Robert Reich: "Bizarre" To Think Deregulation Will Create Jobs

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/07/robert_reich_bizarre_to_think_deregulation_will_cr eate_jobs.html

:eek:

[Acala]

Do you think he REALLY doesn't know that regulations HELP the giant corporations crush their competition? Or is he just a totally dishonest hack?

By the way, The Collins really should get his picture taken with Reich.

[TCE]

He's right, but then he's horribly wrong. Corporations are making record profits, but it isn't in spite of regulations - it is because of them. Say many industries were deregulated. Small companies would start cropping up and they would challenge the mega-giants, who would then move to spend their money to compete.

[ctiger2]

He's right, but then he's horribly wrong. Corporations are making record profits, but it isn't in spite of regulations - it is because of them. Say many industries were deregulated. Small companies would start cropping up and they would challenge the mega-giants, who would then move to spend their money to compete.

Bingo! Regulations cost businesses money and if you don't have the business of scale to handle them, you lose.

[mczerone]

This guy is typical of the left. "Cutting govt regulations" translates in their heads to "Complete corporate rule", unchecked wealth (which means power to them), and suffering consumers.

I've debated many of them before, and you can throw out all the statistics you want about how economic checks and balances against evil and fraud work better than govt ones, but they'll still insist that we need something.

The better way to win them is to suggest that we need RATIONAL regulations. Then explain how any govt regulation must be irrational, because of the structure of the regulating body. Be ready to suggest consumers' groups or industry standards that already exist to "regulate" products and corporate behaviors. We don't want "less regulation", we want better regulation (via less govt regulation).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Just hand them Triumph of Conservatism. Consumers and property rights 'regulate' what happens in a market devoid of Government intervention. Government intervention is nearly always at the behest of Industry and they play the left as the useful idiots.

[Icymudpuppy]

As a small businessman, I can think of several regulations that if eliminated would allow me to hire one extra person per reg.

[Cutlerzzz]

Reich strikes me as more of a hack then anything else.

[Sola_Fide]

This guy is nuts!

[Travlyr]

Lawrence O'Donnell - "What would you like to see the president advocate in his speech?"

Robert Reich - "The thing to look for Lawrence is something that is bold enough and big enough to deal with the size of the problem we have. To supplement the fact that consumers and businesses are not spending in the United States ... its got to have ... I would say probably this year about $500 Trillion dollars worth of spending on infrastructure, roads, bridges ... all kinds of things that we need that are desperately are underfunded right now in terms of deferred maintenance. We should also have a WPA ... a civilian conservation corp such as FDR had" ... blah ... blah ... blah...


Robert Reich is wrong. The kind of inflation he is advocating will be tough to endure. He is wrong about who benefits from regulations and who is punished by them. A lot of people get punished because the regulations are just too expensive and burdensome to overcome. For instance, I own a truck. If I use my truck for hire, then I have to abide by DOT regulations and license requirements. That raises the cost of hauling, so my truck sits and works only for me. I worked as an independent carpenter for 20 years, but now for me to buy the permits, licenses, fees, and abide by ADA, EPA, OHSA, IRS, and so on makes it too much of a risk for me to help others with their projects. Regulations kill opportunity and jobs.

[Travlyr]

This guy is nuts!
Absolutely nuts! $500 Trillion? Wow!

[Travlyr]

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's $500 trillion dollar stimulus package estimate is likely right on target in order to save the Keynesian economic model. Stimulus packages in the billions will only prolong the economic downturn. Seriously, I'll bet he has done his homework on the numbers. As Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley he has a reputation to uphold.


Lawrence O'Donnell - "What would you like to see the president advocate in his speech?"

Robert Reich - "The thing to look for Lawrence is something that is bold enough and big enough to deal with the size of the problem we have. To supplement the fact that consumers and businesses are not spending in the United States ... its got to have ... I would say probably this year about $500 Trillion dollars worth of spending on infrastructure, roads, bridges ... all kinds of things that we need that are desperately are underfunded right now in terms of deferred maintenance. We should also have a WPA ... a civilian conservation corp such as FDR had" ... blah ... blah ... blah...


WPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration)
The Works Progress Administration (renamed during 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unskilled workers to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing, and housing. Almost every community in the United States had a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited rural and Western areas.

One other point, wouldn't a real journalist have a follow-up question when someone he was interviewing said, "What we need is a $500 trillion dollar stimulus package for infrastructure and another new deal package."? I mean come on ... a statement like warrants at least a follow-up question.


Two Cheers and One Jeer for the American Jobs Act (http://robertreich.org/post/9984121331)
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
Two cheers for the President and his America’s Jobs Act. Cheer Number One: In presenting it to a joint session of Congress, he sounded as passionate and determined as he’s ever sounded.

Second cheer: He laid out the problem correctly and effectively. He explained why jobs and growth must be the nation’s first priority now — not the federal deficit. The economy is in crisis. People are hurting. So government must act, and act quickly. It’s irresponsible at a time like this to suggest that government should simply close down.

But a jeer because the jobs plan he presented isn’t nearly large enough or bold enough to make a major dent in unemployment, or to restart the economy.

[TCE]

The current federal budget isn't even $4 trillion. I'm pretty sure he misspoke and meant to say "billion" but still, that means he is advocating virtually the same thing as Obama. That would make the total stimulus roughly $1.4 trillion and that doesn't include the Fed's $16 trillion injection or the other $700 billion from the bailout. We are up to over $17 trillion in stimulus already and $500 billion more will help us? Sometimes politicians are hilarious.

[Travlyr]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/07/robert_reich_bizarre_to_think_deregulation_will_cr eate_jobs.html

I thought it might be misspeak too, but it's hard to tell. He clearly says $500 trillion, and he makes it clear in his article that $800 billion wasn't enough. If he had said $5 trillion or $50 trillion that would have been a shocker in itself, but $500 trillion? I wish Lawrence had asked him a follow-up question to verify what Robert Reich really meant.

[jmdrake]

This guy is nuts!

No. He's not. If he was crazy this would be excusable. He's pushing this agenda on purpose and with a clear mind. That's the scary part. These people want to take this country down.

[Exponent]

I've sort of been developing the strategy of asking people, "Would you ever consider starting up your own little business, if you had some good ideas and sufficient capital?" In general, people are likely to say, "No." So I ask, "Why?" And I expect to get an answer that has something to do with it being too complicated. And of course that is almost entirely due to regulations and taxes (which often cross paths). It gets people thinking, because they're looking at it from their own perspective as a hypothetical producer/entrepreneur, not just as a typical consumer that doesn't really consider the details of where their goods/services come from. Then they start to realize that it's only the big boys that can compete, and that now the big boys don't have to compete against nearly as much, only each other. No wonder prices suck, quality is shitty, innovation hardly exists, and employment is akin to slavery these days!

[TCE]

I've sort of been developing the strategy of asking people, "Would you ever consider starting up your own little business, if you had some good ideas and sufficient capital?" In general, people are likely to say, "No." So I ask, "Why?" And I expect to get an answer that has something to do with it being too complicated. And of course that is almost entirely due to regulations and taxes (which often cross paths). It gets people thinking, because they're looking at it from their own perspective as a hypothetical producer/entrepreneur, not just as a typical consumer that doesn't really consider the details of where their goods/services come from. Then they start to realize that it's only the big boys that can compete, and that now the big boys don't have to compete against nearly as much, only each other. No wonder prices suck, quality is shitty, innovation hardly exists, and employment is akin to slavery these days!

Interesting strategy. Right on.

[dannno]

As a small businessman, I can think of several regulations that if eliminated would allow me to hire one extra person per reg.

Peter Schiff says he has so many guys working to comply with regulations that if gotten rid of he could instead save his customers money or hire on more account managers.

[dannno]

I've sort of been developing the strategy of asking people, "Would you ever consider starting up your own little business, if you had some good ideas and sufficient capital?" In general, people are likely to say, "No." So I ask, "Why?" And I expect to get an answer that has something to do with it being too complicated. And of course that is almost entirely due to regulations and taxes (which often cross paths). It gets people thinking, because they're looking at it from their own perspective as a hypothetical producer/entrepreneur, not just as a typical consumer that doesn't really consider the details of where their goods/services come from. Then they start to realize that it's only the big boys that can compete, and that now the big boys don't have to compete against nearly as much, only each other. No wonder prices suck, quality is shitty, innovation hardly exists, and employment is akin to slavery these days!

That's a great strategy. There are already several ideas I've had for enterprises I've scrapped because of regulations.

One time I made the best hummus in the world. The rest of the world could be enjoying it, too, but I was like "meh.. too many regulations.."

[reillym]

Corporate and rich taxes are at all-time lows. Regulations are necessary because the free market does not correct everything. That is impossible.

If someone doesn't want to invest and deal with the regulations, then the business probably wouldn't succeed anyway.

[reillym]

Robert Reich is wrong. The kind of inflation he is advocating will be tough to endure. He is wrong about who benefits from regulations and who is punished by them. A lot of people get punished because the regulations are just too expensive and burdensome to overcome. For instance, I own a truck. If I use my truck for hire, then I have to abide by DOT regulations and license requirements. That raises the cost of hauling, so my truck sits and works only for me. I worked as an independent carpenter for 20 years, but now for me to buy the permits, licenses, fees, and abide by ADA, EPA, OHSA, IRS, and so on makes it too much of a risk for me to help others with their projects. Regulations kill opportunity and jobs.

So we shouldn't have licenses for cars and trucks? What is your argument here?

There simply hasn't been an explosion of regulation in the past ten years. What this is, is a coordinated effort by big business to be able to pollute our rivers and air with their trash and overrun consumer protections.

[The Free Hornet]

They don't mean "jobs". When you or I say "job", we likely mean the same thing. Person A contracting a task to Person B. That is not a "job" in their world. To them, a "job" is something beholden to the powers that be. They presume to increase the job holders wage, benefits, security. In exchange, some taxes are taken off and it wouldn't hurt if we had your vote next November.

Crack dealers, prostitutes, and the kid shoveling snow off your driveway do not have "jobs" in this world view. They don't want those kind of jobs. I guarantee, with the right policies we could make million of those jobs in a matter of months. We could also reincorporate them into the tax rolls and general accounting of our economy too.

[Travlyr]

Corporate and rich taxes are at all-time lows. Regulations are necessary because the free market does not correct everything. That is impossible.

If someone doesn't want to invest and deal with the regulations, then the business probably wouldn't succeed anyway.
Why are you ignoring the impact of the inflation tax?

[Travlyr]

So we shouldn't have licenses for cars and trucks? What is your argument here?

There simply hasn't been an explosion of regulation in the past ten years. What this is, is a coordinated effort by big business to be able to pollute our rivers and air with their trash and overrun consumer protections.
My argument is that I could help others in the world if not for the fear of going to jail for helping others. I have a truck and valuable skills that sit idle because regulations, licensing, duties, fees, oversight, and unfair taxing practices keep my truck parked and my labor to myself.

[The Free Hornet]

So we shouldn't have licenses for cars and trucks? What is your argument here?

There simply hasn't been an explosion of regulation in the past ten years. What this is, is a coordinated effort by big business to be able to pollute our rivers and air with their trash and overrun consumer protections.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/red-tape-rising-a-2011-mid-year-report

I suspect you are either speaking a different language, or you have a very narrow focus. You would not have time to read all the new regulations governement issues in a year. They have been on the upswing since 2007 and are having a major impact. No doubt, some may be "good" and some may be "bad". But they are there and that is unmistakable.

PS: No, I should not need a license to travel but that is a "state" issue.

[Travlyr]

So we shouldn't have licenses for cars and trucks? What is your argument here?

There simply hasn't been an explosion of regulation in the past ten years. What this is, is a coordinated effort by big business to be able to pollute our rivers and air with their trash and overrun consumer protections.

No, it is not a coordinated effort to pollute our rivers and air with trash again. What sense does that make?

Government regulations ALLOW for pollution based on how much a polluter can afford in fines. It is a bargain between the regulator and the regulated. For example, a company calculates that it can put X amount of mercury into a river because the regulations allow for X amount. But if polluter puts X + Y amount into the river, then they are subject to fines by the regulators (IF THEY GET CAUGHT BY THE REGULATOR). So they take chances if they over pollute. At any rate they can legally put X amount into the river without fines.

Free market regulations state that if a polluter puts any amount of mercury into a river, then they are liable for their actions. Someone downstream who consumes mercury due to the actions of a polluter can sue for damages which limits a polluter's desire to pollute.

The Free-Market Solution is superior to government regulations.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Why are you ignoring the impact of the inflation tax?

Because he's a troll.

[NewRightLibertarian]

There simply hasn't been an explosion of regulation in the past ten years. What this is, is a coordinated effort by big business to be able to pollute our rivers and air with their trash and overrun consumer protections.

There has been an explosion in regulations, written for and and by the big business interests that you supposedly hate so much. Bush increased regulations in many areas which goes against your false leftist talking point. How much longer does Obama have to fail for before people like you admit that big government doesn't work? Does the dollar have to be worth absolutely nothing before people like you stop spewing your nonsense?

[NewRightLibertarian]

These people want to take this country down.

I wouldn't say that. They want the government and the state to be more powerful together. They just want to take those peons from flyover country down and control their behavior (for the good of the environment, of course)

[wannaberocker]

Robert Reich is a communist who presents himself as a socialist. So its not surprizing that he feels that the solution to all things is more govt more regulation.

[Cutlerzzz]

Corporate and rich taxes are at all-time lows.

The top 1% pay a 3rd of all income taxes(and more then they did 30 years ago as a percentage of total revenue), the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and tax revenue was at all time highs under Bush, before U6 unemployment hit 18%.

Claim one

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners


Claim two

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/15/u-s-to-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world/


Claim three

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&chart=F0-total&units=p

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s



Regulations are necessary because the free market does not correct everything. That is impossible.


What is it that Free Markets cannot regulate that governments can, and why is it a positive?


If someone doesn't want to invest and deal with the regulations, then the business probably wouldn't succeed anyway.

Why? Because you said so?

[Travlyr]

Corporate and rich taxes are at all-time lows. Regulations are necessary because the free market does not correct everything. That is impossible.

If someone doesn't want to invest and deal with the regulations, then the business probably wouldn't succeed anyway.
Again reillym, why are you ignoring the inflation tax?

[ClayTrainor]

Regulations are necessary because the free market does not correct everything. That is impossible.

The implication being, the government CAN correct everything?



If someone doesn't want to invest and deal with the regulations, then the business probably wouldn't succeed anyway.

Baseless assertion. Someone might make, for example, the best hummace in the world, but they might not even bother to even try to bring it to market since they don't want to deal with the over-bearing regulations from the state that essentially dictate how they get to run their own business. There's simply no way to tell if their business plan will be successful, until they actually test it out in the market. For you to assert otherwise is to claim some kind of knowledge that you can't possibly have, which ultimately means you're asserting such a thing out of some kind of faith, not reason.

The state more often than not, creates and enforces regulations to protect big corporations and the politically connected from being liable to market forces. Just look at big banks and big oil for clear and obvious examples of this.

i.e. The only reason BP hasn't gone completely bankrupt, is because they are granted limited liability protections from the state, regardless of how much property they destroy.

i.e. The only reason Goldman Sachs hasn't gone completely bankrupt, is because the government protects them from liabilities that exist in the market through bailouts and regulations that make it illegal and/or very difficult for competitive models from even starting to form.

So, in the world we live in today, these giant corporations get to keep ripping people off and destroying wealth and property, because the state protects them from liability and competition.

[Sola_Fide]

Why are you ignoring the impact of the inflation tax?

He probably doesn't understand it.

[Sola_Fide]

No. He's not. If he was crazy this would be excusable. He's pushing this agenda on purpose and with a clear mind. That's the scary part. These people want to take this country down.

Can't argue with that.

[Sola_Fide]

Regulations are necessary because the free market does not correct everything. That is impossible.

No one says that the free market "corrects everything", we say that government regulation introduces more ways in which corrections become necessary....which are always remedied, they contend, by more regulation.

You understand this, right?

[ClayTrainor]

No one says that free market "corrects everything", we say that government regulation introduces more ways in which corrections become necessary....which are always remedied, they contend, by more regulation.


Excellent explanation

[KramerDSP]

While watching Freedom to Fascism today, I came across this gem from Reich, way back in 1999.


"The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress are irrelevant. America’s domestic policy is being now being run by Aaron Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. Foreign policy is being run by the International Monetary fund. When President decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from the Congress."

Robert Reich, ‘’99 Clintons Cabinet, trusted advisors

[Anti Federalist]

He's right, but then he's horribly wrong. Corporations are making record profits, but it isn't in spite of regulations - it is because of them. Say many industries were deregulated. Small companies would start cropping up and they would challenge the mega-giants, who would then move to spend their money to compete.


Bingo! Regulations cost businesses money and if you don't have the business of scale to handle them, you lose.

Which is just another way to say "Too big to fail".

[Pericles]

No. He's not. If he was crazy this would be excusable. He's pushing this agenda on purpose and with a clear mind. That's the scary part. These people want to take this country down.

They are classic Marxists. We have the "enlightened vanguard" who can control most of the masses, and are on their way to eliminating the middle class, so the last roadblock to elimination of the capitalist class can take place via the revolution of the proletariat.