[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's an interesting question! Can others answer too?

• Our work ethic
• Country of immigrants, most diverse in its ethnicity, race, religions, and philosophy.
• Our system of governance
• Our degree of philanthropy
• Our global influence and a system that draws more here than virtually anywhere else on the globe.
• Technological advancement
• Medical advancement
• Space travel
• Our influence abroad through the arts/music/style

That's off the top of my head for now. Convinced that any positive statement about the US is imperialistic, nationalist, patriotic, American exceptionalism in need of your rebuke, commence with poo-pooing in 3... 2... 1...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Food? Hundreds more regulatory agencies. When they turn to fats, sodium, soda, etc... they're trying too hard to be relevant. Time to cut. Toys? Many more regulatory agencies watching kids choke on stuff made in China. Trust me, bureaucratic bloat is not somehow exclusively a financial services phenomena.

This thread is absolutely necessary and the problem painfully simple. It was emotionally-charged fear mongering that sold us these monolithic wastes of money. It's time to ignore the emotional diatribes that seek to hide the small print in "complexity" and cut, cut, cut.

So how do we determine how many regulatory agencies are necessary?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• Our work ethic
• Country of immigrants, most diverse in its ethnicity, race, religions, and philosophy.
• Our system of governance
• Our degree of philanthropy
• Our global influence and a system that draws more here than virtually anywhere else on the globe.
• Technological advancement
• Medical advancement
• Space travel
• Our influence abroad through the arts/music/style

That's off the top of my head for now. Convinced that any positive statement about the US is imperialistic, nationalist, patriotic, American exceptionalism in need of your rebuke, commence with poo-pooing in 3... 2... 1...

I hope this wasn't a cheap shot at me? I don't disagree with any of this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So how do we determine how many regulatory agencies are necessary?

You have to pass the cut to know what's in it.

You certainly cannot manage that which you do not know. A good start to this is an audit on each and every last bureaucracy to redefine or establish its goals, measure its ROI, map its processes, gauge its staffing, apply some good ol' fashion thought to the matter and merge, consolidate, regionalize (its a Federal entity after all), and chop. Obama promised it, but I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be in his first term or second. Oh and... you have to have someone from outside the establishment do the audit.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope this wasn't a cheap shot at me? I don't disagree with any of this.

It may have been more appropriate to pull from dc's post, but his was directed at someone else and yours appeared to be directed to this forum. *edited to include: when you said "can others answer too?" I thought that was a push for anyone to respond with a list for dc.

Why didn't you provide a couple? You just said "that's an excellent question!", but you didn't offer anything in response.

[besson3c]

I shall come up with a list for Canada, just because I feel like it. I don't think I can do much better than ebuddy's America list, I'm particularly attached to American music (mostly prior to 1980 , so that would be at the top of my list. Otherwise... In no particular order,

- Considered one of the most peaceful countries in the world to live in (based on crime rates, amount of military spending, etc.)

- A favorable/favourable proportion of talented and well educated people that were raised and/or still live there (even though many move to or spend a lot of time in the US due to the vast financial opportunity there)

- Beautiful country (I love northern climates)

- Good governance, politics seems a little less bottom feeding and scandalous than our neighbors/neighbours to the South. I know all of the crap that goes on in the US government can be frustrating to everybody.

- Successful banks, health care system, school system, other social structures

- Toronto and Vancouver are marvelous, clean, relatively safe, and very diverse cities

- Many great inventions and accomplishments that are widely recognized (not all of them hockey related

- I think the bilingualness of Canada is very cool. I like spending time in Montreal and I'd love to go back to Quebec City. Some people have bad experiences with the French there, they've been cool to us.


In short I think Canada does very well for its size (it has about the same population as California). There is a lot to be proud of when you put things in perspective and account for the population difference between it and its southern neighbor/neighbour which always begs for comparison.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have to pass the cut to know what's in it.

You certainly cannot manage that which you do not know. A good start to this is an audit on each and every last bureaucracy to redefine or establish its goals, measure its ROI, map its processes, gauge its staffing, apply some good ol' fashion thought to the matter and merge, consolidate, regionalize (its a Federal entity after all), and chop. Obama promised it, but I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be in his first term or second. Oh and... you have to have someone from outside the establishment do the audit.

I'm in favor of all of these audits, so we agree on all of this. I'm disappointed that the craptasticness that was the MMS was not identified and fixed. I'm sure the Obama admin (or any other) could come up with semi-legitimate excuses, but at the end of the day it was something that he never got around to fixing. The whole oil spill resulted in mud on everybody's faces: the drill baby drill crowd, the MMS, BP and those who are very pro-corporation, it looks like both the deregulation and regulation crowds are claiming "victories", Obama for claiming that the drilling was safe, Obama for the MMS failures, the media for being the media, all of the Gulf Coast residents, previous admins, and probably many others I'm forgetting.

It is unfortunate that this was not prevented. I'm sort of over-saturated with assigning blame, it just seems best to say that it was unfortunate for everybody. I hope this serves as a valuable lesson.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not sure, because I haven't done much research on the effectiveness of the EPA and FDA.

-t

Don't feel bad, nobody else has really done any, either. They don't want to know the answers on that one. Besides, how do you measure the value of fourteen different species of snail-darter?

Regulation ultimately doesn't work in most cases because nobody is accountable (as we're seeing RIGHT NOW IN THE GULF) . Or, there are liability caps, or government models that everyone can use (spreading the blame to an entire industry). Some of these things are necessary to promote investment in the first place, but then they ultimately end up getting in the way.

In this case, BP is going to end up being accountable. Unfortunately, the regulatory overreaction will end up limiting offshore drilling operations on those drills that we CAN cap or clean routinely, and this plays to the interests of the Leftists writing cap-and-tax legislation. Never let a good crisis go to waste!

What I find ironic here is that if we'd opened up to more inshore drilling in the first place the deep core stuff wouldn't have to happen for another 25 years or longer. But special interests governed regulation that limited inshore drilling in shallow water, etc. This doesn't absolve BP, or the feds, but it shows just how much government CANNOT do because it often does the best "sounding" thing rather than the best thing.

[hyteckit]

Capitalism fails again.

Time to expand our military to oil drilling and mineral mining.

Call it Warcraft.

Our military will be funded by oil and minerals.

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm in favor of all of these audits, so we agree on all of this... The whole oil spill resulted in mud on everybody's faces: the drill baby drill crowd, the MMS, BP and those who are very pro-corporation, it looks like both the deregulation and regulation crowds are claiming "victories", Obama for claiming that the drilling was safe, Obama for the MMS failures, the media for being the media, all of the Gulf Coast residents, previous admins, and probably many others I'm forgetting.

... like the envirowhacko lobby that pushed this industry further offshore to begin with, the anti-capitalists and anti-drill baby drill folks who will see to it that this crisis does not go to waste and that the industries of the gulf pack up and move their operations elsewhere bringing unemployment to thousands... because again for me it's not as much the accident itself, but our reactions to it. It happened and you're right, we could probably go back to to the Truman Administration and the first plastic Crosley radio if we're clever enough. The absolute last thing anyone wanted was for a leak of this magnitude to occur, but what to do once it has occurred and who leads the effort? Who tries plugging the hole and who pays for all this is kind of an easy one, but who leads the cleanup and who tries to minimize the damage at the shoreline and in the wetlands, etc... and how do we handle drilling going forward?

It is unfortunate that this was not prevented. I'm sort of over-saturated with assigning blame, it just seems best to say that it was unfortunate for everybody. I hope this serves as a valuable lesson.

Agreed.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just like commercial success and government "success" have never gone hand in hand. Glad to see you're coming around to my way of thinking.

What does this even mean?

The person who's head of my government has an undergrad and law degree from Canada, was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, worked as a lawyer for 30 years and also managed to start a cable company in the 70s which he later sold for a couple hundred million bucks. Now he's a government bigshot enjoying great popularity.

You can pull tons of examples of successful business people out of any particular government.

And yet, somehow you're convinced everyone's a "moron"? Pffft. You say, on the internet. Meet many of them in teh Real World and they'd tear your to shreds. You have your idiots, yes, but you have the great ones too.

It's the system, man. Everyone's worried about the common demoninator now. Government is no different.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The person who's head of my government has an undergrad and law degree from Canada, was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, worked as a lawyer for 30 years and also managed to start a cable company in the 70s which he later sold for a couple hundred million bucks. Now he's a government bigshot enjoying great popularity.

You can pull tons of examples of successful business people out of any particular government.

And yet, somehow you're convinced everyone's a "moron"? Pffft. You say, on the internet. Meet many of them in teh Real World and they'd tear your to shreds. You have your idiots, yes, but you have the great ones too.

It's the system, man. Everyone's worried about the common demoninator now. Government is no different.

So, you make a few hundred million bucks. After that you decide to:

A) Go sit on the back of a yacht.
B) Start a second career in which it's guaranteed that half the population will be hurling shit your way.

Which option is moronic?

And yes, I've had lunch with a good few politicians (on account of the ex being very active in politics). And I'm talking people in top 5 positions. Even the greats are aware that their position is moronic, since in a democratic society which allows everyone to vote no politician can ever do what's required to run a country properly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, you make a few hundred million bucks. After that you decide to:

A) Go sit on the back of a yacht.
B) Start a second career in which it's guaranteed that you'll be paid very little to lend your previously-successful talents to help try and lead your country/area to success even though many people might call you a "moron" just because you want to do so.

Which option is moronic?

Ahhhh, that old-fashioned notion of the rich and their "public service." Glad to see we've now moved to the rock-star mold of "rich and refusing to contribute anything expect vitriol on the internet."



greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhhh, that old-fashioned notion of the rich and their "public service."

Rich? You may or may not be a moron.
Politician? You're almost certainly a moron.

Why? Because nobody in their right mind stays in politics longer than a couple of years. Sure, you go into it with all guns blazing, trying to be of service to your fellow man. Then after a while, you start realising exactly what a nest of vipers politics really is. If you've got sense, you get out. If you're a moron, you stay. Simple.

Try it sometime Greg. Even serving on your local council for six months should do the job and show you how it really all works.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Glad to see we've now moved to the rock-star mold of "rich and refusing to contribute anything expect vitriol on the internet."

With all due respect, you ain't got a f'ing clue what I contribute off the Internet.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why? Because nobody in their right mind stays in politics longer than a couple of years. Sure, you go into it with all guns blazing, trying to be of service to your fellow man. Then after a while, you start realising exactly what a nest of vipers politics really is. If you've got sense, you get out. If you're a moron, you stay. Simple.

Exactly. That's why we need strict term limits.

To keep the morons from overstaying their welcome.

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Exactly. That's why we need strict term limits.

To keep the morons from overstaying their welcome.

-t

For all elected government workers?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Exactly. That's why we need strict term limits.

To keep the morons from overstaying their welcome.

Problem is, by the time they've made it to the top of the system, they've already been in politics long enough to have been put off by it if they're sane - the system starts at local council level. Thus, nobody in the upper echelon of politics is actually sane.

[olePigeon]

We do need regulatory authorities, but most of them have been rendered useless through lobby groups. Too many laws are grandfathered in to provide exemptions to complete bullsh*t that undermines everything that the regulatory authorities are supposed to do: protect the public.

So, to paint the broad notion that government regulation in general doesn't work is wrong. It needs a massive overhaul, and needs one without the influence of special interest groups.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

We do need regulatory authorities, but most of them have been rendered useless through lobby groups. Too many laws are grandfathered in to provide exemptions to complete bullsh*t that undermines everything that the regulatory authorities are supposed to do: protect the public.

So, to paint the broad notion that government regulation in general doesn't work is wrong. It needs a massive overhaul, and needs one without the influence of special interest groups.

Hence the intertwinement of government and corporations, perhaps via these special interest groups which serve as a bridge between the two entities.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hence the intertwinement of government and corporations, perhaps via these special interest groups which serve as a bridge between the two entities.

It's all about power, and dividing people creates power, so yeah, that's a pretty accurate statement.

As for the "responsibility" issue, I cannot think of one area in which the federal government, who has no responsibility to anyone, has succeeded by backstopping the private sector.

Education? Nope.
Law Enforcement? Nope.
Pollution? Nope.
Online security? Nope.
Creation of standards? Nope.
Banking reform? Nope.
Mortgage lending? Oh, hell no.


Just off of the top of my head, I can think of things where the government helped "level the playing field" by enforcing standards or creating infrastructure. But in none of these cases have they had any measure of success without private sector involvement. They are responsible to nobody. There is no accountability.

[besson3c]

Define "backstopping the private sector". You mean regulating?

How can any of us ascertain this? I mean, take food safety stuff... How can we tell what sorts of problems would have occurred had there not been some sort of safety standard? This is all speculative.

However, in learning about the economics of food production it is definitely not illogical to assume the worst from a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) or slaughterhouse without some sort of safety standards. I mean, without any standards these guys would not be held accountable for problems that occurred with their product, and once the horse had already left the barn and their products were sold it's not like this would hurt their economic bottom line. We would know that some people got sick from some food sold to probably all sorts of vendors, but we wouldn't know why or how, and who would investigate this to track down the source?

So, it goes the other way too - i.e. there are instances when there would be no accountability in the private sector either.