| Mr Khan said: I would argue that the static nature reflects the fruit of endless scientific studies that constantly readjust claims of what is harmful, or how much of what is "too harmful," as well as some potential lobbying from "green" corporations seeking to undermine their more polluting rivals. I would argue that certain scientific standards should be seen as indisputable, and for the purposes of protecting certain vestiges of the environment which are nonmarket factors but whose goodness is superior to the immediately perceivable lost economic gains, a centralized set of iron-clad rules is needed, one that can be subverted by neither business lobbying nor the EPA |
I see. In that case, I would agree. The issue I have, though, is that the regulations constantly shift and change allowing more and more clout by certain agencies like the EPA. For example, their most recent Clean Air and Water Act in January of this year allows them to have more powers over cars and other polluters. Because of this, it will likely hurt auto manufacturing as they must re-tool for whatever compliances the EPA sets up... Which hurts jobs and potential innovations in the future.
Thats why we have government regulation. A lot has been deregulated since reagan but these rules and new rules need to be put in place. It won't stop all the greed but it will end a lot.
Not true. There is vastly more government regulation and intrusion today than whe Reagan was in office. Look at the size and scope of government entities in the 1980's vs. today. There are vastly more laws on the books today than then. This causes increased costs in compliance and diminishes worker and business productivity - rather than create new, helpful products, they have to constantly re-tool.
I will give you this analogy:
Take the most unreguated industry in the world - PCs, and compare them with a heavily-regulated, capital-intensive industry such as energy production or cars.
For PCs, they've gone from being rather specific, large, costly, inefficient devices to the most widely-used and needed range of devices in 40 years. Innovation is something that takes place every day, and not decades. Products constantly iterate and improve, providing more and better efficiencies all the time.
Comparatively, you look at power and cars in America, and very little progress has been made. Additionally, each time innovations may be reached, new laws are added to the books to restrict and regulate such things (such as fracking or forcing safety standards/emissions on all vehicles). The result is very slow-moving technologies that hurt the consumer. Comparatively, you can look at generally unregulated sub-markets such as solar energy, and you see the huge leaps they've made in the same time period, because the government doesn't want to restrict them because they aren't dirty (even though they are in many ways).
For example, solar energy costs per KWH have dropped 40% this decade, and will likely to continue to do so. Why? Very little regulations on their manufacturing or usage. Compare that to coal.... Big difference. That is why regulations aren't as favorable or as desirable as you'd think. They make sense from the initial point of view, but in reality, they can be much more costly than you believe.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
