Whither Regulations?

I frequently see rants from people about this government regulation or that. Many of them seem entirely reasonable or justified, because a great many regulations are annoying as crap on a day-to-day basis.

By Felix Andrews (Floybix) (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Free market water! (This is in China, not Ohio, but my point stands.)

One thing I see far, far less frequently than invective against certain regulations, however, is inquiry into why those particular regulations exist. I know a few things about how laws and regulations come to be, and while it is a seriously messy process, it generally doesn’t happen completely out of the blue or for purely arbitrary reasons. I’ll just let Paul Krugman take it from here, in large part since he has at least one more Nobel Prize than me:

In the latest Times Magazine, Robert Draper profiled youngish libertarians — roughly speaking, people who combine free-market economics with permissive social views — and asked whether we might be heading for a “libertarian moment.” Well, probably not. Polling suggests that young Americans tend, if anything, to be more supportive of the case for a bigger government than their elders. But I’d like to ask a different question: Is libertarian economics at all realistic?

The answer is no. And the reason can be summed up in one word: phosphorus. Continue reading

Share

The Problem with Monopolies

Since private businesses aren’t subject to things like the Freedom of Information Act, they can pretty much do whatever the f*** they want.

I mean, what are people gonna do—take their business elsewhere?

Share

Corporations Can Be Loyal Americans, One Hopes

If corporations really want to be treated as “people” under the law, they need to be prepared to accept that their actions have consequences that will result in criticism generally reserved for individuals—such as the idea that renouncing one’s U.S. citizenship in order to have a lower tax bill may be credibly described as “unpatriotic,” and is pretty much by definition “un-American.” I say “by definition” because renouncing one’s citizenship means not being “American” anymore, and I’m not sure how one gets more “un-American” than that.

Questions of patriotism were probably not the decisive factor behind Walgreens’ reversal on its plan to become a Swiss company instead of an American one. I suspect that the massive outcry against the plan made them realize that the extra billions in tax savings wasn’t worth the long-term damage to their brand. Concepts like “long-term” don’t seem to factor into the thoughts of many American capitalists, at least if the hyperbolic reaction of one Fox Business analyst is to be believed: Continue reading

Share

If You Thought Traditional Monetary Systems Were Complicated…

I have no idea WTH this article about an alleged BitCoin scam is saying, but it sounds important:

Dell SecureWorks security researchers have described a series of attacks earlier this year in which someone cleverly got miners of bitcoins and other “cryptocurrencies” like dogecoin to contribute their efforts to his mining pools, sending the proceeds to him instead of them.

Bitcoin mining involves solving complex computational problems faster than rivals, in order to add blocks of bitcoin transactions to the “blockchain,” the shared bitcoin ledger. Not only does this keep the blockchain going, but it also generates new bitcoins as rewards for the miners. Obviously, getting there first requires a lot of raw computational power, so most miners pool their resources. Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, August 6, 2014

Ayn Rand’s libertarian “Groundhog Day”: Billionaire greed, deregulation and the myth that markets aren’t free enough, Thomas Frank, Salon, August 3, 2014

This summer will mark 13 years since the series of disclosures that led to the sudden bankruptcy of the Enron Corp. of Houston. The collapse of the gas-and-power leviathan, then one of the largest companies in the nation, was the starting gun for the modern age of neoliberal scandal, the corporate crime that set the pattern. It was not the first episode to feature grotesque bonuses for insiders, or a fawning press, or bought politicians, or average people being fleeced by scheming predators. But it was the first in recent memory to bring together all those elements in one glorious fireball of fraud.

This is the next Hobby Lobby, Irin Carmon, MSNBC, July 30, 2014

Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, July 28, 2014

Paul Ryan’s “insult” strategy: Why his anti-poverty contract is so grotesque, Simon Maloy, Salon, July 24, 2014

The entire document is premised on the notion that the poor are poor largely because they lack sufficient incentive to improve their station in life. Blame for this is, of course, foisted upon the government programs themselves. “The biggest snag in the safety net is that it discourages work,” Ryan’s document observes. “Many federal programs are means-tested, so as families earn more money, they get less aid. Any system that concentrates on the most vulnerable will face this tension.”

If that’s “the biggest snag,” then the safety net is doing pretty well. Ryan and the GOP have been pushing this argument that government benefits breed complacency among their recipients for quite some time, but the evidence just isn’t there to back it up.

No One I Know Will Ever Be Arrested For Smoking Pot, Atrios, Eschaton, July 27, 2014 Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, July 24, 2014

A Congressman Questioned A Woman Living In Poverty And Revealed A Lot About Himself, Bryce Covert, ThinkProgress, July 11, 2014

On Thursday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) held his fifth hearing on the War on Poverty, and for the first time he allowed a person actually living in poverty to testify. Tianna Gaines-Turner shared her personal experiences struggling to make ends meet and provide food for her three children who suffer from medical conditions along with her husband. She works as a seasonal employee with children for $10.88 an hour, while her husband works at a grocery store for $8.50.

But when Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) got the chance to ask questions of Gaines-Turner and the two other witnesses, he directed much of his attention toward calling into question whether she is dependent on government programs, whether she has tried to find more work, and if she is partisan. He gave a “theoretical example” in which the government would increase spending on government programs like food stamps and welfare by 500 percent and asked, “They [people on the programs] would be out of poverty and that would be a good thing?” to which Gaines-Turner responded, “Yes, the programs work, yes it would be good to move them out of poverty.”

***

Rokita’s questioning seemed to imply that Gaines-Turner could make more money and escape her “dependence” if she worked harder. But for many of those living in poverty, that’s just not the case. The majority of adult, able-bodied, non-elderly poor people work. But in this economy, finding extra work, or any work at all, can be nearly impossible. In May, the most recent month for which there is data, there were more than two times as many job seekers as job openings. And unemployment rates are even higher for those with less education, who also tend to have lower incomes.

The Senate flunks basic biology: Inside a disgraceful hearing, Andrea Flynn, Salon, July 20, 2014

Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, July 18, 2014

Family That Walks On All Fours Not A Product Of ‘Reverse Evolution’, George Dvorsky, io9, July 17, 2014

In Turkey, there’s a family with an apparent genetic disorder that causes them to walk on all fours. Scientists have speculated that they’re an example of “devolution” — a backwards step towards our quadrupedal past. A new paper challenges this assumption, offering a far more reasonable explanation.

[Ed. note: What “scientists” would speculate about something like “devolution”?]

Deadbeat 1 percenters endanger U.S. democracy, Robert Reich, Salon, July 17, 2014 Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, July 17, 2014

Man mansplains that men also mansplain to men. Another man mansplains why. Ally Fogg, Heteronormative Patriarchy for Men, July 11, 2014

Where women complain about harassing and intrusive behaviour on the streets or public transport, you can always bank on some arsehole piping up “But that’s not sexism, men shout random abuse at each other too!” It’s true, they do. So it is not always sexist. Sometimes it is racist or ableist or homophobic or just plain, simple bullying. So can we cut all that out too while we’re at it?

Where women complain about feeling the threat of violence when walking outside at night, Mr Bloke can be banked on to respond “What are you complaining about? Men are much more likely to be randomly assaulted by strangers than women are.” This is also true. So can we please join with those women who are quite keen to see an end to such behaviour? Sooner than later would be good.
Or in the case in point, men use conversational exchanges not (just) to communicate, bond or exchange views and knowledge, but as a competitive sport, a test of dominance and status. It is quite true that this becomes an opportunity to establish social dominance over women (aka mansplaining) but also over other men. This is not an especially healthy trait. I’m sure we’ve all been in meetings (whether in work, politics, voluntary societies or whatever) which are dominated not by the person with the best ideas or the greatest knowledge, but the one with the most regard for the sound of (usually) his own voice. I’m dreadfully guilty of this myself, and am quite happy to acknowledge it and try to catch myself on.

The American Century is over: How our country went down in a blaze of shame, Michael Lind, Salon, July 12, 2014

Continue reading

Share

Best Spam Ever?

Sometimes I get awesome junk mail:

Private Yacht Rental

I had no idea I needed a yacht until I found out you can rent them! I still don’t know why I need a yacht, mind you—I just know that I do.

Maybe if we skip buying dog food for a while……I’m sure the dogs won’t mind, because they’ll be on a yacht!!!


On a wholly unrelated note, there was a bit of dissent regarding my use of a hula-hooping GIF in a post yesterday. In response to my friend’s eminently reasonable complaint, I now present the same hula-hooping GIF……plus 35 more:

Share