[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
In article <32AEF309.698@bionomics.org>,
Max Jacobs <mjacobs@bionomics.org> wrote:
>Thomas Hopkins recently studied regulatory compliance costs in
>"Regulatory Costs in Profile" done for the Center for the Study of
>American Business. In 1995 regulatory compliance costs were $668
>billion. Of that $218 billion was just paperwork, $223 billion was due
>to environmental regulations and $227 billion was for price and entry
>controls. Even if you assume that environmental regulations create no
>paperwork (which would be like assuming that the world is flat)
>environmental regulations still cost on average $1905 per employee in a
>business with less than 20 persons. $1824 per employee in a business
>with 20-499 employees and $1025 per employee in large businesses with
>over 500 workers. So imagine if you ran a business with 10 employees.
>By these figures, you would be paying $18240 just to comply with
>regulations. That is enough money to hire another person. So, its hard
>for me to believe you when you tell me regulation doesnt effect the
>general employement level.
>
>Now for your second assertion. The federal reserve does not control the
>general employment level in this country, the market does. Your
>assertion is a good example of machine age thinking, something we at the
>Bionomics Institute are trying to overcome. The economy is not some
>sort of automobile, with the fed having its foot on the gas pedal. The
>economy is a complex ecosystem. Sure if the fed raised the federal
>funds rate tremendously there would be, some increase in the
>unemployment level. But that is only because wall street trusts Alan
>Greenspan to make the right decision. The fed only controls the federal
>funds rate, which is the interest it charges to make loans to other
>banks. This does effect the interest rates that we deal with everyday,
>but it is the market that actually changes them. A couple of months
>ago, there were some rumors going around that the fed was going to raise
>the federal funds rate and that very day, interest rates rose by
>themselves.
>
>If this hasnt convinced you, how about this. Imagine if the federal
>government cut defense spending by 25%, wouldnt that effect the
>employment level? (it did in california). Imagine if IBM went bankrupt,
>wouldnt that effect the employment level? Imagine if regulatory
>compliance costs went down to zero and $668 billion were availible this
>year for investment. Wouldnt that raise employment? The economy is vast
>and complex and many different things create the current level of
>unemployment.
Seeing as how this study was done by a pro-business think tank I wonder
how accurate the figures are but giving the benefit of the doubt, are you
recommended that all regulatory compliances be disregarded? That would
fit in line with what many businesses would like. Imagine, they could
pollute all they like, higher children and legally own sweatshops, offer
no medical or retirement plan to workers, pay nothing to the government.
Boy wouldn't that really get the economic "ecosystem" going! As complex
as our economy might seem to you, it pales in comparison to the complexity
of a singled-cell organism much less a true ecosystem. As a Green
supporter, I would love to see some regulation go, not all regulation is
bad. Some may seem absurd, but since we are talking of the environment,
its protection is not.
**** David Whitt davwhitt@med.unc.edu
** ***
** No one can make you feel inferior
*** without your consent.
**** -Eleanor Roosevelt
*** *
*** ** * People often find it easier to be a result
*** ****** of the past than a cause of the future.
*** ***
Follow-Ups:
References: