Clever. I guess this is the default fall back of the wannabe liberal debaters who spend their time pretending to have political discussions on a basketball site. I see you're yet another poster who sidesteps the substance of the argument in favor of discrediting the arguer. Funny, that's the same tactic that mc mark, Sam Fisher and all the rest use. Hmmmmmmmm.
No doubt, it is bizzaro world, I wish Clutch would enable users to see IPs that others are posting from. DD
IPs are easy to change. I thought we had a rule about only having one username? Or am I confusing my forums?
I am sure there is a rule, but it would be impossible for the Mods to track 40,000 members. OHMSS has had several names....I am pretty sure you can read a bunch of others and how they post and see they have multiple names too. Maybe I need to get with the program and get a new nick.....I could be RickyTickyTavi ! DD
Posters do a pretty bad job of hiding their secret identities. If I had a 2nd username, I'd be posting the direct opposite and arguing with myself to avoid suspiscion.
In your particular scenario, the regulation on your particular business would probably not be that bad. However, the regulations on your core customer base are numerous and expensive, thus limiting the scope and scale of your potential clients. Whether you agree with the regulations or not, the O&G industry is one of the most heavily regulated and taxed industries around. This is a limiting factor on how much drilling can and does occur. If drilling itself is limited by protected land, EPA regulations, costly barriers to entry, etc, your drill bit company is limited in the scope and amount of money it can make. Elementary example: So if at current levels you made 1,000 drill bits a year. But if the US government opened up 30% more land or offshore to drill, perhaps you make 30% more drill bits. So if you can make a perfectly reasonable living with 10 employees making 1,000 drill bits a year, that is fine, but the limiting factor may be that with less regulation, you could have the customers to support making 1,300 drill bits a year, and you'd hire 3 more people to do so. Not only that, but YOUR suppliers and vendors would have to hire more people and would make more money to support YOU. The iron works company would have additional demand, you'd do 30% more business with them. They have to hire an additional worker to keep up with YOUR demand. Not only that, but with 30% more workers, your order 30% more office supplies, rent 30% more office space, have a 30% bigger office Christmas party, ship 30% more boxes with FedEx, buy 30% more iron, have more equipment to support 30% more production. Not only that, but everybody down the line pays more taxes...all along the value chain so the government takes in more tax revenue too. A sampling major regulating bodies that would affect your business due to the fact that your customers have to adhere to the taxes, fees, and regulations from ALL of these authorities: http://www.ferc.gov/ http://www.epa.gov/ http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/ (this is just Texas, most states have their own authority too) http://www.anwr.org/ http://energy.gov/ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ http://www.uscg.mil/ (offshore regulation) http://www.boemre.gov/index.htm http://www.boem.gov/ http://www.bsee.gov/ http://www.osha.gov/ http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm http://www.fe.doe.gov/ http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html
The Federal government has a ton of absolutely ridiculous regulations that can, and should, be done away with. In line with Teabagging screamers, many of them do appear to have a direct influence over how many people an employer can hire, and how much money returns to the economy. Also, if some agency/group decided to dump the ridiculous regulations (and that would be up for debate - many folks earn money from them and would likely fight to keep them), then a number of extraneous bureaucrats would end up removed from the Federal Tax payroll (though this would cause an increase in unemployment that may eclipse the gains from small employers with fewer restrictions). With that said, some businesses - particularly the non-productive non-manufacturing types that simply shuffle numbers from one place to the next - must have restrictions. These types of businesses end up with a vastly disproportionate amount of power over the economy as a whole, and without regulations to hem them in, they can threaten the stability of the country (as we've seen). Things like OSHA, USDA, and so forth need to continue to exist - either them, or some equivalent agency, needs to continue hemming in the worst aspects of the capitalist mechanism. The fact that many large companies still use child labor (foreign, but still children) for their manufacturing makes this fact apparent to all but the most ideology-blinded observers. A middle ground needs to exist. I suspect the greatest opposition to these kinds of changes would come from local/state contractors and regulatory offices.
I agree with this and i want to point out if the venture doesn't directly affect the environment, then besides the usual permits you have to get to be in business i think the claim of over regulation is bogus. i'm pro oil industry, but i have no problem with the extra regulations that come with an industry where accidents can have major consequences on our environment. so lets take a company that doesn't rely on the oil industry. suppose i want to start a computer chip manufacturer.
Thought this was interesting and relevant to this thread... In 2005 alone, the federal (not state or local) regulatory compliance costs were $1.13 trillion....or put another way, 10% of GDP for 2005 and almost half of that year's federal budget. http://cei.org/studies-issue-analysis/ten-thousand-commandments-annual-snapshot-regulatory-state
