8 Responses to “Rhetorical Question”

1. David in Cal Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 12:37 am

   The BP catastrophe in the Gulf is an argument against regulation. After all, oil drilling in the Gulf is regulated, and regulation failed to prevent the disaster.

   There’s something wrong with logic that says: If regulation works, we should continue to regulate. If regulation fails, we need even more regulation. This sort of reasoning automatically leads to more and more regulation, even in cases where less regulation would be preferable.

   That’s just a theoretical point. I agree that regulation of offshore drilling is a good idea. The challenge is to find an effective regulatory structure. I’ve dealt with quite a few regulators during my career. Some were competent but many were just paper-pushers. A few were using their regulatory powers to solicit bribes.

   In this case, Obama’s Interior Department exempted BP’s calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year. In retrospect, that seems to have been a mistake.

2. ConstitutionNotRevolution Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 7:48 am

   For the most part, your argument is a strawman. It is a very small number of people who “do not believe in government regulation.”

   Libertarians are not anarchists and generally believe in having a (very small) government and some regulations on businesses.

   And David is correct. Regulation is often the problem and not the answer. CAFE standards are what created the SUV craze, for heaven’s sake. They are also partly responsible for the housing bubble and often BENEFIT the same large corporations you would like to neuter.

   We also need to avoid the histrionics regarding the current “catastrophe.” Drilling accidents are many times fewer in both number and volume than tanker accidents. Such hysteria also leads to bad regulations. We end up forcing industries to spend $2 trillion to avoid spills that would cost $800 billion to clean up. An example is SOX. Complying with SOX costs the economy more than any cheating it prevents.

   Then what is the point?

3. Shaun P. Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 8:09 am

   “After all, oil drilling in the Gulf is regulated, and regulation failed to prevent the disaster.”

   Communism was just a red herring.

   “Regulation is often the problem and not the answer. CAFE standards are what created the SUV craze”

   Seriously? And all this time, I thought it was automobile companies looking to make a lot of money, and people stupidly buying them because they were status symbols, that caused the SUV craze.

4. ConstitutionNotRevolution Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 9:37 am

   “Stupidly?”

   Typical progressive mindset. YOU get to decide if people are “stupid” or “smart” in their buying decisions.

   And how DARE those evil car companies attempt to sell a product for a profit. I would love to hear where you thing the profits go. In other words, who received the booty from the “SUV craze?”

   Do a little research. There was no such thing as an SUV until CAFE standards were put in place, demanding higher mileage from cars. The result? Auto manufacturers started putting station wagons on truck chassis, which were exempt. People liked it so much, it became the backbone of the auto industry for two decades. The government CREATED the market through regulation. In most cases, the market is far too complex to control and the unintended consequence is far worse than the status quo.

5. Steven Goldman Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 9:49 am

   Actually, the correct conclusion is that half-assed regulation is tantamount to no regulation at all.

6. ConstitutionNotRevolution Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 10:20 am

   Steven,

   Thank you for handing down the “correct conclusion” to the mere mortals on the board. I guess there is no need for further debate on the issue.

   Of course, a single copy of all the regulations on Wall Street would fill your office, which is not exactly “half-assed.” Yet, you are still the first to blame big business for all of society’s ills and demand more regulation.

   BTW, now that you are paying attention, should Joe Sestak have the opportunity to be US Senator after either A) clamming up about a felony within the Obama Administration after he realized he needed their help, or B) fibbing when he accused them of a crime?

   I know how important “intellectual honesty” is to you…

7. David in Cal Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 10:34 am

   Steven, I agree with your disdain for half-assed regulation. Trouble is, it’s really difficult to get a effective set of laws and regulations. It’s also really difficult to recruit and retain a group of high quality regulators. E.g., experts working for the SEC, if they’re any good, can make more money by moving to the business side. How can the SEC maintain a high quality of employee, if their best employees are always leaving?

   Will Chris Dodd’s bill improve the regulation of financial institutions? Chances are, nobody in the House or Senate has read the bill, nor has President Obama. Will thousands of pages of new regulations that no lawmaker has read make things less half-assed? Seems like wishful thinking, doesn’t it?

8. Michael Says:
   May 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 pm

   David has a point here.

   Saying that the BP accident proves that regulation doesn’t work, or saying that it proves that more regulation is needed, is kind of like saying that the fact that Gaylord Perry threw a spitball means either that we should just give up and legalize the spitball, or that we need to strip search pitchers before every half inning.

   What we need, in financial reform and health care reform and in rules about oil drilling, are easy to understand, straight forward rules, enforced aggressively and fairly in the interest of everyone.

   We’ll never get it-when rules are passed, they are watered down and impenetrable and loosened by lobbyist dollars paid to pet Congressmen so that, above the needs of the American people and the environment and basic fairness and honesty, Mammon will be served.

   Yelling “RULES SUCK!” and “WE NEED MORE RULES” at each other misses the point entirely.

Leave a Reply