Monday, June 27, 2011

Stimulus? Sure!! Dump Regulators!

Need stimulus? Don't spend more money (doh.)

According to the Phoenix study, “even a small 5% reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) would result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually.” The reverse is true as well, according to Phoenix, which said “each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.” --quoted at Cold Fury

It's a two-fer: one less Gummint salary-with-benefits, and 100 new tax-paying private-sector jobs.


J. Strupp said...

This is the single dumbest thing I've read this year.

1-1=2 apparently.

Where do these people come from?

Dad29 said...

Nah, it's not the single dumbest thing you've read.

You read Krugman columns, too.

J. Strupp said...

Ha! Yeah that guy sure is an idiot!

Anonymous said...

After 10 years of experimenting with giant tax rebates, you'd think there'd be AT LEAST a tiny shred of supporting evidence that reverse economics works. Well, that doesn't stop the "studies" from polishing the turd.

neomom said...

Taxes are not the same as regulatory burden. Yeesh.

Anonymous said...

Oh do please explain...

Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC said...

Which explains why our Anonymous "friend" misses every....single...point.

Regulatory burden means I have to spend money doing things that do nothing more than satisfy the "curiosity" of a bureaucrat.

Example: EPA regulations require business to report ALL carbon dioxide emissions annually. No action is taken by EPA (yet), but businesses have to hire someone who gets a salary, yet produces nothing.

Get it now?

neomom said...

Another huge example is Sarbane Oxley - which requires an army of Finance folks and auditors. All create more overhead costs - and incentives to not want to run a biz in the US.

Whenever something bad happens, new additional regulations are created on top of the ones already there.

Take the example from the MJS article on Sunday about the company in Hartland that made the medical supplies that probably killed a toddler. If you read the comments, most were calling for regulations to control those evil businesses, all ignoring the fact that those regulations already exist. The FDA inspectors knew about problems for well over a decade but didn't do anything to shut them down sooner. But nobody picked up on the failure of the government.