Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

What are you talking about? OP never said all regulations are bad. I never said so either. After all it is a study, and it also did to an extent factor in benefits of regulations, and also included low and high end numbers. But most regulations hurt the economy, including the poorest. You simply cannot deny that regulations hurt the economy, BIG LEAGUE

 

If consumers see banks that don't have regulation from trusted private regulatory agencies, they will not go to these banks. These banks overtime will cease to exist, and the market for banks will change for the better. There will be more banks and regulation will be part of the cost of production to acquire consumers.

 

I am not opposed to entertain the idea of over-regulation, which is obviously bad. However, my experience is that EVERY regulation comes to life because someone has abused the system. Regulations being generated because some administrator is having fun doing so is just a myth. Note that I contribute(d) to several regulatory bodies at my university. There is always a reason as to why new regulations are needed.

I just believe the article you cited is disingenuous because it arbitrarily emphasizes the monetary cost of regulations (it is obvious to anyone that there IS a cost), while not taking into account what current GDP would be if no new regulations had been instated since 1949. In other words, the benefit of regulations was not calculated. For example, what about the loss of economic output for all the people who would have gotten sick with lead poisoning, potentially needing long term medical care due to the neurologic effects of lead?

 

This is still total garbage, as it pretends that regulation is a monolith and that all the costs and benefits are identified, which they clearly are not.

It's the same as saying laws are too expensieve and kill our economy or saying treaties are too expensive and kill our economy.

The thing is, all our methods of tuning our nation come together to form the best country on god's green planet.

And, we could be better - but not by suggesting that one whole category of control is killing us.

 

In a perfect world where all bankers are benevolent and will never, ever defraud their customers ... like Wells Fargo.

 

Yeah, so? Are you assuming I approve of everything that happens under Trump? Think again. Although, these are simply opinion scare tactic pieces. "under siege" is coming from the same overly emotional stunted thinking that gave us comments from other "experts" that claimed FL would be underwater in 10 years. And that was in the 90s=) Now those same people are saying FL will be underwater in another 30-50 years. Everything "could" happen. I think every study that proves to be false or inaccurate, forces the researches to fall on their swords and commit suicide before asking us to spend trillions on their hunches. Not saying they're wrong, but most haven't exactly been right either. Their estimates are all over the map, like Hurricane predictions. They pat each other on the back when they produce models that predict nearly any path, then get all excited when 1 of the 15 models is correct. Hey GENIUSES, 1 of the models will ALWAYS be correct. The trick and skill and intelligence is about telling us which model WILL BE CORRECT 1 week out instead of 12 hours out when its already too late. Heck, they've been wrong right up to the last few hours and cost me money and time overly preparing for something that never happens. And again, they smirk and try to act smart, when they WERE COMPLETELY WRONG. They shouldn't have jobs if their predictions are wrong, because my untrained, unresearched eyes can predict as accurately as they can.

This line of thinking also gave us, Trump will prevent women working or reinstitute Jim Crow or rape all our daughters. I ignore the crazies, thank you.

 

There are good regulations--stopping, say, a dam from destroying a community--and mindless bad regulations.

There's little reason to believe workers themselves would have got their hands on the additional wealth.

 

The whole point of the existing system is so that banks, their investors, and their depositors do not fail

When and if their is a collection of private individuals, wall street firms, investment banks, hedge funds who want to put a sufficient amount of their own wealth at risk for this purpose.. we can examine the suggestion. However, given there would be substantial risk with no reward, i doubt that will happen any tine soon

 

The Fed cut the money supply in 1931 and made the Depression much worse.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/

 

This is a hotly debated topic
People spend years studying it
Just because you announce an opinion does not make it true
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

The fact is that there have been repeated panics before the fed wad established.... so your idea that all problems can be solved by eliminating the fed is absurd

And while it is true that government policies exacerbated the depression.... the fact is that those destructive policies were exactly the policies that appealed to people like you.... policies like raised taxes to balance the federal budget in the face of falling tax revenues

So.... the way i see it, sll of the rich countries around the world have significant regulations .... i can propose a dozen exemplars. Can you provide example that demonstrate the success of your ideas

 

A search on hazlett

Henry Stuart Hazlitt (/ˈhæzlɪt/; November 28, 1894 – July 9, 1993) was an American journalist who wrote about business and economics for such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Nation, The American Mercury, Newsweek, and The New York Times. He is widely cited in both libertarian and conservative circles.[1]​

So, a journalist born in 1894 should be our guiding light? Not for me, sorry

 

It used to be debated amongst economists, but the consensus is that Milton Friedman was right and that cutting the money supply, especially in 1931, was a killer.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/

However, in 1963, Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz transformed the debate about the Great Depression. That year saw the publication of their now-classic book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. The Monetary History, the name by which the book is instantly recognized by any macroeconomist, examined in great detail the relationship between changes in the national money stock--whether determined by conscious policy or by more impersonal forces such as changes in the banking system--and changes in national income and prices. The broader objective of the book was to understand how monetary forces had influenced the U.S. economy over a nearly a century. In the process of pursuing this general objective, however, Friedman and Schwartz offered important new evidence and arguments about the role of monetary factors in the Great Depression. In contradiction to the prevalent view of the time, that money and monetary policy played at most a purely passive role in the Depression, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the [economic] contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces" (Friedman and Schwartz, 1963, p. 300).​

To support their view that monetary forces caused the Great Depression, Friedman and Schwartz revisited the historical record and identified a series of errors--errors of both commission and omission--made by the Federal Reserve in the late 1920s and early 1930s. According to Friedman and Schwartz, each of these policy mistakes led to an undesirable tightening of monetary policy, as reflected in sharp declines in the money supply. Drawing on their historical evidence about the effects of money on the economy, Friedman and Schwartz argued that the declines in the money stock generated by Fed actions--or inactions--could account for the drops in prices and output that subsequently occurred.​

 

Sounds good, but people aren't that smart or rational.

 

Ok,

for the purpose of discussion, please identify the conscious decision the fed made to lower the money supply. I suggest that you will not find such a decision, and in fact they “thought” the money supply was fine based on low interest rates indicating low demand for money

What Friedman et al did was to re-conceive. The nature of money supply to show how it had been unintentionally reduced

 

Federal regulations make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why Democrats, the magnet of the poor, want more regulations. Givens them more poor to own.

 

Please read... http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm

There was a complicating factor of foreign financial developments impinging upon the Fed domestic policy at this time. Britain had been forced to devalue the pound in September of 1931 as a result of an attack of speculators. After the British devaluation there was fear that the dollar would be under attack next. The Fed, to stave off such speculation, wanted to raise the level of the interest rates. It did this by restricting the growth of the money supply after September, 1931. In 1932 Congress pressured the Fed to expand the money supply. The Fed did so until Congress adjourned and then tight monetary was resumed. There were some members of the Board of Governors of the Fed that believed the economic downturn and the collapse of many banks were good for the health of the financial system. This was known as the liquidationist policy of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon; i.e., the liquidation of the multitude of "weak" banks was a necessary condition for the recovery of the banking system.​

This was the decision in 1931 that made the depression worse.

There was such a decision, as noted. In fact, the status quo was also bad news because of the weakened banking system and contracting economy.

Do you have an explanation for your claim?

 

Ok, lets talk
How was the money suppl

All respect, but all this is an area of vibrant debate...

Lere is a link to a the fed discussion
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depression
Which makes it clear that there were many opinions and dispute and confusions about what was the nature of the problem, what to do and why.

Further there were numerous collateral issues, including that fed authority was dispersed to regional banks who had separate views and approaches, the fed did not yet have adequate authority to respond, and the fed did not yet understand the constrictive monetary impact of deflation

Re friedman.... i guess what i was trying to say was that he pulled together monetary factors into a unified and coherent picture in a way that the fed had not conceptualized during the depression. For instance, they observed the collapse of the english pound and considered protecting the dollar as the first order problem to address... and consequently raised interest rates to address that issue... which in turn reduced money supply....but they were not really thinking about the potential impact on the economy of a shrinking money supply ...they were protecting the dollar... nor did they calibrate the impact of their actions on world economies...nor did the calculate the the domestic impact of the now collapsing world economies...nor did they realize the vicious feedback cycle of deflation .... while they were also mistakenly concerned about inflation.... and the administration was looking to balance the budget in the face of collapsing tax revenues.... and in all of this confusion, there was little coordination of understanding or addressing the problem

 

Economists have pretty much settled on the basic problem and are debating aspects of the problem.

There was a better understanding about the impact of deflation on real interest rates than some people seem to think.

The Fed had the power to address the problem and lessen the downturn, but it screwed up for what I think were ideological and political reasons.

Are we much better today? I thought so until Bush let the housing bubble get out of hand, the banking system assume too much risk, outright fraud to infect secondary credit markets, and then compounding the problem by letting Lehman collapse. Credit dried up as banks were unwilling to lend to each other.

I was astounded frankly when Congress in a self-righteous political fit refused to pass the bailout or fashion and enact their own response. Left to stand, we could have seen a significant collapse of the world economy.

 

Did you read my link?

Yes, and think how much worse it was at the inception of the depression.... until the depression happened, no one understood it was possible. At least in 2008, some people had a clue about the looming calamity