Comments on: The Trojan Horse of cost benefit analysis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40803 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:35:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40803 @Mott,

Correction: Third paragraph should have read “Only to such extent as unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats unreasonably and without appropriate justification impose artificial and unnecessary “qualifications” on the accomplishment of projects or employment of people is there any connection between the adverse effect of ill-considered and arbitrary bureaucratic actions and inactions and the reciprocal and adverse effect on American’s “cost of living”.

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40802 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:26:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40802 @Mott,

The opening of America’s “private pond” of consumers to the world and the relocation of much of American manufacturing “offshore” where regulatory burdens, materials and labor cost less are the two sides of the same door – Globalization.

It is certification or licensing requirements, whether for contractors, nurses and assistants, teachers, etc. that artificially and undesirably discourage the number of people that would otherwise enter these fields thus increasing “supply” and lowering the cost of same in the marketplace.

Neither of these “issues” has the slightest connection to the stranglehold unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats presently have on Americans, American productivity and their “cost of living”.

No purpose is served by merely confusing issues.

]]>
By: Mott http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40792 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:29:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40792 @OneOfTheSheep: Job losses were not the result of expensive regulations – they were the result of deregulations toward (facilitating unregulated) free trade via lobby-instrument by the top few corporations to seekout cheap-labor elsewhere with less environemntal and public concerns and bring the goods back in duty-free to empty local wallets over time to the point of current job losses.

I think the real issue (and hence the enemy) here may be the regulations working in the interest of large corporations (as they were much the result of their lobby efforts over the years) and keeping out the smaller or new entrants from startup and or keeping them away from posing any threat of competition.

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40786 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:39:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40786 The difficulty, as the article explains, is that some things are difficult to objectively quantify and others (such as personal integrity in the context of a specific type of trading activity that the SEC is attempting to regulate) are almost impossible to objectively quantify.

Really, instead of the word “QUANTIFY” we should be using the word “PREDICT” – because you cannot quantify the effects of something that hasn’t happened yet. In these terms, it should be obvious why John Kemp explains:
“The result tends to depend on who is doing the measuring.”

The government shouldn’t have a “get out of jail free” card, and neither should Wall Street have one through the subversive application of cleverly worded laws that have been sneaked into the system through the back door.

There is a minor mistake in the article:
“It claims to have quantified costs and benefits were feasible, and relied on qualitative assessments where it is not”
I think this means:
“It claims to have quantified costs and benefits _wHere_ feasible, and relied on qualitative assessments where it is not”

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40784 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:36:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40784 @Mott,

You MUST be a bureaucrat. No one else could, with a serious face, suggest that “Regulations serve a higher moral purpose toward public good than to appease the few self-serving via cost-benefit measures.” Those “few self-serving” happen to be “we, the people”!

Already Americans lose factories, work and jobs because of poorly though out and excessively expensive regulations. The ones governing lead paint in houses built before 1980 have caused insured remodelers to just skip that work and leave it to homeowners or gypsy (out of their out-of-state truck) contractors to do (with greater danger of exposure).

Homes in many rural areas can no longer install septic systems. The systems now “acceptable” are more expensive and require frequent and expensive professional service. But that’s not considered in how the “cost of living” if figured. Of course our government lives in an alternate reality, so it’s no wonder they are out of touch with the people they govern.

The CAA/FAA and it’s unduly and largely incompetent heavy hands have all but killed private aviation. There has not been a power plant or refinery built recently anywhere in these United States. We can’t even get safe storage approved for our nuclear waste after building the facility.

I could go on and on all night, but you get my point.

]]>
By: Mott http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40783 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:41:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40783 Regulations serve a higher moral purpose toward public good than to appease the few self-serving via cost-benefit measures. The article goes to show how deep the self-seving has entrenched into this.

We’ve seen the results of unregulated free-trade and the likes that have depleted the competitiveness of this nation over the past decade and has polarized this nation toward bleak future of the next generation.

I hope some measures get established based on fairness to the public at large, enhancing competitiveness of the next generation, and accounting for the actions of the few self-centered.

]]>
By: schmetterling http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40782 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:39:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40782 This has got to be one of the “Holy Grails” of writing laws in this country. Nobody has ever really had to justify costs for anything because money has been like water, readily available but gone before you know it. Folks, this is just common sense stuff that is absolutely critical to the country’s health as well as the lawmaker’s reputation of getting things right! and not just his or her reputation, but every other lawmakers credibility that voted for it. These are issues that real people have to face every working day, and if we get it wrong, chances are pretty good we’ll be fired from our job. We incentivise the wrong things in this country, and it’s really just another example of how lobbyists and power players hi-jack everyone’s rights and everyone’s money for their personal gain. You’ll see alot less laws passed if benchmarks are established, but it’s an idea who’s time is waaaaay past due. Only good things can come from this.

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/03/the-trojan-horse-of-cost-benefit-analysis/#comment-40781 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:21:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11453#comment-40781 From the beginning of the alphabet-soup agencies created under the administration(s) of FDR it should have been apparent that giving unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats essentially unrestrained powers of rule and regulation was a bad idea.

Now that government must understand that no longer is it “business as usual” and that “if they spend it, taxpayers will cover the tab” it will be necessary for there to be reason and even priorities behind what government does. What a novel concept…accountable government. Such thinking might even someday lead to competent government, even if that means replacing all players on all teams.

]]>