strangecircus said:
His definition of "steady growth" is one where nothing like 2008, 2000, 1990 1973 etc., can happen.
Where 2008 & 1929 can't, yes. 1973 really had little to do with financial shenanigans. External forces will always be outside national regulatory control. Should the USG have responded differently? IDK.
strangecircus said:
Probably heavy regulatory EU style economy would suit him, without the Euro.
I can't say anything about the EU's state of play, but don't bet on it. Different regulation doesn't mean more, necessarily.
strangecircus said:
The problem is EU/European style economy is mostly dependent on big business and/or government. It's the difference between 5% economic growth in the good times and 2%. Literally single digit percents make a difference, -2% and we have a recession. Almost all new jobs are from small or medium business. Large corporations have cornered the market and are looking for ways to cut jobs, not hire. Looking for ways to be more efficient or outsource or offshore.
Any regulation or rule is a cost small business.
And we have the usual defense of
laissez faire.

Fine. When AIG or Bear does something stupid, let them
go out of business.

And when they screw over investors, let the investors sue the execs for every dime they've got.
Regulation is a price for living & operating in a civilized society. You don't like it? Set up in Russia. See how you like dealing with your business being seized by the gov't or gangsters whenever they feel like it. See how you like never knowing what the rules are. Do you really think that's better for your business?
strangecircus said:
as more time goes on more rules exist though well intentioned and well crafted and well constructed, strangle taxicab owners.
Society is more complicated now than it used to be. It would seem to follow the rules have to be, too. Or should there be
no rules? Do you want to hire a cab when you have no idea what the
per mile rate is going to be? Or if there is one? Or if the cabbie can charge whatever he wants? (Which would appear to be the Uber model...) Pardon me for thinking that's not a good idea.
strangecircus said:
What people don't understand is the companies responsible for growth in a capitalist economy run on razor thin margins, having to borrow money from the bank to make payroll, and can't afford to hire armies or lawyers or accountants to interpret rules and regulations. The margin for error is 5 to 15% and from that the government takes a cut. The big companies can hire all the expensive warm bodies to comply with government demands, the small ones can't and go out of business or don't happen in the first place.
Another defense of no regulation at all. So, you'd rather retailers be able to advertise prices they have no intention of offering, charge any price they like (changing it from customer to customer), & refuse to sell to people they don't like? You'd like groceries not to have to maintain fridges at a temperature that will keep meat from rotting & be able to sell rotten product as if it wasn't? You'd like car companies to be able to sell cars with defective airbags & no firewalls &, IDK, bolts that won't keep the wheels on? You don't think regulation matters?
So why is it you oppose regulations on banks & like institutions to keep them from people's houses out from under them? Or to prevent companies from doing stupid things like AIG did? Or from selling products that have depend on outcomes nobody can measure, because they're too complicated, or because nobody knows what the relationships are, or both?
strangecircus said:
So, if you want to regulate, it had better be a life-or-death situation like poisoned food or pollution or dead babies.
I disagree. (My examples above are off the top of my head.) I'd say regulation is about keeping out the cheats. AFAIK, there's no bank or brokerage firm that qualifies as "small business", & my main aim is to prevent the financial screw-ups, not tell your local Burger King how fast they have to serve a burger.
There's a difference between good (or necessary) & bad (or unnecessary) regulation. I'd say, frex, regs requiring passenger trains to survive

rolleyes

crashes with freights, or to use their horns at every level crossing, or to limit the radii of turns

confused

are bad. I'd say regs to prevent mortgage companies selling loans to people who they know can't pay for them, or to prevent loans (of any description) with 60% APRs, are good ideas. Would you disagree?
Lord_Thrawn said:
This article's abstract about stock trade taxes reads "While a transaction tax limits the extent to which agents want to trade on their optimistic or pessimistic price beliefs, the tax also reduces market liquidity, thereby amplifying price volatility in normal times.
This article's abstract also seems to agree that taxes on stocks are bad, using research on Chinese taxes, while
this one uses data from Taiwan. Abstracts are great to skim the literature in a field- of course, won't be a anything near an expert, but can get an idea beyond Wikipedia what the current thought is. I just went to Google Scholar and typed "stock transaction tax."
That is interesting. I hesitate to rely on PRC or ROC as a model, given the low (no?) regard for rule of law, but... IIRC, it was proposed in Britain, but either rejected or repealed. Anybody know why? (IIRC, the results were mixed, but not catastrophic.)
usertron2020 said:
At the local level its usually the small businesses who are the worst polluters, as they have the least to lose when figuring the bottom line. They don't have to worry about stock values. In my home town we that problem with businesses big and small. And we are known as a highly regulatory state.
IMO, this is less about regulation than about cost (amount) of enforcement. It does play into your remarks about how the system works... The issue of who's paying to enforce the regs is obvious. (It's also getting a bit OT...but what about improved whistleblower laws? That way, locals or employees who know about it, or suspect it, can do the "neighborhood watch" & save the state or feds having to, & so save that cost.)
usertron2020 said:
Hadn't American economic growth been pretty steady without being explosive from 1946 until the Great Recession, with only speed bumps along the way?
I'd say it was pretty good into the '80s. Then things got a bit insane, with the S&Ls getting into stupid lending & LBOs going crazy. AIUI, that was financed by a law allowing the writeoff of debt for R&D.

How that works, I'm still not sure... How the IRS or SEC allowed it to continue, I'm even less sure.
So, was the state of regulation generally, & financial regulation specifically, out of control in the '60s & '70s? Were corporate taxes burdensome high in the '50s & '60s? (Okay, there's a postwar boom & Baby Boom in play. So be a bit careful about it.) As I'm looking at it, I'm not seeing the problem.
Then the deregulators came to DC, & we got the LBO & S&L debacle & the '08 Crash. I can't say that's a causal connection for sure, but it damn sure makes me wonder.
