PDA

View Full Version : Cost of Govt Regulation Worse Than I thought




lx43
03-21-2013, 12:38 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/more-than-1600-pages-of-regulations-added-to-federal-register-last-week-cost-now-1-8-trillion-per-year/


Federal Register last week, cost now $1.8 trillion per year

All this time I thought the total cost of regulation was nearly $2 trillion for all three levels of government-by the three levels of government I mean federal, state, and local. My assumption has been wrong according to this article, the cost of regulation was even worse than I thought. According to this article I've linked and several other's I've seen the $2 trillion cost was just the cost of federal regulation. So when you factor in state and local regulation you can probably add another trillion to the cost of govt.

Counting total govt spending for federal, state, and local and add in the cost of regulation and inflation the total cost of govt has got to be near 70% of the economy. We are slaves people.

Working Poor
03-21-2013, 03:07 PM
This number needs to be making head lined for sure. Government cost too much.

lx43
03-21-2013, 08:07 PM
Anyone been able to find the total cost of regulation for federal state and local? I can't find an estimate.

tangent4ronpaul
03-21-2013, 09:15 PM
Anyone been able to find the total cost of regulation for federal state and local? I can't find an estimate.

Federal: 1.75T
State ~.5T
Local ???

http://jan.blog.ocregister.com/2009/09/23/state-regulations-cost-493-billion-38-million-jobs/22567/

-t

tangent4ronpaul
03-21-2013, 09:28 PM
Actually, that half a Trillion cost appears to just be California... and it makes me highly suspect of the federal total...

-t

lx43
03-21-2013, 09:44 PM
Actually, that half a Trillion cost appears to just be California... and it makes me highly suspect of the federal total...

-t

Suspect in what way? That the federal cost of regulation is to high or to low.

seraphson
03-21-2013, 09:55 PM
This number needs to be making head lined for sure. Government cost too much.

The problem is, as you and most of us all know, is that we don't actually "feel" the cost of big government with the exception of the occasionally prick of a popping bubble due to our wonderful Central Bank (and all it's glorified government sanctioned monopoly on inflation and interest rates). The REAL issue is having to deal with nearly a century of morally hazardous decisions created under the foundation of funny money and the trillion dollar unfunded obligations that go with it. The public clearly lacks this understanding by making the preposterous solution of "raising taxes", cutting a little spending (which they don't even know is merely lowered levels of projected spending) and being under the assumption this little $14 Trillion debt pest will go away.

tangent4ronpaul
03-21-2013, 09:57 PM
Suspect in what way? That the federal cost of regulation is to high or to low.

WAY too low!

Cost of Fed regulations for the entire country = 1.75T a year
Cost for a single states regulations = 0.5T

OK, CA is regs on steroids, but if we assumed each state was equal, that would be 25T in state regs costs for the entire country. 12.5T is probably more realistic. vs 1.75T for all fed regs... Something does not add up here.

Also, the GDP of the US is 15T, which makes me suspect of cost of state regs...

In any event, that we ar talking in the Trillions is a serious problem!

Lets say the ~.5T is for the entire country (state regs) and that makes 2.25T a year before factoring in local regs. 2.25T leach factor vs 7T GDP... That's a major problem! It also says that if we got rid of regs, the federal debt could be paid off in less than a decade!

-t

tangent4ronpaul
03-21-2013, 11:23 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think fed + state regs cost 2.25T a year. That's 17-18% of GDP for the country...

The second point makes me wonder about this reporters numbers and assumptions:


The total cost ($493 billion) is almost 5 times the state’s general fund budget and a third of the state’s gross product.
The 3.8 million jobs lost equals 1/10th of California’s population. California has about 14 million jobs, down 1 million from the peak in July 2007.
The total cost breakdown is $266.5 billion in direct costs of various regulations, $210.5 billion lost labor income and $16 billion in business taxes the state would get without the regulations

The unemployment is also a factor that hasn't been added - people that were contributing tax dollars that are now receiving them.

As a rule of thumb, when a time frame isn't specifically mentioned, per-year is assumed. So we have 2 reporters reporting on a CBO report and a uni study - respectively. I'm thinking the confusion is in sloppy reporting by one of the reporters. Would have to dig deeper to find out. But regs bleeding 18-20% of the economy is believable. And this is on top of taxes! OTOH, if regs are bleeding off $2 for every $1 of GDP means we are truely fucked! - and doesn't really make sence... as the cost of complying with regs would be part of the GDP... So yeah - my money is on regs costing us 2.25T or roughly 17-18% of GDP. (before the cost of local regs)

-t

oyarde
03-22-2013, 12:59 AM
How would you measure all the small business that does not get started and the losses of that ?

DamianTV
03-22-2013, 01:21 AM
Im just gonna quote Tangents sig and leave it at that...


Regulations do not regulate ... they protect the status quo.

bunklocoempire
03-22-2013, 03:29 AM
How would you measure all the small business that does not get started and the losses of that ?
Just pull a number out of your ass like they do with "jobs saved or created"? No, don't do that. It kind of makes my head hurt because of the non-production aspect of government and also that the money isn't really there to pay for it.

My first thought was of the dollar being worth what? Like 2 cents? And the other negative (?) 98 cents being make believe money for government crap.

Sooo if the other 98 cents could be freed up for real stuff... Ouch. My head...

tangent4ronpaul
03-22-2013, 04:29 AM
Well, in the early 1900's, you could get a half pound burger for 4-5 cents... what would today cost you 5-8 bucks... Inflation?

-t

ClydeCoulter
03-22-2013, 04:33 AM
Well, in the early 1900's, you could get a half pound burger for 4-5 cents... what would today cost you 5-8 bucks... Inflation?

-t

Yea, they were 9-10 cents when I was young, that would be in the early 60's. (not sure if they were 1/2 pound, they may have already shrank to the quarter pounder by then, the shrinking always makes inflation even harder to determine).

tod evans
03-22-2013, 05:05 AM
Yea, they were 9-10 cents when I was young, that would be in the early 60's. (not sure if they were 1/2 pound, they may have already shrank to the quarter pounder by then, the shrinking always makes inflation even harder to determine).

3# can of coffee.......

ClydeCoulter
03-22-2013, 06:00 AM
3# can of coffee.......

Now, it's like what, 12oz...

tod evans
03-22-2013, 06:19 AM
I remember McDonalds advertising hamburger/fries and a drink change back from your dollar..

Dad sending me into the gas-station with 35 cents for a pack of Pal-Mal...

Ben-Franklin Five-n-Dime, not dollar stores...

ClydeCoulter
03-22-2013, 11:08 AM
I remember McDonalds advertising hamburger/fries and a drink change back from your dollar..

Dad sending me into the gas-station with 35 cents for a pack of Pal-Mal...

Ben-Franklin Five-n-Dime, not dollar stores...

Yep, cigs were 32 cents when I was in high school. They are 15x + that now, that is totally ridiculous.
Can you even buy a lollipop for 5 or 10 cents (five of dime) any more?

lx43
03-22-2013, 10:46 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think fed + state regs cost 2.25T a year. That's 17-18% of GDP for the country...

The second point makes me wonder about this reporters numbers and assumptions:


The total cost ($493 billion) is almost 5 times the state’s general fund budget and a third of the state’s gross product.
The 3.8 million jobs lost equals 1/10th of California’s population. California has about 14 million jobs, down 1 million from the peak in July 2007.
The total cost breakdown is $266.5 billion in direct costs of various regulations, $210.5 billion lost labor income and $16 billion in business taxes the state would get without the regulations

The unemployment is also a factor that hasn't been added - people that were contributing tax dollars that are now receiving them.

As a rule of thumb, when a time frame isn't specifically mentioned, per-year is assumed. So we have 2 reporters reporting on a CBO report and a uni study - respectively. I'm thinking the confusion is in sloppy reporting by one of the reporters. Would have to dig deeper to find out. But regs bleeding 18-20% of the economy is believable. And this is on top of taxes! OTOH, if regs are bleeding off $2 for every $1 of GDP means we are truely fucked! - and doesn't really make sence... as the cost of complying with regs would be part of the GDP... So yeah - my money is on regs costing us 2.25T or roughly 17-18% of GDP. (before the cost of local regs)

-t

20% of GDP would be my guess for direct cost to the economy. The indirect cost on the other hand in incalculable.

Anti Federalist
03-22-2013, 11:08 PM
Flog until dead, the next douchebag who says, "What have I got to hide? I'm not breaking any laws".

juleswin
03-22-2013, 11:19 PM
Whoa, that number is huge. I would like to know what they count as regulation are they going to count a restaurant buying food thermometers to check the temperature of their food, a business building restrooms to meet regulation i.e are they going to count silly regulations along with common sense activities companies who would like to stay in business would have done for themselves anyway?

1.5 trillion on the federal level, what is no chump change

tangent4ronpaul
03-23-2013, 03:33 AM
Whoa, that number is huge. I would like to know what they count as regulation are they going to count a restaurant buying food thermometers to check the temperature of their food, a business building restrooms to meet regulation i.e are they going to count silly regulations along with common sense activities companies who would like to stay in business would have done for themselves anyway?

1.5 trillion on the federal level, what is no chump change

new a guy years ago that had a relatively new natural foods store. It was doing well, so he decided to add a small cafe. He knew stainless steel everything was going to cost, but OK. So he gets this constructed and a health inspector comes down and tells him that since it's now a restaurant, his standard bathroom just wouldn't do and he'd have to tear it out and put in a "handicap" accessible one. The damn thing cost something like 25-50K, and this was back when a thousand bucks was some REAL money! It put him out of business.

-t

cheapseats
03-23-2013, 05:05 AM
wrong thread, sorry

Isaac Bickerstaff
03-23-2013, 05:56 AM
We are using regulations to fight regulated entities in Minnesota energy policy right now. It's ridiculous. Basic economics has been thrown completely out the window and "need" for wind turbines, as determined by the regulators, is how much money is available in the form of government incentives. The "need" is balanced against whether any government regulatory agency has the political traction to make things uncomfortable for the utility regulators. Meanwhile, the utilities use their privilege of guaranteed rate of return as the entire justification for major infrastructure buildouts. We're talking single projects that cost $2 billion (meaning the utility will have $2.2 billion to be "recovered" from a rate adjustment), so from my perspective, regulation costing 20% of the GDP seems a little low.

lx43
03-23-2013, 10:28 PM
Whoa, that number is huge. I would like to know what they count as regulation are they going to count a restaurant buying food thermometers to check the temperature of their food, a business building restrooms to meet regulation i.e are they going to count silly regulations along with common sense activities companies who would like to stay in business would have done for themselves anyway?

1.5 trillion on the federal level, what is no chump change

From my own experience I'd go with 90% plus of the cost of regulation is not needed. Take the cruise ship industry, the idiot Smuck Regulator Shumer in NY has proposed a bill of rights for the cruise industry passengers. If this passes it would just be more costly regulation for the industry to comply with. The cruise industry doesn't need anymore regulation on them because they have the greatest incentive to fix it...that is the regulation of the free market. Carnival Cruise Line will eventually kill their own business by not fixing the mechanical error causing their ships to break down at sea. That is what these big govt idiots don't understand. You please the customer, keep them safe, give them great services and products at a price the customer is willing to pay or you die as a business. That is the only regulation you need.