[OAW]

Saw this article today. Thought I'd share ....

In the war against regulations and government restrictions, proponents have argued that it would be better for our economy to let the market rule. If we just get government out of the way, the market would determine business winners and losers and more jobs would be created. It's an appealing, red-blooded, American-sounding pitch. But what are the practical outcomes of such a policy?

Let me tell you what the outcome would have been for me.

I am the American portrait of a small-business success story. Microsoft might have started in a garage, but my business started in a renovated gas station at the corner of St. Paul and College streets in downtown Burlington, Vermont. That's where Jerry Greenfield and I opened Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream Scoop Shop with a $12,000 investment,$4,000 of it borrowed, on May 5, 1978.

We were two college kids (well, one of us dropped out) who just wanted to have a small ice cream store in a university town. But the popularity of our product led us in 1980 to dream bigger. We began packing pints and hand-delivering our ice cream to local grocery stores and restaurants. Our reputation grew and in 1983, independent ice cream distributors started selling our ice cream in Boston.

By 1984, our micro-enterprise small business grew to more than $4 million in sales. The big ice cream brands weren't happy.

That year, Haagen-Dazs, owned at the time by Pillsbury, had enough of our upstart small business. Did they try to promote their ice cream harder, develop some new flavors or cut prices to competitively beat us?

No. Their game plan was to try to stop our distributors from carrying our ice cream. Pillsbury, a $4 billion corporation back then, was a major source of income for these distributors and they were told, in no uncertain terms, not to do business with Ben & Jerry's.

This is what letting the free market reign really means. If you are a big business and don't want competition from small companies, you just use your economic clout to shut them down.

Fortunately, the government does restrict this practice somewhat to protect the little guy. It is called the federal antitrust law. We believed Pillsbury's actions were illegal under this statute, which says a company that controls a major share of a given market cannot use its power and economic strength to keep other businesses out of the market.

Ben & Jerry's filed a lawsuit against Pillsbury, but we also created a "What's the Doughboy Afraid Of?" customer campaign because we knew that in a strictly legal fight, we would run out of time and money long before Pillsbury did. The legal action and the negative publicity for Pillsbury worked. The doughboy agreed to stop trying to block sales of our products.
The law was on our side, but we were fortunate to have a unique consumer product with a good customer base to advocate for us. Had Pillsbury taken their anti-competitive actions earlier, Ben & Jerry's today might be just a local Vermont treat or, more than likely, not be around at all.

Regulations and government restrictions, like the federal antitrust law, help create a level playing field for entrepreneurs and small businesses wanting to grow. They establish the rules of business that allow real competition to work for the consumer and give small businesses a fighting chance.

Without regulations and government restrictions, the biggest company wins. It's that simple. Anyone with a dream of starting a business to become the next Ben & Jerry's won't have that chance. That is not the American way. We understand the concept of fairness and that might doesn't make right.

That is why the current anti-regulation efforts in Congress are so dangerous. Letting the market determine the rules of the business world means there will be only one rule: The biggest guy with the deepest pockets wins.

When the market rules, the big guy wins - CNN.com

I imagine Michelle Bachmann et al would consider Ben Cohen to be a "socialist" for taking such a sensible position.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I imagine Michelle Bachmann et al would consider Ben Cohen to be a "socialist" for taking such a sensible position.

Has Bachmann actually expressed this opinion?
No.
So why do you lefties always try to put words into people's mouths?

[Waragainstsleep]

Because "righties" are usually predictable. More guns, more god, less government. No?

[subego]

It's still a straw man argument. It's not like there's this big movement to repeal anti-trust legislation.

[Big Mac]

The victory you think you've scored here is against a straw man. Only the most extreme libertarian-types argue there should be no constraints on the market whatsoever. Markets require at least a semblance of fair competition (if not perfect competition) to function. Markets aren't competitive if they're dominated by monopoly or oligopolistic competition. Every free market theorist from Smith to Friedman and beyond has made this abundantly clear. Adam Smith argued that monopolies would naturally arise from time and time and would have to be restrained by government in order to maintain the free market. Some obviously don't know that about free market theory, but that's not our fault, it's theirs for being ignorant.

Look, I know it's an unfair thing to ask of you Lefties, given your limited capacities for knowledge and rational thought and all, but try a little harder next time. 2/10.

[besson3c]

It didn't take long to ratchet up the left/right vitriol in this thread

[Paco500]

I'm all for sensible government regulation, but this story, to me at least, is an effective argument that it doesn't work.

If I'm reading it correctly, it was primarily the negative publicity that saved the day, not regulation. That's the free market at work.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Because "righties" are usually predictable.

If your predictions are the same incorrect ones every time, yes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm all for sensible government regulation, but this story, to me at least, is an effective argument that it doesn't work.

If I'm reading it correctly, it was primarily the negative publicity that saved the day, not regulation. That's the free market at work.

That was my take-away as well. We won't know because the ad campaign was in tandem with the lawsuit for one thing and for another thing you can tell by the way the issue was expressed that this was not a clear-cut case for them. Simply put, Pillsbury wasn't keeping Ben & Jerry's out of the market and they may certainly have exhausted Ben & Jerry's resources in the process.

This also assumes that all of Ben & Jerry's distributors would have bailed on them. The few that stayed on would of course grow to make a killing and it wouldn't take long for Ben & Jerry's to pick up more distributors just as they had with their quality product in the first place. There's also the possibility that, faced with this challenge, Ben & Jerry's would have been forced to master their own distribution and revolutionize the manner in which such a product would be packaged and sold abroad. Either way, it wouldn't be long before they'd have made a killing from online sales anyway.

At the end of the day, this is more a story about perseverance than it is dependency on the merits of anti-trust. I wonder what regulations may have delayed their success and hinder others like them from entering the market every day.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Look, I know it's an unfair thing to ask of you Lefties, given your limited capacities for knowledge and rational thought and all, but try a little harder next time. 2/10.

Seriously? I lean to the right/center, but that's not productive at all. That sort of partisan attitude is what American is in this screwed up situation in the first place, from either side of the aisle. It'd almost be laughable if wasn't so freaking scary that our government continues to slide into a hole while our elected officials debate on behalf of their party rather than the people that they actually represent.

The problem with "sensible" government regulation is that the definition of "sensible" changes between generations, parties, and even individual politicians within the same government.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It didn't take long to ratchet up the left/right vitriol in this thread

Just wait until someone brings up "Schweddy Balls".

Oh shi...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Because "righties" are usually predictable. More guns, more god, less government. No?

Actually it's "same guns, same God, and keep your hands out of my pockets". At least that's my opinion.

[turtle777]

Who here is so naive to think that government regulation would suddenly create an even playing field?

Last I checked, crony politicians will do what's in their best interest, not what is most fair or best for the market.

Stop dreaming that more government will fix things. Government intervention and meddling is at the core of uncompetitive behaviors and markets. We have had more and more and more government over the last 10 years. Doesnt matter if Republican or Democrat, shit got worse, not better.

-t

[Waragainstsleep]

Is anyone in this thread asking for more government? Seems to me like they just don't want certain aspects of government to be reduced. In particular anti-trust.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Is anyone in this thread asking for more government? Seems to me like they just don't want certain aspects of government to be reduced. In particular anti-trust.

Uhm, more regulation = more government and bureaucracy.

If more regulation would lead to less government, we wouldn't be in the regulatory mess we're in right now.

Truely, the problem today is not lack of regulation, it's regulations gone amuck.
Multiple agencies and regulators are fiddling with overlapping areas of responsibility.

-t

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

given your limited capacities for knowledge and rational thought and all, but try a little harder next time. 2/10.

[ghporter]

In the early 20th Century, the US government undertook a major social effort. Antitrust legislation and the Pure Food and Drug Act were social actions to limit the ability of the richest of robber-barons to subjugate the population into serfdom, and to help prevent the excesses found in the treatment of people working in food production (primarily meat processing). The defining moment for the PFDA was doubtless the publication and popularity of "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. At the same time, dependence on "company stores" for food and clothing, and housing in "company towns" were part of the employment agreement (if you worked for the company, you lived where they said and bought your groceries where they said) for "managing" employees became a hot social issue as well - with a variety of levels of oppression from Henry Ford's relatively benign model (he priced his cars so his employees could afford them) of "available housing" to the habit of coal mining companies to build fiefdoms around their mines.

The economic impact on the richest of the rich was offset by something they didn't envision: improved performance and efficiency. The labor movement of the early 20th Century in the US was what made the "Arsenal of Democracy" run. While not part of most history books, there were a LOT of labor issues during WWII, and these issues helped clarify how labor law worked. Until the 1960s and 70s when international participation in major corporate ownership in the US increased significantly, the system worked pretty well. But the rules didn't keep up with how the "absentee owners" wanted things to run...

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

At the end of the day, this is more a story about perseverance than it is dependency on the merits of anti-trust. I wonder what regulations may have delayed their success and hinder others like them from entering the market every day.

Was Pillsbury right to try this? Should companies be allowed to blockade competition?

There are various levels of this... I mean, stadiums and movie theaters and restaurants will all be "Coke" OR "Pepsi" family of beverages, you rarely if ever see them in the same menu. This is a contract, and makes sense. However, it also means that Fred's soda will never be at the ballpark either... or does it?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, more regulation = more government and bureaucracy.

Stating the obvious is all well and good but the article in the OP is defending the antitrust regulations that exist rather than calling for more.
Its a counterpoint against those who frequently call for less regulation, stop treating it as an appeal for more.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Was Pillsbury right to try this? Should companies be allowed to blockade competition?

I think a company has the choice of vendors regardless of the reason. Pillsbury can certainly try, but in this regard dropped the attempt. The vendor has a similar choice in which products to distribute BTW. It depends on who has the greater leverage. A larger vendor may be able to tell Pillsbury that they want their consumers to have greater choice and because of that model, attract more buyers overall which means a net-gain for Pillsbury. If Pillsbury wants to pull their product from that vendor, they'll miss out on that larger vendor's distribution potential. In other words, I'm relatively confident Ben & Jerry's could have been able to make it work. I think their campaign against the big, bad "doughboy" was effective and made them appear to be bullies; not a good image for the otherwise market- friendly face of Pillsbury. It's no wonder Ben & Jerry's is known for their brilliant marketing.

There are various levels of this... I mean, stadiums and movie theaters and restaurants will all be "Coke" OR "Pepsi" family of beverages, you rarely if ever see them in the same menu. This is a contract, and makes sense. However, it also means that Fred's soda will never be at the ballpark either... or does it?

Fred may not have the capability of mass-producing his wares and will have a limited market regardless. The example you won't see in this of course are the number of Freds who don't exist because of regulations that make it tougher for the little guy to get started. While many regulations may be well-intentioned, there's a cost in unintended consequences.

[besson3c]

What if Fred is into Pete Schweddy and his Schweddy Balls?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Stating the obvious is all well and good but the article in the OP is defending the antitrust regulations that exist rather than calling for more.
Its a counterpoint against those who frequently call for less regulation, stop treating it as an appeal for more.

Not a bad point, but you're ignoring the intellectual dishonesty of the piece.

Why construct a straw man if you don't have an agenda?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What if Fred is into Pete Schweddy and his Schweddy Balls?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not a bad point, but you're ignoring the intellectual dishonesty of the piece.

Why construct a straw man if you don't have an agenda?

What intellectual dishonesty? Where is the straw man?
The author is merely stating a case against the wholesale removal of business regulation. This fact is not hidden and there is obvious logic in his story.

Can't the agenda be 'things are ok as they are' rather than 'these things were good for us so we should have lots more of them'? Or even 'some of these regulations are very important and are there for a very good reason, taking them all away would be bad'.

The funniest thing about this whole debate over more or less regulations on trade is that the right wing republican stance is actually arguing for survival of the fittest in business. They don't use that term of course, but like it or not, they are supporting evolution. How ironic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What intellectual dishonesty? Where is the straw man?
The author is merely stating a case against the wholesale removal of business regulation. This fact is not hidden and there is obvious logic in his story.

As has been stated, no one of note is calling for elimination of the legislation which protected him, so his claim that "anti-regulation" types would have allowed his company to get crushed is a load of bullshit.

The irony is there are plenty of examples of deregulation which are being called for, and would cause damage. Instead, he creates a non-existent issue and then uses it for an appeal to emotion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The funniest thing about this whole debate over more or less regulations on trade is that the right wing republican stance is actually arguing for survival of the fittest in business. They don't use that term of course, but like it or not, they are supporting evolution. How ironic.

I've always thought that about lefties and their support of the poor. Why keep munters happy on the dole and pay for them to breed when it's obvious that this is against the survival of the fittest which evolution needs to secure a better human race in the future?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who is that, a famous pimp?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've always thought that about lefties and their support of the poor. Why keep munters happy on the dole and pay for them to breed when it's obvious that this is against the survival of the fittest which evolution needs to secure a better human race in the future?

Some would answer this with moral reasons, but I would say that economic reasons shouldn't be overlooked either. Having poverty is expensive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who is that, a famous pimp?

Famous Freddie.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

As has been stated, no one of note is calling for elimination of the legislation which protected him, so his claim that "anti-regulation" types would have allowed his company to get crushed is a load of bullshit.

The irony is there are plenty of examples of deregulation which are being called for, and would cause damage. Instead, he creates a non-existent issue and then uses it for an appeal to emotion.

Oh ok, I must confess I have no familiarity with any bills he might be talking about.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've always thought that about lefties and their support of the poor. Why keep munters happy on the dole and pay for them to breed when it's obvious that this is against the survival of the fittest which evolution needs to secure a better human race in the future?

I might be left of the mark on many issues, but the welfare state is not one of them. I don't earn very much money and my local council takes another 10% of it in exchange for providing almost exactly f**k all. Then they spend it sending chavs and wasters on holidays, buying them cars and furniture or simply paying for their cigs, booze, lottery scratch cards and drug habits. I'd love to know why I'm not entitled to claim back money so I can have holidays and more booze. Bring back food stamps I say.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by OAW 

When the market rules, the big guy wins - CNN.com

I imagine Michelle Bachmann et al would consider Ben Cohen to be a "socialist" for taking such a sensible position.

OAW

Ok now let me give you my story to put this into another perspective. I own a factory that recycles chemicals. We're considered a small business. One of our competitors is a large multi-billion dollar waste company that you have all heard of. They have tried all those tactics that were mentioned in the article to put us out of business. As that wasn't working they went to bribe the local government. A couple times a year I get a notice that we have violated some regulation and need to pay a fine and go to court. I.E. "we have determined that you have dumped chemical waste in the sewer". We are completely innocent so you might be thinking 'whats the big deal, whats the cost to you'. Well I call up the government officials and get the run around. There's a lengthy bureaucratic investigative process that follows and while it goes on, my permits are put on suspension and I loose business until Im proven innocent. I get this note in the mail and I ask who said this? Where did you guys get this? But all I get is, we jis we jis know you did it. I say prove it, is there a water test or something? No, there's no test that was done... there's no nothing.. And there goes the long investigation that in the end always proves we didn't do any wrong. There is a lot of irony in this; the whole purpose of our company is to be alternative energy, clean and all that. So it is EXTREMELY infuriating. Our competitor charges to takes toxic waste from other companies and dumps it in some government approved spot. We charge less to take toxic waste, we recycle it and resell it. We are a smaller company so we operate more efficiently than the big corporations. I know exactly which 2 government officials are being bribed but it's not anything that would stand up in court. Your article makes it seem so easy... "we just... sued Pillsbury and the government protected us." In most cases it's not that easy, suing is a gamble; and at this point the government is the number 1 thing in my way. That doesn't mean no government at all would work either. If that were the case our competitor would just set fire to our plant.

... On another note I've personally witnessed federal agencies get bribed by large companies so I don't have much faith in them either. In fact bribery is manufactured into the whole process. When a large company wants to build a new operation they may allow different cities to place bids for their business. Companies say in so many words "which one will be the nicest to us? By the way we this and that problem with the last city we were in so we had to move... are you guys going to be the same way?" Localized federal officials will then compete for the business for their city by trying to out-promise the other cities It's all about who's going to regulate us the least. This corruption is hard to remove because many times the federal officials will be out of jobs if their city loses the bid; so you can't really threaten to fire them; and if they win the bid they get a huge promotion for all the jobs that will be created under them. If a company is then upset with the regulation not meeting their standards they can move again; which often results in all the federal employees that were hired just for that company, to be laid off. So employees know better than to over regulate.

And that's just the start of it. Just the tip of the ice burg. I actually never witnessed an honest operation in the government.... But I'm sure there must be some 1% of the time that they aren't corrupt in their work. Im all for regulating the big companies... just don't know how to go about it.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

We have had more and more and more government over the last 10 years. Doesnt matter if Republican or Democrat, shit got worse, not better.
-t

This can't be said enough.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The funniest thing about this whole debate over more or less regulations on trade is that the right wing republican stance is actually arguing for survival of the fittest in business. They don't use that term of course, but like it or not, they are supporting evolution. How ironic.

This is an odd angle. Even those who don't accept the ToE can tell when a government policy is better suited for pygmy chimps than people.

To the remainder of the forum including both cultural and physical anthropologists; Too often regulation distorts the market by creating niches only the fittest can survive.

[lpkmckenna]

I find the popularity of Ben and Jerrys to be mystifying. It's tasteless, inedible plastic. Haagen-Dazs rocks.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've always thought that about lefties and their support of the poor. Why keep munters happy on the dole and pay for them to breed when it's obvious that this is against the survival of the fittest which evolution needs to secure a better human race in the future?

I think it's pathetic that none of the other right-wingers of MacNN don't and won't dispute this ridiculous assertion. So I guess I should assume you all agree with this Darwinistic, fnkc the poor attitude?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

This can't be said enough.

I'd like it to be proven.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I find the popularity of Ben and Jerrys to be mystifying. It's tasteless, inedible plastic. Haagen-Dazs rocks.

I think it's pathetic that none of the other right-wingers of MacNN don't and won't dispute this ridiculous assertion. So I guess I should assume you all agree with this Darwinistic, fnkc the poor attitude?

To adopt a Darwinistic approach to legislating for the poor you don't have to 'f**k them'. You just have to create a system that encourages them to become self reliant instead of one which allows them to thrive indefinitely without working which is exactly what we have in the UK.
There are girls in our schools who deliberately plan to get knocked up so the council will give them a flat or house. That is their life plan and its a genuine option for them so obviously some of them are going to take it and some are much better off as a result.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

To adopt a Darwinistic approach to legislating for the poor you don't have to 'f**k them'. You just have to create a system that encourages them to become self reliant instead of one which allows them to thrive indefinitely without working which is exactly what we have in the UK.
There are girls in our schools who deliberately plan to get knocked up so the council will give them a flat or house. That is their life plan and its a genuine option for them so obviously some of them are going to take it and some are much better off as a result.

It's hard to differentiate between the rhetoric and reality at times, at least in this country.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I think it's pathetic that none of the other right-wingers of MacNN don't and won't dispute this ridiculous assertion. So I guess I should assume you all agree with this Darwinistic, fnkc the poor attitude?

Of course nothing from the left-wingers on the ridiculous statement Doofy was responding to.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I think it's pathetic that none of the other right-wingers of MacNN don't and won't dispute this ridiculous assertion.

So let's not leave it to the right-wingers (most of whom won't subscribe to it anyway because they're usually variously religious therefore are somewhat obliged to assist the poor)... Why don't you dispute this logical disconnect that the left subscribes to?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course nothing from the left-wingers on the ridiculous statement Doofy was responding to.

Nothing from the lefties actually addressing the statement I responded with either.

Surely, from an evolutionary perspective the obvious thing to do to advance the human race would be to round up the bottom (poorest, etc.) 10% once every 50-odd years and turn 'em into soylent green? Or don't lefties believe in evolution when it's not being used as a weapon with which to bash religion?

[Waragainstsleep]

The fittest part of survival of the fittest is relative. If the environment dictates that physical weakness or stupidity gives you an advantage when it comes to procreation, then the 'fittest' under those circumstances will be the weakest or the dumbest.

It would seem more logical to try and encourage traits that we consider to be better such as physical strength, intelligence, resilience to disease etc, but evolution doesn't really have an opinion either way on which traits are good and which are bad.

We don't cull the 'bottom end' of society for various reasons but really we should't need to. We should just try to adjust the environment to make it more difficult for those people to exist then they will either get their acts together or die out by themselves and no-one has to go to jail or risk being accused of eugenics and being a Nazi.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The fittest part of survival of the fittest is relative. If the environment dictates that physical weakness or stupidity gives you an advantage when it comes to procreation, then the 'fittest' under those circumstances will be the weakest or the dumbest.

It would seem more logical to try and encourage traits that we consider to be better such as physical strength, intelligence, resilience to disease etc, but evolution doesn't really have an opinion either way on which traits are good and which are bad.

Interesting. For example, the government is actively creating an environment where people would call into the city to have their sidewalks shoveled and the average test scores in math and science rank 25th globally in spite of dwarfing those other countries in cost per student. Instead of an environment that encourages physical strength, we pay people not to work. Instead of an environment that encourages intelligence, we teach to the lowest common denominator, tell them it is bad for personal esteem to mark papers in red, or compete against others. This is an environment that would increasingly rely on government to do its research, its shopping, its bidding, its teaching, its thinking, and its growing. Evolution in the sense that you have attributed it to human behaviors certainly has an opinion and that opinion is that a dependency class is more moldable and will unwittingly guarantee the ownership of a few. Some may see this as a selective advantage for the weak and dumb, but it only appears that way to the weak and dumb as designed by those at the top of the chain.

We don't cull the 'bottom end' of society for various reasons but really we should't need to. We should just try to adjust the environment to make it more difficult for those people to exist then they will either get their acts together or die out by themselves and no-one has to go to jail or risk being accused of eugenics and being a Nazi.

Any act to create an environment of personal responsibility by eliminating those policies that ease symptoms of the conditions imposed upon you by a growing centralized authority is not viewed as decreasing the scope of that authority, but as an attack on the weak, the elderly, and the children. In this the dumb may prevail, but not in the manner they think. As designed by those at the top of the chain.

[Waragainstsleep]

I agree with you that our environments are not being structured the way they should be by those with the power to do it. I'm not entirely heartless so I don't agree with just throwing people out onto the streets and watching them starve to death but putting them up in greater comfort than some of those footing the bill is ridiculous, outrageous and foolish.
Human rights seems to have gone beyond food, water, heat and shelter to encompass TV, internet, holidays abroad, cars and if you have kids Xboxes. Its ridiculous.

[OAW]

The Obama administration on Wednesday unveiled rules for coal-fired power plants that mean costly investments passed on to consumers, but also health benefits.

Hundreds of older plants — which together make up the largest remaining source of unchecked toxic air pollution in the United States — will have to cut emissions or shut down.

"By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health," Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a statement.

The American Lung Association added its support, calling it a "huge victory for public health" and echoing EPA estimates that the rules will prevent 130,000 child asthma attacks and 11,000 premature deaths each year.

Power plant operators who have trouble meeting a three-year deadline to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxics will be given some flexibility under a deal struck between the White House and the EPA, the Washington Post reported last Friday.

The EPA estimates the rules will cost utilities $9.6 billion by 2016 to install special equipment known as "scrubbers."

About 40 percent of the 1,400 coal-fired units nationwide still lack modern pollution controls, despite the EPA in 1990 getting the authority from Congress to control toxic air pollution from power plant smokestacks. A decade later, in 2000, the agency concluded it was necessary to clamp down on the emissions to protect public health.

Companies that generate most of their power with "clean" fuel sources like nuclear, natural gas and renewables have supported the standards, while those that get most of their power from coal, including American Electric Power and Southern, have vigorously fought the rules.

Scott Segal, a lobbyist for power plants, said the rules will result in the loss of more than 1.4 million jobs by 2020 as utilities are forced to shutter old coal-fired plants. He estimated that for every temporary job created in technologies to clean up power plants four higher paying jobs, often union ones, will be lost.

New power plant rules: Higher bills, cleaner air - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

"Sensible" government regulation to promote the general welfare by protecting public health? Or "intrusive, "job killing" government overreach into the private sector?

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Ok now let me give you my story to put this into another perspective. I own a factory that recycles chemicals. We're considered a small business. One of our competitors is a large multi-billion dollar waste company that you have all heard of. They have tried all those tactics that were mentioned in the article to put us out of business. As that wasn't working they went to bribe the local government. A couple times a year I get a notice that we have violated some regulation and need to pay a fine and go to court. I.E. "we have determined that you have dumped chemical waste in the sewer". We are completely innocent so you might be thinking 'whats the big deal, whats the cost to you'. Well I call up the government officials and get the run around. There's a lengthy bureaucratic investigative process that follows and while it goes on, my permits are put on suspension and I loose business until Im proven innocent. I get this note in the mail and I ask who said this? Where did you guys get this? But all I get is, we jis we jis know you did it. I say prove it, is there a water test or something? No, there's no test that was done... there's no nothing.. And there goes the long investigation that in the end always proves we didn't do any wrong. There is a lot of irony in this; the whole purpose of our company is to be alternative energy, clean and all that. So it is EXTREMELY infuriating. Our competitor charges to takes toxic waste from other companies and dumps it in some government approved spot. We charge less to take toxic waste, we recycle it and resell it. We are a smaller company so we operate more efficiently than the big corporations. I know exactly which 2 government officials are being bribed but it's not anything that would stand up in court. Your article makes it seem so easy... "we just... sued Pillsbury and the government protected us." In most cases it's not that easy, suing is a gamble; and at this point the government is the number 1 thing in my way. That doesn't mean no government at all would work either. If that were the case our competitor would just set fire to our plant.

... On another note I've personally witnessed federal agencies get bribed by large companies so I don't have much faith in them either. In fact bribery is manufactured into the whole process. When a large company wants to build a new operation they may allow different cities to place bids for their business. Companies say in so many words "which one will be the nicest to us? By the way we this and that problem with the last city we were in so we had to move... are you guys going to be the same way?" Localized federal officials will then compete for the business for their city by trying to out-promise the other cities It's all about who's going to regulate us the least. This corruption is hard to remove because many times the federal officials will be out of jobs if their city loses the bid; so you can't really threaten to fire them; and if they win the bid they get a huge promotion for all the jobs that will be created under them. If a company is then upset with the regulation not meeting their standards they can move again; which often results in all the federal employees that were hired just for that company, to be laid off. So employees know better than to over regulate.

And that's just the start of it. Just the tip of the ice burg. I actually never witnessed an honest operation in the government.... But I'm sure there must be some 1% of the time that they aren't corrupt in their work. Im all for regulating the big companies... just don't know how to go about it.

Thats the failure of the US election system. As long as individuals and companies are allowed to contribute massive amounts of money towards elections, those elected, politicians and judges will always answer to those that funded them to get in power in the first place.

A cap must be in place to ensure no one answers to any one but the public. If companies and people could only contribute $1000.00 to any campaign corruption would go away pretty quickly.

[OAW]

Another example to consider ....

Airline pilots to fly shorter shifts, get rest - USATODAY.com

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not entirely heartless so I don't agree with just throwing people out onto the streets and watching them starve to death but putting them up in greater comfort than some of those footing the bill is ridiculous, outrageous and foolish.

Well the good news is no one, not even the most staunch conservative in this country would agree with just throwing people out onto the streets and watching them starve to death. Eesh... that just sounds so ghastly and horrible.

Human rights seems to have gone beyond food, water, heat and shelter to encompass TV, internet, holidays abroad, cars and if you have kids Xboxes. Its ridiculous.

It has gotten out of hand and it's not just for the poor any more as the middle class is getting its share of welfare as well.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well the good news is no one, not even the most staunch conservative in this country would agree with just throwing people out onto the streets and watching them starve to death. Eesh... that just sounds so ghastly and horrible.

Are you sure of that my friend? Given some of the callousness displayed by some in the GOP debate audiences I wouldn't bet any money on that. And a casual perusal of the Comments section of a news story discussing this topic would be illuminating as to just how hostile some people are to social welfare spending.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Are you sure of that my friend? Given some of the callousness displayed by some in the GOP debate audiences I wouldn't bet any money on that.

I think it's equally plausible that some might read too much into this audience behavior for a presupposition that misses a far larger picture. I've tried to explain this before, but the fact is; conservatives on the whole are not only a little more charitable than liberals OAW, but a lot more charitable. Interestingly, on lower incomes. Who Gives and Who Doesn't? There's a fundamental difference in opinion as to who should be the purveyors of our life and labor and this manifests in our giving habits.

I'd be willing to bet the audience calls to the candidates were no more calloused than the story of the Little Red Hen in elementary school my friend.

And a casual perusal of the Comments section of a news story discussing this topic would be illuminating as to just how hostile some people are to social welfare spending.

Instead of hostile, why not that they're just incensed at what they know of the missing $ flying around everywhere. The reference was kicking people out on the street and watching them starve to death OAW, I generally err to keeping things in perspective a bit. The reality is if you're out on the street or starving to death, it's generally because you're refusing help. Maybe you need to be a little callous to dig in and deal with reality, but again... it's no more callous than anything you'll find in the Little Red Hen.