Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, with respect to election cycles, OWS is about 6 months behind the Tea Party, which first got onto the radar in the spring of 2009. By November 2010 it had a massive electoral impact. I will be very surprised if OWS has a comparable electoral impact in 2012. Surprised, but delighted.

Only because the TP was quickly hijacked by the Establishment and so was allowed positive media coverage by the Elites.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I second that it gets on my nerves too. I suppose the founding fathers would be seen as socialists too. They were all about a government of the people, for the people, by the people, etc. etc. (Yes, I know that was an Abe Lincoln quote, but whatever) It still came from the ideas of the constitution. The revolutionaries were sick of the crap they were getting from the rulers in England. They wanted a government that worked for them...the people. Not one that catered to the wimps of the ruling class.

They would call the real Thomas Paine an America-hating Commie.

Originally Posted by James50

I suppose I find OSHA the most galling. We have an excellent safety record and even though we have some dangerous equipment, we often go years between lost time accidents. Recently, we had an inspection that was prompted by an agency initiative for companies which had equipment that could cause amputations (fingers is the biggest danger). We have such equipment with significant guarding. No problems there. But once in the plant, the inspector has to look at everything. He found a couple of electrical panels which did not have the required 36" clear around them. In an emergency, someone would have to push some stuff out of the way to get to the disconnect. We were also cited for some extensions cords that had been dragged across the floor to run some pedestal fans in the summer heat which had some place where the insulation was damaged.

Georgia Tech has a service where you can request an inspection. They will not report any violations found as long as you correct them. We have requested this service numerous times. Indeed, several years ago we were granted a designation from OSHA for the passing nature of our plant and our accident record. At the time we received it, we were only one of three companies in the state that had earned this.

At no time did anyone from Georgia Tech or OSHA in the past tell us the panel clear areas were a violation during numerous inspections over the years. This is only one of hundreds of details you can be fined for. The inspector said we should get the Ga Tech service. "But we already have" of course has no effect. We are still waiting to see what we will be fined. I can guarantee you that not 1 company out of a 100 has dwelt on these regulations and systems as much as we have. It is literally impossible to have a clean inspection. We know it and they know it.

Finally, another characteristic of this inspection that is not substantive but definitely annoying was that the inspector arrived at 9 AM and left at 3 PM. He did not allow anyone to take lunch. It may seem a small thing but we felt it was disrespectful of our company and the management that has struggled to maintain compliance.

Maybe another time, I can go into what it is like to keep track of environmental regulations.

James50

This sounds more like the particular inspectors being picky dicks then any inherent problem. The OSHA inspector who came to the thrift store I work at blew off minor violations as long our supervisor promised to fixed them, especially if they are some obscure regulation that is easy to overlook.

Originally Posted by James50

Its like asking if we need traffic laws. Yes, of course. But how do you feel when you are stopped by a cop at midnight for turning right on red when there is small but unlit sign that you did not see saying "no turn on red" and there is no one (except the cop) for hundreds of yards?

That happened to my24 year old millinneal son recently. It is the first ticket he has ever gotten. The fine was $175 paid on line. He was rightly furious. This kind of stuff is what makes people hate the government.

James50

Everyone here in Fargo hates the traffic cops because they have a monthly ticket quota, they will ticket you for innocent mistakes of the kind your son did in order to get their quotas filled, it's a f***ing extortion racket.

Originally Posted by Odin

Only because the TP was quickly hijacked by the Establishment and so was allowed positive media coverage by the Elites.

I don't think lack of media coverage is an issue for OWS anymore. Now lack of accurate media coverage, that's another issue. However, I will say it's better now than it was when the media first began to taking notice of it. There are certain people or media sources that are covering it accurately, but if you aren't watching or reading these media sources, then chances are you may not be getting the true story...Let's put it this. If you are still asking what do these people want? Or if you are still seeing this as a partisan movement (or potential partisan movement) chances are you aren't tuned into accurate coverage.

Question for James: your group of folk has a lot of influence in politics. I wonder why you guys haven't reined in operations like OSHA? Maybe the Tea Party could go after it instead of environmental regulations. Of course, you probably have some problems with those too. But come on James, I mean, you guys have so much power, and have had it for 30 years. Why is OSHA still so full of dicks?

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm not excusing Fannie/Freddie.

Funny, I am excusing Fannie Mae(as she was orginally designed). Note: I would have to examine Freddie Mac in more depth to make an assessment. Why were they allowed to hold Mortgages as Investments?(this is rhetorical).

Originally Posted by PW

The primary reason they lost market share, and therefore the primary blame for the sub-prime shenanigans, is that they previously had their wings clipped hard as a result of the accounting scandals of 2004. However, lets not forget that these GSEs were turned into private corporations, as driven by "stockholder value" as any other listing on NYSE, and that nearly all the evils that emerged from them came from that corporation aspect of their business model. They have since been returned to solely federal government entities that can't avail themselves of corporation bullshit; they are currently the only thing underpinning any housing sector activity, and at some point will likely be a 'profitable' segment of federal operations.

Ah yes, "a profitable segment of the Government". How appropriate. Maybe we can use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a vehicle to trade Crude Oil, as well. How about Individual Carbon Credits? Note: My assumption is that the quotation marks around "profitable" has to do with your views on MMT. If so, understood and duly-noted.

Originally Posted by PW

It is that latter attribute that has the wing nuts trying to destroy it ala Obamacare. If Obama gets elected in 2012, it is game over for the t-baggers as these govt programs prove out to be integral to our economy's well being, i.e. we'll have t-tards at town halls with signs of "Hands-off my Fannie" along with the ones with "Keep govt socialism out of my Obamacare." People like the Koch brothers know this and are fighting it with everything they got.

It is expected that Interventionistas such as yourself are interested in an increase in Dependency on the Federal Govt.

Your quotes are both artistic and funny, though.

Originally Posted by PW

Yes, and mostly for economic reasons. Given what automation is doing to jobs, this is the only viable way to keep any semblance of what was the American Dream.

Oh, so tempting... like a WWI Zeppelin...floating... so enticingly...in an azure sky...Another day, perhaps.

Prince

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Question for James: your group of folk has a lot of influence in politics. I wonder why you guys haven't reined in operations like OSHA? Maybe the Tea Party could go after it instead of environmental regulations. Of course, you probably have some problems with those too. But come on James, I mean, you guys have so much power, and have had it for 30 years. Why is OSHA still so full of dicks?

Some reasons:

1. It does not affect enough people. Only managers are affected. Employees don't care particularly unless there is something obviously unsafe in a workplace. (Despite what you might think, most managers are very concerned about workplace safety even though they hate OSHA.) It is hard for employees to make the connection that OSHA may be taking money out of their pockets due to higher costs for the company. In large corporations, the people at the top spend no time on it at all unless there is a disaster. Compliance is the job of the middle manager.
2. Yesterday's punching bag - Massey Coal. There are always enough bad actors that someone will "wave the bloody shirt".
3. Its another barrier to entry. Scares off the competition.

Incidentally, you speak about political influence. I think one feature of today's world is that everyone feels impotent. I don't feel influential at all. I am just another cog in the great machine, another bug scurrying across the carpet looking for a place to hide. There is no one in authority who particularly cares what I think or do.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Some reasons:

1. It does not affect enough people. Only managers are affected. Employees don't care particularly unless there is something obviously unsafe in a workplace. (Despite what you might think, most managers are very concerned about workplace safety even though they hate OSHA.) It is hard for employees to make the connection that OSHA may be taking money out of their pockets due to higher costs for the company. In large corporations, the people at the top spend no time on it at all unless there is a disaster. Compliance is the job of the middle manager.

True. But middle managers need to act with conscience if violations pose danger. OHSA seems to act much like the military at its best in considering any slip-ups as portents of disaster because they tend to get lives of their own. Corporate governance at its best has required some internal politics with some bosses looking out for the interests of subordinates. A couple decades ago the best way to advance in corporate hierarchies was to devilop as many subordinates as possible.

2. Yesterday's punching bag - Massey Coal. There are always enough bad actors that someone will "wave the bloody shirt".

Maybe OHSA stops some workplace disaster from happening, which is a very good thing even if it is invisible. The worst actors get the most attention (which is appropriate). To be sure, any OHSA inspector has a vested interest in finding something wrong with a workplace, as such enhances a career. Again, safety violations probably begin small and metastasize with management that gets away with them.

3. Its another barrier to entry. Scares off the competition.

Who wants to work in a Chinese coal mine? If competition means mass death in industrial calamities (Texas City), maybe such is the competition that we don;t need.

Incidentally, you speak about political influence. I think one feature of today's world is that everyone feels impotent. I don't feel influential at all. I am just another cog in the great machine, another bug scurrying across the carpet looking for a place to hide. There is no one in authority who particularly cares what I think or do.

Those in authority in Big Business are out for themselves only even if they are in practice retainers of the feudal style.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I don't think lack of media coverage is an issue for OWS anymore. Now lack of accurate media coverage, that's another issue. However, I will say it's better now than it was when the media first began to taking notice of it. There are certain people or media sources that are covering it accurately, but if you aren't watching or reading these media sources, then chances are you may not be getting the true story...Let's put it this. If you are still asking what do these people want? Or if you are still seeing this as a partisan movement (or potential partisan movement) chances are you aren't tuned into accurate coverage.

FoX Propaganda Channel will surely try to show anyone protesting corporate greed and abuse of power as a Marxist-Leninist, and I wouldn't be surprised if it bought some Che Guevara or "Free Mumia" shirts for the occasion for people who give the instruction "Turn the camera this way!" to the camera crew.

Advice: find foreign sources. Look for media that have no vested interest in the events.

And right on cue:

Small-business owners in the United States are most likely to say complying with government regulations (22%) is the most important problem facing them today, followed by consumer confidence in the economy (15%) and lack of consumer demand (12%).

here.

James50

Interesting. James, I feel that I should point out that "consumer confidence," "lack of consumer demand," and "lack of jobs" all mean the same thing from the POV of a small business owner. So that's really 31% who said that, in one form or another, which considerably outstrips the number who responded about government regulations.

Originally Posted by James50

And right on cue:



here.

James50

It's interesting to look at the historical trend of the NFIB survey that is done much more frequently and over decades compared to the Gallup poll -







What one sees is that concern for regulation and taxes are both puttering along about the same for the decade and certainly far below its historic high (- one would expect some baseline of complaint above zero regardless of level of tax/regulation, no?). What really pops out at you is “concern for sales” (i.e. aggregate demand) still nearly at all-time highs.

Right after the big brouhaha over the debt ceiling, Ezra Klein wrote an insightful piece concluding that it would become increasingly apparent that the budget issue would become a stalemate and the politics would soon shift to regulations as the only way for politicians to show they were doing something, anything. He's obviously been proven right.

What you are seeing in the uptick on "regulation concern" is the successful achievement of the propaganda machine in only a matter of a few months. Sheeple will always be sheeple, I guess - even when predicted and reported well in advance.

There has been a proliferation of silly internet regulations in the last few years. Now they're talking about the PROTECT IP Act - a law that could have a severe chilling effect on all types of user-created websites (including forums like this one).

Owners of such websites could be held liable for anything posted by users and offending domains could be blacklisted from DNS records in a way similar to how China stifles the web.

Regulate the little guy, give handouts to the big boys and politically connected... Two sides of the same coin.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What you are seeing in the uptick on "regulation concern" is the successful achievement of the propaganda machine in only a matter of a few months. Sheeple will always be sheeple, I guess - even when predicted and reported well in advance.

I will only speak for myself, but this is not a new concern. Surely you do not think that every time a new issue affecting business arises that it is the result of the "propaganda machine"? (whatever that is).

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I will only speak for myself, but this is not a new concern. Surely you do not think that every time a new issue affecting business arises that it is the result of the "propaganda machine"? (whatever that is).

Not to worry, James. PW is a firm believer in the primacy of Official Statistics over mere empirical fact.

Originally Posted by James50

I will only speak for myself, but this is not a new concern. Surely you do not think that every time a new issue affecting business arises that it is the result of the "propaganda machine"? (whatever that is).

James50

I'm both a skeptic and a data junkie. When I see/hear the latest "solution" from the Right and the data (e.g., number of media hits) clearly shows that "soltuion" (get rid of regulation) was no where in sight until the previous solution (cut the budget) failed miserable, I'm somewhat skeptical.

Not to take anything away from your own personal experiences, which I wish you the best in dealing with. But on the macro-scale, its just more political BS from the Right to distract us from the real problem - people need jobs. And jobs aren't going to magically appear because of confidence fairies blessing us for our austerity or removing regulations over night. It's going to come from the governemen spending money when we are in a situation where the private sector cannot. Good news: that won't cost you or me anything -- well, except for the money you'll spend taking the misses on that vacation once your order book becomes overfilled.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm both a skeptic and a data junkie. When I see/hear the latest "solution" from the Right and the data (e.g., number of media hits) clearly shows that "soltuion" (get rid of regulation) was no where in sight until the previous solution (cut the budget) failed miserable, I'm somewhat skeptical.

Well all I can say is I hope you will exercise your skepticism when you hear the latest "solution" from the left as well. You know, trillion dollar platinum coins and the like.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Well all I can say is I hope you will exercise your skepticism when you hear the latest "solution" from the left as well. You know, trillion dollar platinum coins and the like.

James50

I like PW's posts on MMT, but much of the rest is Establishment daftness.

I'm no enemy of regulation, but I do think a good house-cleaning is in order, get rid of stupid and outdated regulations, get rid of contradictions, and clear up the legalese so it's easier to understand.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm no enemy of regulation, but I do think a good house-cleaning is in order, get rid of stupid and outdated regulations, get rid of contradictions, and clear up the legalese so it's easier to understand.

The problem is that getting rid of regulations means an increase in risk (assuming most regulations have an actual purpose). No bureaucrat is ever going to sign off on an increase in risk no matter how small. It would mean potential personal liability which there is no incentive to risk. The regulatory process only moves in one direction.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

I like PW's posts on MMT, but much of the rest is Establishment daftness.

I'm no enemy of regulation, but I do think a good house-cleaning is in order, get rid of stupid and outdated regulations, get rid of contradictions, and clear up the legalese so it's easier to understand.

Well, thank you, Odin. I'm sure a lot of my Establishment daftness James would agree with- we may have differences on what bath water to throw out but I think we both share a basic fondness for the baby.

I agree with your nice summary on regulation, however. Of course, the devil is in the detail - one man's over-regulation is another's insufficent regulation - that's why those damn things can run up to thousands of pages.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Not to worry, James. PW is a firm believer in the primacy of Official Statistics over mere empirical fact.

What is "empirical fact?"

In the context of this conversation, it sounds like you may be giving priority to anecdotal evidence over survey information. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, why do you see statistical information as less valuable?

Originally Posted by Odin

Only because the TP was quickly hijacked by the Establishment and so was allowed positive media coverage by the Elites.

The Tea Party was never hijacked by the establishment. It has drawn support from elements of the Republican establishment, which is a differnet thing, such as the Koch brothers. I do not think this has led Tea Party members to do anything or support anything they do not believe in. Nor has the Tea Party gotten positive media coverage from the msm. It has gotten a lot of media coverage. The hundreds of people who have taken the time to contact me to thank me for pointing out (so they thought) that Obama is the new Hitler did not have to be goaded by corporate interests to do so.

Odin, beware the Marxist doctrine of false consciousness, which you appear to have taken to heart. Your definition of "astroturf" seems to be "any popular movement I do not agree with." There's no use kidding ourselves about our fellow citizens.

Thomas Paine was a radical by the standards of the American revolution, and thus by 1800 he was revered by the Jeffersonians and excoriated by the Hamiltonians.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What is "empirical fact?"

In the context of this conversation, it sounds like you may be giving priority to anecdotal evidence over survey information. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, why do you see statistical information as less valuable?

Well that depends on your perspective. Some folks (like investors) prefer data. Some folks on the other hand (like scientists), prefer information. Surveys and graphs are data but not information. It is important to recognize the difference and the relation between the two.

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by Odin

... I'm no enemy of regulation, but I do think a good house-cleaning is in order, get rid of stupid and outdated regulations, get rid of contradictions, and clear up the legalese so it's easier to understand.

The problem is that getting rid of regulations means an increase in risk (assuming most regulations have an actual purpose). No bureaucrat is ever going to sign off on an increase in risk no matter how small. It would mean potential personal liability which there is no incentive to risk. The regulatory process only moves in one direction.

James50

There are really two issues here. First, there is a pendulum that swings with the change in administration. A little consistency would make the regulatory environment a lot more predictable. Second, there is an Us v. Them attitude that permeates the entire process on both sides. The regulators are adversarial, but the regulated are too. That also needs to be fixed. The problem is, the department that should be acting as an agent for business, is only interested in large businesses. Let Exxon-Mobile fend for itself, and shift the support focus down scale. There should be a single point of contact that represents the interests of businesses interacting with government and assists the agencies in their interactions in the other direction.