Google Gets it Right

[whell]

These are interesting comments as they come from the senior exec of a company that has been quite friendly with the current administration and his party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...164833940.html

A common thread among business leaders for years, which has accelerated since 2009, has been a request to government to get out of the way and allow businesses quickly respond to market demands, innovate and convert capital in the most efficient manner. The torrent of government regulations that have fallen on business in the last century have created multiple choke points between the the point of capital conversion and its delivery to a potential consumer.

As a society, we continue to demand government protection via regulation (or, at least, we allow our political class to demagog issues, and convert them to regulations) . I would not contest the point that some level of basic consumer protections are appropriate. But shifting personal responsibility to the inefficiency of government machinery in the name of worker rights, consumer protection, financial reform, or (place your favorite brand of government regulation here) comes at a price. We may well be past the tipping point where such regulations are counter-productive.

Government regulation / interference in the tech sector may be a "wost case scenario" illustration of the issue. Did the Microsoft anti-trust case really bring about any true benefit to the consumer? Does creating a political environment where businesses can lobby for regulators on their competitors truly result in consumer protection, or does such activity essentially legalize tortuous interference?

Our current president promised a review of current regulations - getting rid of those that didn't work or were outdated, and updating those that do work. Where are the results of this? Sure, he just announced the order in January of this year, but if it has already taken 9 months and there's nothing to show for it, may it's just another example of the problem with the weight we've placed on ourselves.

[merrylander]

So let's remove all regulations and let Sam Colt be the arbiter?

I once asked the company lawyer if I could sue a certain large manufacturer.

His response "Sure you can, you can also wrestle with a bear, but I don't recommend either."

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

So let's remove all regulations and let Sam Colt be the arbiter?

I once asked the company lawyer if I could sue a certain large manufacturer.

His response "Sure you can, you can also wrestle with a bear, but I don't recommend either."

Not really the point I was making. Basic consumer protections may be appropriate. Choking ourselves and our ability to compete with an overly - aggressive and in some cases unmanageable (meaning that the government gives itself powers to regulate that it is unable to manage effectively) regulatory environment is not.

Here's a prime example of an area that government has continued to try to incrementally increase their regulatory authority with questionable results.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

And please don't bring up that old saw about Glass-Stegall. It's depression - era legislation that has no bearing on today's banking industry.

[merrylander]

Apparently nothing has any bearing on today's banking industry. Could not read the WSU aricle as I am not a subscriber. I gather that Volker suggested breaking up the bigger banks but Obama followed other advice. Frankly I think Geithner has/had to many ties to the current financial community and we are suffering because of it.

Maybe Glass Stegal was written because of the Great Depression but is that not what we are in just now? All this talk of double dip, I was not aware that we had climbed out of the first dip.

The banks and the government have failed miserably to resolve the problem of underwater mortgages and reform of the mortgage system. As a result people are either afraid to spend, or simply have nothing left to spend. Personal spending has in the past been what brouught us out of recession - not happening currently.

Maybe all those brilliant and innovative capitalists and their free market have yet to realize that giving all the money to the top has left the middle and the bottom with nowt to spend. No consumers is not very good for a consumer driven economy. Or maybe all those ricch people will go on a shopping binge this Christmas and buy presents for everyone. And maybe monkeys will fly ,. . . . .

[Charles]

Originally Posted by merrylander

So let's remove all regulations and let Sam Colt be the arbiter?

I once asked the company lawyer if I could sue a certain large manufacturer.

His response "Sure you can, you can also wrestle with a bear, but I don't recommend either."

I'm not so sure that wouldn't work out better for me.

Chas

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Apparently nothing has any bearing on today's banking industry. Could not read the WSU aricle as I am not a subscriber. I gather that Volker suggested breaking up the bigger banks but Obama followed other advice. Frankly I think Geithner has/had to many ties to the current financial community and we are suffering because of it.

Maybe Glass Stegal was written because of the Great Depression but is that not what we are in just now? All this talk of double dip, I was not aware that we had climbed out of the first dip.

The banks and the government have failed miserably to resolve the problem of underwater mortgages and reform of the mortgage system. As a result people are either afraid to spend, or simply have nothing left to spend. Personal spending has in the past been what brouught us out of recession - not happening currently.

Maybe all those brilliant and innovative capitalists and their free market have yet to realize that giving all the money to the top has left the middle and the bottom with nowt to spend. No consumers is not very good for a consumer driven economy. Or maybe all those ricch people will go on a shopping binge this Christmas and buy presents for everyone. And maybe monkeys will fly ,. . . . .

Actually, the article illustrates how Dodd-Frank creates an oversight authority that will be likely be very ineffective: not only because the legislation leaves it up to a committee to determine what the regulatory framework should ultimately look like, but it may exempt key institutions from regulation while providing regulatory authority to those agencies that missed warning signs during the last decade. Not to mention that the regulations are sponsored by the foxes that were in charge of watching the chicken coop.

More to the point, it is an example of added complexities to the regulatory environment that increasingly don't create significant value for the citizens they are designed to protect...sometimes just the opposite. Remember the Do Not Call list? Many regulations imposed by our government are about as effective, and add needless costs.

[merrylander]

How well I know the do not call lists both our phones are on it, not that it seems to make a damn bit of difference.

[simi]

We saw what happened when we didn't have basic consumer protection. I only have to point at two instances to show how when you don't have regulations the consumers get screwed... THe S&L BS and the recent mess we're in... (glass Stegall removed and it was down hill) OH... and lets not forget the original Depression.. which caused the Glass Stegall to be put in place..

Sorry, but you gotta have rules.. could you imagine what a rugby game would be like if there were no rules? The game is bloody enough as it is with a lot of rules..

The GOP don't like rules cause they know them and their buddies would all be lots richer without rules..

[whell]

Originally Posted by simi

We saw what happened when we didn't have basic consumer protection. I only have to point at two instances to show how when you don't have regulations the consumers get screwed... THe S&L BS and the recent mess we're in... (glass Stegall removed and it was down hill) OH... and lets not forget the original Depression.. which caused the Glass Stegall to be put in place..

Sorry, but you gotta have rules.. could you imagine what a rugby game would be like if there were no rules? The game is bloody enough as it is with a lot of rules..

The GOP don't like rules cause they know them and their buddies would all be lots richer without rules..

As Reagan once said, "There you go again." I never said that there should be no rules. No one has said that. There's rules, then there's rules for the sake of rules that become unenforceable and/or arbitrary because they're so poorly constructed. And when you can lobby politicians to create rules that negatively impact your competitors, that's criminal behavior made acceptable by well - placed campaign contributions.

By the way, Glass - Stegall was not "removed". We still have the FDIC, which was part of Glass - Stegall.