Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Of course, each state has its own rules that affect commerce within its state.  The less state government interference, the greater the economic benefit to the people of the state.   No business wants to move to New York for example.  The government regulations and taxes are onerous. If you build a factory, the government forces you to use union workers at high wages.  So,they move to states that have less regulation and taxes bringing more benefits to their residents.  There's a big price to be paid for high taxes and regulation.

[digitaldog]

As I predicted earlier.  I felt common colds would also drop significantly for the same reasons. Masks and isolation.  It's going to be interesting to see what other diseases have dropped when the studies are done.  STD's? 

Amid COVID-19 pandemic, flu has disappeared in the US
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/25/amid-covid-19-pandemic-flu-has-disappeared-us/6812687002/

From "The Week"
While Covid- 19 continues to infect tens of thousands of Americans every day,
another usually rampant respiratory virus is almost nowhere to be seen:
influenza. Since the fall, about 800,000 lab flu tests have been reported to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 1,500 have come back
positive, or 0.2 percent, an infection rate 100 times lower than it was 12 months
ago. In a typical year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized with
the flu, but this season's tally was only 155 as of last week. And only one child has
died from the flu so far this year, compared with 78 at this point in 2020.
Scientists say the radical behavioral changes that Americans have made during
the pandemic-such as social distancing, mask wearing, and constant
handwashing-are largely responsible for this unusually quiet flu season. "Flu
just tends to be a lot less transmissible [than a coronavirus], which means it's
easier to suppress," Shweta Bansal, a disease ecologist at Georgetown
University, tells The Atlantic. Travel bans have also helped quash influenza,
which is often seeded in the Northern Hemisphere in fall by travelers from the
Southern Hemisphere. But influenza could still make a late-season return:
There's some evidence infections are increasing in parts of Asia that have eased
anti-Covid precautions. "We may not be out of the woods yet," says Bansal.

[faberryman]

In your opinion, are there any areas in the economic life of a nation where a little regulation here and there is not the spawn of the devil?

The constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.  I think that's generally good when they create level playing fields to allow free trade between states.  They also set up a legal system so that enterprises and people have the ability to sue in court when there are disputes among parties.  When trust among parties breaks down, there is a way of resolving those disputes in a pretty fair manner.  Of course, the Supreme Court has allowed the government to expand into all areas using the commerce clause as an excuse - areas such as education which is up to the states, not the government in Washington.

So no area other than in interstate commerce solely to the extent it facilitates free trade between states, and a court system. All other regulation is the spawn of the devil.

[Alan Klein]

Considering all the bad feelings that have transpired here in 400 pages, we now have permission to hug each other again.   

Want to hug again? 'It's up to you': New ad campaign gets right to the point on COVID vaccines
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/02/25/covid-19-ad-council-vaccine-education-campaign-coronavirus/6808426002/

[Alan Klein]

So no area other that in interstate commerce solely to the extent it facilitates free trade between states, and a court system. All other regulation is the spawn of the devil.

While many regulations may seem or actually have benefits, the question is are the negatives they create worth it?  We tend to only examine benefits and ignore the problems.  Like minimum wage.  Sure it gives many people more money in their paycheck.   But it also eliminates many jobs for those people.  If you're fortunate to keep your job, then yeah, it's great.  But what if you lose it?  What about the companies that will go out of business because of it?  We tend to discuss the benefits and not the problems these regulations create.  Which regulations do you think are great?

[faberryman]

We tend to discuss the benefits and not the problems these regulations create.  Which regulations do you think are great?

Well, you are sort of balancing the scales by discussing all the problems regulation causes and not discussing any of the benefits.

I am not really an all or nothing, black and white thinking, false dilemma, one size fits all, I only have a hammer in my toolbox kind of guy. I think some regulation can be good, and some regulation can be bad. You asked so I'll pick one example of what I think is a good regulation: fire escapes on buildings. I read about there being this fire in New York back sometime in the 1800s and this garment tycoon had a sweatshop on an upper story, and there was a fire and all the garment workers got fried to a crisp because there wasn't a fire escape. So New York passed a regulation that all multi-story buildings had to have a fire escape. Now I don't doubt that the free market would have eventually caused all buildings to have fire escapes because people wouldn't work or live in buildings without fire escapes, it's just that a lot of people would have gotten fried to a crisp between the time of the fire in question and the time the free market worked its magic and the invisible hand got around to installing fire escapes on every building. Not to mention the fact that as a result of the fire escape regulation a lot of fire escape companies came into existence, and of course the steel companies had to make fire escapes, and the fire escape companies had to hire fire escape installers, and the fire escape installers got paid so they paid taxes, and bought food and unnecessary plastic objects, so it was a bonanza for the grocers and unnecessary plastic object manufacturers, and on an on. So I think on balance the fire escape regulation was a good thing. That's just one example. Of course, you may think that anyone too poor or too dumb to live or work in a building without a fire escape deserves to get fried to a crisp, and you are certainly entitled to have that opinion.

Can you think of one example where a regulation might have proven a benefit to society?

Note: Please do not whatabout the conversation to sprinklers in homes. We discussed those last week. If you don't want to address my example of fire escapes, and don't want to provide an example of a regulation you think is good, please, please, please don't quote this post in whatever you plan on changing the subject to.

[Jonathan Cross]

Seat belts in vehicles.

Jonathan

[faberryman]

Seat belts in vehicles.

Jonathan

There are thousands of such examples that everyone except ideologues recognizes have been a benefit to society.

[digitaldog]

Seat belts in vehicles.

Yup and proof of concept: Just ask Tiger Woods.

[jeremyrh]

I'm willing to treat Alan's heart condition for half his current doctor's fee. I didn't go to  medical school so it seems only fair to pass on the savings of not going through that pesky regulation stuff.

[digitaldog]

I'm willing to treat Alan's heart condition for half his current doctor's fee. I didn't go to  medical school so it seems only fair to pass on the savings of not going through that pesky regulation stuff.

Sounds like a good deal for him. Or he could simply listen to his wife.... Never mind.

My wife just sent me this article that tells the foods that put weight on your belly as I have been getting and which affects the heart. Of course, 13 of the 14 foods were my favorites. 

Of course. 

[faberryman]

I'm willing to treat Alan's heart condition for half his current doctor's fee. I didn't go to  medical school so it seems only fair to pass on the savings of not going through that pesky regulation stuff.

I visited my dermatologist a couple of weeks ago. He has an obsession for collecting antique signs and bottles and all manner of other stuff relating to quack remedies that were sold out of the backs of wagons and in drug stores back in the good old days before regulations became such a menace to civilization, some of which might even kill you if you took them, and certainly none of which would be of the slightest benefit. I mean the stuff is in the waiting room, the hallways, the examining rooms, everywhere. You look at the signs and read the labels and think who could possibly be so dumb as to buy, much less take, any of that. Yet people did.

[LesPalenik]

I visited my dermatologist a couple of weeks ago. He has an obsession for collecting antique signs and bottles and all manner of other stuff relating to quack remedies that were sold out of the backs of wagons and in drug stores back in the good old days before regulations became such a menace to civilization, some of which might even kill you if you took them, and certainly none of them would be of the slightest benefit. I mean the stuff is in the waiting room, the hallways, the examining rooms, everywhere. You look at the signs and read the labels and think who could possibly be so dumb as to buy, much less take, any of that. Yet people did. I have an appointment with one of my other doctors today, and am going to quiz him on the benefits of bloodletting to address what I think may be an imbalance in my bodily humors.

Does he have a sign recommending hydroxychloroquine?

[faberryman]

Does he have a sign recommending hydroxychloroquine?

No, but the next time I go in to see him, I am going to yank his chain about all the signs, and pens, and calendars, and notepads and stuff he has advertising all the new-fangled cosmetic treatments he's hawking, like botox.

[faberryman]

This pretty much made my day.

A Man Called His Ex A 'Moron' By Text While Storming The Capitol. She Turned Him In

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971350325/a-man-called-his-ex-a-moron-by-text-while-storming-the-capitol-she-turned-him-in

[Robert Roaldi]

This is an interesting conversation from Sam Harris' Making Sense series, https://samharris.org/podcasts/233-groves-misinformation/.

The interviewee is a sociologist with special interests in mass communication and mis-communication, who was an early writer on Covid and they review the early mix-ups and confusion about what actions to take.

It is informative on the subject of moral hazard, which is alluded to in passing. She suggests that arguments re moral hazard have been largely debunked by data and gives a few examples. One example is the notion that seat belts in cars may cause people to be more reckless. Seat belts saves lives, that's a primary effect. The idea that people take greater risks because they are wearing seat belts is one that never made any sense to me (or her) and is at best is a second-order effect. That is, the number of injuries caused by any increased recklessness is completely overwhelmed by the benefits. I have never bought into the idea that wearing them makes people more reckless, mostly because I spent a large part of my life involved in motorsport where a lot of thought is given to safety, and the idea of the moral hazard in adopting safety measures is simply laughably stupid beyond belief.

The interviewee points out some other examples. Moral hazard was not the main focus of the discussion but came up as examples of illogical thinking that somehow arise a lot these days. It's illuminating to review what has happened over the last year.

[Peter McLennan]

This is an interesting conversation from Sam Harris' Making Sense series, https://samharris.org/podcasts/233-groves-misinformation/.
idea that people take greater risks because they are wearing seat belts is one that never made any sense to me

It's similar to this "logic"  (ie unproven assertion) *

Like minimum wage.  Sure it gives many people more money in their paycheck.   But it also eliminates many jobs for those people.

*also known as a "PDOMA"

[Alan Klein]

Well, you are sort of balancing the scales by discussing all the problems regulation causes and not discussing any of the benefits.

I am not really an all or nothing, black and white thinking, false dilemma, one size fits all, I only have a hammer in my toolbox kind of guy. I think some regulation can be good, and some regulation can be bad. You asked so I'll pick one example of what I think is a good regulation: fire escapes on buildings. I read about there being this fire in New York back sometime in the 1800s and this garment tycoon had a sweatshop on an upper story, and there was a fire and all the garment workers got fried to a crisp because there wasn't a fire escape. So New York passed a regulation that all multi-story buildings had to have a fire escape. Now I don't doubt that the free market would have eventually caused all buildings to have fire escapes because people wouldn't work or live in buildings without fire escapes, it's just that a lot of people would have gotten fried to a crisp between the time of the fire in question and the time the free market worked its magic and the invisible hand got around to installing fire escapes on every building. Not to mention the fact that as a result of the fire escape regulation a lot of fire escape companies came into existence, and of course the steel companies had to make fire escapes, and the fire escape companies had to hire fire escape installers, and the fire escape installers got paid so they paid taxes, and bought food and unnecessary plastic objects, so it was a bonanza for the grocers and unnecessary plastic object manufacturers, and on an on. So I think on balance the fire escape regulation was a good thing. That's just one example. Of course, you may think that anyone too poor or too dumb to live or work in a building without a fire escape deserves to get fried to a crisp, and you are certainly entitled to have that opinion.

Can you think of one example where a regulation might have proven a benefit to society?

Note: Please do not whatabout the conversation to sprinklers in homes. We discussed those last week. If you don't want to address my example of fire escapes, and don't want to provide an example of a regulation you think is good, please, please, please don't quote this post in whatever you plan on changing the subject to.

We were talking about regulation regarding economic activity.  Fire escapes on buildings have to do with Building Codes.  I'm not opposed to them.  In NYC, they redid codes a few years ago.  Many of the regulations were too severe and protected nothing.  They only increased the costs of construction.  For example, you can put in a $200 1/8 horsepower exhaust fan.  The code requires that the model and capacity be listed on the filed plans.  Since plans are filed before construction, and the contractor can pick from numerous models, the architect/engineer has to be rehired to add the model number to the drawing and refile them.  That process costs 3 to 4 times the cost of a little window fan.  It serves no purpose. But generally, I'm not opposed to codes.  But like anything else, you can overdo them. 

I've brought up the need for sprinklers which are now required after some devasting fires in high-rise office buildings.  Only sprinklers put out fires.  Smoke detectors can alert you to a fire condition but won't save you if the fire traps you.  It happens all the time in residences. People get trapped and die from asphyxiation.  Yet, people don't install sprinklers and they're rarely required by local codes. Homeowners don't want to spend the extra money or they don't like what they look like in the family room.  Do you have sprinklers?  Why not?  Don't you care about your family?  Why are you waiting for codes to make you install them?  No one stops anyone from exceeding code requirements. 

[Craig Lamson]

No, but the next time I go in to see him, I am going to yank his chain about all the signs, and pens, and calendars, and notepads and stuff he has advertising all the new-fangled cosmetic treatments he's hawking, like botox.

Yea they are everywhere in my plastic surgeons office.  You can even sign up for a monthly plan if you wish.  Women were flocking in.  My guy seemed a bit uninterested in my case.  I had to have rhinophyma removed.  Worked out great and now after 5 weeks no more bandaged, missing skin, just nice smooth new skin and I can go back to work next week.

I’m guessing my old bumpy nose was no match for boob jobs.

[Alan Klein]

I'm willing to treat Alan's heart condition for half his current doctor's fee. I didn't go to  medical school so it seems only fair to pass on the savings of not going through that pesky regulation stuff.

Well, I don't need a regulation to assure I don't hire you for heart surgery.  I would check references and make sure you went to proper schools, graduated, and were accepted by hospitals to do these things.   If the government didn't licence doctors for that purpose, then there would be private associations created that would inform the public as to proper credentials.  I any case, I never said I was against regulations.  It'st that we've gone overboard.  In general, the more competition and less restriction, the better the product and services become.  We see that in the photography industry. 

How would regulation help the wedding photography industry?  Should we license photographers?  Make them pass a test to show that they have the skills necessary?  That they have to go to an accredited photography school before we let them touch a Nikon?  Or do we allow the market to decide by word of mouth and other free-market means?  Those that are qualified will be successful and the bums will die out.  Government rules would just raise the cost, limit competition as new entrants can't get into the market, which is why companies like regulation and licensing.  It keeps new competition from getting into the market to compete, a boon for them but not their customers.