It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Crains also note that they do not include in their assessment the indirect or ripple effects of regulatory mandates. They also do not directly review many categories of rules—including import restrictions, antitrust regulations, product safety and telecom—and rules issued by “independent agencies.” And no one has yet accounted for the impending regulatory tsunami (yes, I said it) that will be unleashed by the Dodd-Frank and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Sarbanes-Oxley alone costs $1.4 trillion in lost market value.
In short, the Crains’ estimate of regulatory costs, while more accurate than Sunstein’s, may well prove to be on the low end. My own casual survey of literature on regulations, not using Crain or OMB numbers, already adds up to $1 trillion — and that doesn’t count the new health care law and the 3,500 pages of Dodd-Frank financial rules (with more on the way).
Litigation transaction costs on average and as a percent of revenue have risen substantially over the past
nine years. The amounts of judgments and settlements are not included in these figures.
• The average outside litigation cost per respondent was nearly $115 million in 2008, up 73
percent from $66 million in 2000. This represents an average increase of 9 percent each year.
• For the 20 companies providing data on this issue for the full survey period, average outside
litigation costs were $140 million in 2008, an increase of 112 percent from $66 million in 2000.
2
• Between 2000 and 2008, average annual litigation costs as a percent of revenues increased 78
percent for the 14 companies providing data on average litigation costs as a percent
The U.S. litigation system imposes a much greater cost burden on companies than systems outside the
United States. As a percent of revenue, multi‐national company respondents to the survey spend a
disproportionate amount on litigation in the United States relative to their expenditures in foreign
jurisdictions. Depending on the year, relative U.S. costs were between four and nine times higher than
non‐U.S. costs (as a percent of revenue). This disparity will inevitably influence decisions by
corporations about where to invest their resources. Global competition for foreign investment is
increasing, and the changing dynamics of the global economy are affecting the United States’ ability to
remain a leader in this area.1 The International Trade Administration at the U.S. Department of
Commerce has found that “many foreign investors view the U.S. legal environment as a liability when
investing in the United States.”2 If U.S. litigation costs are significantly higher than other countries, and
the situation is left unchecked as economic differences between countries narrow, the United States will
be unable to compete effectively in the global marketplace.3
Source
The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke an architect of the recovery, but also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of outrage over high unemployment and bank bailouts.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kali74
Yep the communist manifesto is not hard to miss but the solution of more government and its "benevolence" is not hard to miss either.
How people are missing the fact, and they are facts since 1935 all that government intevention has not solved anything,but compounded those perceived "problems".
But then agian I do not condone government legislated morality.
According to the political theory of Marxism-Leninism of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants.[1] Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine.”[2] Marxism-Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers).
DefinitionsAccording to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants
In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[1][6]
use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers. Grigory Zinoviev, a well-known Soviet politician, said in 1924, "We are fond of describing any peasant who has enough to eat as a 'kulak'." At the same time, the ispolkoms (executive committees of local Soviets) of republics, oblasts, and krais were given rights to add other criteria for defining kulaks, depending on local conditions
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kali74
Straight to irrational "emotional" so called argument what are you going to tell over 200 million people in this country whose sole means of survival depend on what way the political winds blow in Washington DC when the bills cant be paid for.
New flash this entire nation is buring down to the ground, and people are begging for more of the same.
Myth No. 2: Meeting Social Security's future shortfall is really hard
We only need to come up with about 0.9% of GDP in order to make Social Security's revenues match up with its expenses for the next 75 years. To put that into perspective, 0.9% is close to the cost of unemployment insurance, the high-end Bush tax cuts, or one-fifth of the Defense budget. That's not insignificant, but it's hardly apocalyptic.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Kali74
Again, back to soviet Russia or Communist China.
I never realized that you, or anyone else gets to determine that a business is bad, and should be expelled.
SO much for "That " person's freedoms.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Ever heard of the Mafia? Drug Cartels?...don't know where you are from, but here in the USA folks determine if a business is "good" or "bad" all the time...and thank god for that.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Now explain to me why it is not legal in the USA to chain up children in a factory and then watch it burn to the ground? But it is legal for a US corporation to profit from that same practice in another country?
Originally posted by winterkill
So if we took all of the money from
- The Rich
- The Corps
- The sporting events
- Every source of income in America,
We could pay off 1 Trillion dollars of the Debt.
Only 15 more to go.
Define hooped.