits, such as those in "non-attainment areas"?

You would likely be able to treat these markets in the same way states treat environmental issues, in general. There is a federal floor that you must meet, and should a state want to make stricter requs, they are free to do so. In the Cap and Trade bill that passed the house back in 2009, the federal rule allowed states with existing programs to merge theirs with the federal program. Not sure if it allowed them to potentially require companies operating in their state to hold more permits than they actually would emit, or increase alternative energy production.

The questions you have, do you view those issues as insurmountable mountains towards creating these markets? Or just issues that need to get hammered out?

No, the issues aren't insurmountable. The United States has an emissions trading program for SOx and NOx, for example. The default regional boundaries have been state lines. Then come the many and various federal/state squabbles.

Lad, too long to quote so I won’t. You’re trying to parse my post into little pieces when the point I’m making is at the level of the whole.

What I think about our worker protections is that our conceptual approach is wrong. I think we could achieve both greater worker protections and less intrusive regulation at the same time if we got away from micromanagement by regulators and more of a macro approach. Focus less on how many inches your guardrail is above the floor and more on how many people have fallen over the side, of that makes sense. Perhaps a story will indicate my point. Friend of mine is an engineer with Dow. OSHA came in and said they had to make a $2 million safety improvement. After meeting with OSHA he went to his supervisor and said, “I’ve got an idea. We can accomplish the same result for about $100k by doing this instead.” The supervisor replied, “Be quiet. We can afford $2 million. Some of our competitors can’t. This could put them out of business.” Yes, that’s an anecdote but hardly unique. Eoropean regulation focuses more on results—or at least it did back when it was done on a national basis. Now that it’s on an EU basis, not so much.

Things that I do think would help:
- an economic based approach to the commons
- the German concept of labor relations, where labor gets seats on the BOD (it’s unions who have oppose this here, any guesses why?)
- congressional review of administrative agency rule making
- move adjudication of administrative disputes from captive agency ALJs to article 3 administrative law courts

Bottom line: a lot of our regulation is aimed more at preserving jobs for regulators than really making things safer or our air and water cleaner. A different focus would IMO make for safer workers and a cleaner environment and less regulatory red tape.

So I want more protections but with a different implementation philosophy.

And as for the relationship with taxes, here is my point. Everybadditional tax or regulation increases the cost of doing business. Make that cost too high and business doesn’t shut down, it moves elsewhere. We’ve had a lot of that lately. If we want highly paid workers (and I do) and sensible regulatory protections (and I do), then we have to give business a break somewhere to offset those costs. I think taxes are a good place to do that. And make up the tax revenues with a consumption tax which has protection effects.

(01-04-2018 03:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

When I was in college, the idea was discussed a lot in my Econ classes. The conservatives in the class mostly found the idea in interesting, while the liberals mostly were aghast at the very suggestion ("You mean you let people PAY to POLLUTE?!?!?!?!?!").

It's a great example of how far right we have swung in some parts of society.

I think you'd find the roles reversed as to who thought it was a good/bad idea at universities today.