Business laws/Regulations create jobs.

The oft repeated repub mantra is that regulations/laws that force corporations to spend money to meet environmental, health, and safety concerns hurt our economy, but just the opposite is true.

Environmental laws, and laws that protect workers health and safety, force corporations to buy equipment and hire employees.

Corporations spending money on equipment and labor is a good thing. The money goes back into the economy instead of into the stock portfolios of the corporate execs.

Obama's recent backtrack on new environmental requirements to meet tighter pollution standards we a big mistake. That corporate spending would have created jobs and helped our economy.

What we should be demanding is that all of our trading partners start meeting our environmental, health and safety requirements, and that would be a huge boom to the world economy.

Rather than continuing to exist in this planned obsolescence, disposable society, we could work smart, build quality, and spend more time with our families enjoying life.

Originally posted by poet1b

What we should be demanding is that all of our trading partners start meeting our environmental, health and safety requirements, and that would be a huge boom to the world economy.

epi.yale.edu...

An "Eeeeek, no thanks" to that from socialist europe.
epi.yale.edu...

What a ridiculous concept:
But I see you are big on the word "FORCE"...So there's;little use talking to someone assuming powers they don't have.
unless you want your operating capital tied up in huge bureacratic legal departments;spending their days filing compliance paperwork and readying their books for federal inspection teams who create federally funded reams of use less "TPS reports" to befiled in endless bureacratic filing cabinets and archives.

Not one bit adds value or efficiency in the businesses' actual " business"( i.e."creating cost effective "widgets" to sell).
You are hiring a legal compliance team of lawyers and administrative support: handing them shovels and telling them to go dig holes in the back lot .... and then fill them back inbeforeyou go home. nextday "heres yourshovel" itdoesn't add value to the business....


Tinhorn Govt regulators withthe executive power to create"law" and tieup business ispartof what's killing this country. Most regulatory agencies have contracts "out for bid" to purchase firearms. Like the dept of "education":

Posted at 3:07 PM ET, 03/11/2010
Education Department buying 27 shotguns
By Valerie Strauss

Why is the Education Department purchasing 27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns (all new, no re-manufactured products, thank you)?

The guns are to replace old firearms used by Education’s Office of Inspector General, which is the law enforcement arm of the department.

Here’s a statement from the office in response to a question about why need 27 shotguns with a 14-inch barrels:

“The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements. For more information on OIG’s law enforcement authority, please visit their Web site at : www.ed.gov/oig”

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Added: Why does the dept. of education need a law enforcement arm when we have trained FBI and Federal Marshalls at that governmental level.

Look: Nobody likes a fouled environment. But Money spent on say;"smoke stack scrubbers" doesn't go into hiring new employees or existing employee benefits. Even though you think it's okay for the govt to wage war on its citizens ( just the rich accomplished ones of course.)
"As long as the ceo doesn't get it!" it's a form of class warfare.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by 46ACE


Purchase of scrubbers, manufacture of scrubbers, installation of scrubbers, and maintenance of scrubbers requires hiring workers, and does in fact reduce environmental pollutants.

This puts money into the economy, and boosts the economy. Otherwise it is just put into the coffers or corporate execs, 100k couches.

Hey, you want to pretend it takes government regs for corporations to be extremely inefficient, then you must be a corporate bureaucrat yourself, or ignorant of how inefficient these giant ICs really are. If anything, laws that protect our environments deduct time for corporate execs planning their next way to scam more wealth.

Business laws/regulations create jobs.....in other countries.

When regulations start costing too much, the corporations just move the facility to a friendlier locale.
How does that create jobs here?

reply to post by supermanning


Why? Are you lonely there down on all fours in front of a long line of corporate execs? Looking for company?

Ron Paul is just another Mises institute communist, who clings to the free market fantasy, even after the last three repub regimes, Reagan, Bush, and Bush, have each successively destroyed our economy, and created massive debts with their communist beliefs. Wake up, Ronnie was a commie.

You have been hoodwinked and suckered into believing everything that is anit-U.S.,. doing nothing but parroting what the ICs want you to say.

Grow some ballz and get your own ski mask and gun;
Instead of using govt regulators to remove what you consider"ill gotten gains".
Money spent in that manner leaves the "local economy" ( the companies workers who earned it) and is forwarded back to Washington d.c through the "clean air" lobbyists who "grease palms"(pay bribes) to have regulations passed.Government involvement in most any industry is corrupt and biased.

reply to post by poet1b


This FOOL, is a propagandist and a fake. I bet he is paid by the establishment to come onto forums where people know and speak truth, and promote the fecal matter that comes out of Bilderberg's mouth. Teach yourself young and inexperienced one!

reply to post by subject x


Corporations are moving any job that they can move overseas to slave labor markets anyway. We are foolish for signing trade agreements that don't force the same requirements overseas, and increased wages for overseas workers.

The greedy people who run the ICs are fools willing to do anything to satiate their ridiculous desires for wealth and power. The problem is that when only the people at the top are making money, the economy grinds to a halt, because nobody but the super rich have any money to buy anything. This is why the world economy is currently grinding to a halt. The world economy can't continue to run on debt.

The answer is easy, we write trade agreements that add taxes on corporate business overseas that fail to meet our environmental, health, and safety laws. And require that they allow unions to develop that raise wages, and enable economies to become more self sufficient, and not completely reliant on exports to support their economy. The U.S. con't continue to be the worlds only customer. See how S Korea succeeded in becoming a first world nation.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by 46ACE

 

Purchase of scrubbers, manufacture of scrubbers, installation of scrubbers, and maintenance of scrubbers requires hiring workers, and does in fact reduce environmental pollutants.

This puts money into the economy, and boosts the economy. Otherwise it is just put into the coffers or corporate execs, 100k couches.

Hey, you want to pretend it takes government regs for corporations to be extremely inefficient, then you must be a corporate bureaucrat yourself, or ignorant of how inefficient these giant ICs really are. If anything, laws that protect our environments deduct time for corporate execs planning their next way to scam more wealth.

What we need is more bureaucrats and administrative compliance officers(?) good grief!

Originally posted by subject x
Business laws/regulations create jobs.....in other countries.

Apparently so do tax cuts.

When regulations start costing too much, the corporations just move the facility to a friendlier locale.
How does that create jobs here?

When corporations have been getting away with paying less and less all around and still ship jobs overseas, where is your argument?

Just imagine all the jobs that would come to America if people were willing to work for a penny an hour, right?

reply to post by 46ACE


You need to pull your mind out of the gutter and stop thinking about my private parts.

The company workers who create the wealth are being robbed by the ICs. All the wealth they create goes into the pockets of the bankers these days. Where have you been over the last decade.

You are the one parroting the party line of the ICs.

reply to post by Kitilani


Once again, did you sleep through the last decade?

Tax cuts did not create jobs, they created wide scale fraud. Bigger and bigger pyramid schemes.

Just imagine all the jobs that would come to America if people were willing to work for a penny an hour, right?

Yeah, that formula works so well for the third world

So your goal is to see the U.S. turned into a third world nation?

Welcome to the machine.

reply to post by 46ACE

What we need is more bureaucrats and administrative compliance officers(?) good grief!

Nobody creates bureaucrats better than the ICs. Mainly they spend their time figuring out ways to buy up more innovative and productive smaller companies, to squeeze out their life. The last thing they want is competition.

Reality, when the fed gov was last enforcing laws against corporation corruption our economy was a lot more healthy.

Dereg does nothing but increase corporate crime. While regulations create jobs, and create a healthy economy. History is proof of that, look at the fifties, sixties, and nineties. When the fed gov does its job, our economy functions much better.

You would rather drink the cool aid of corporate propaganda than look at the reality.

reply to post by poet1b


Business laws and regulations do create jobs.....just the wrong ones. Who is hurt most by regulations? Corporations? No they have financial and legal resources to dissect regulations and exploit loopholes to enhance profits. This creates jobs for lawyers and increases risk in the market by creating artificial profits and incentivizing taking risks to offset increased regulatory costs (see housing regulations and crisis). However, regulations do increase federal agency jobs e.g., FDA, FTC, EPA, etc., but federal pensions are one of the biggest unfunded liabilities of the U.S. Government, thus it is just creating a bigger problem. So who really gets screwed by regulations? Small businesses that cannot afford to hire lawyers and accountants to exploit loopholes in the rules for profits. Then to offset increased costs the business decrease hiring and it's existing workforce.

Having said that some regulations i.e., certain antitrust provisions (not all) all necessary to ensure a competitive market but attempting to regulate fluid markets with static regulations is a recipe for fraud, decreased workforce, and increased costs for government and small business.

reply to post by poet1b

For the first two paragraphs, I was agreeing with you. You lost me on the third, though.

We don't have the right to tell any other country how to run their business. We can't set their economic, ecological, or social policies. That's not our place. If we don't like their policies, all we are justified in doing is not buying their product.

I do agree that trade needs to be more even-footed. It shouldn't be cheaper to ship material overseas, have it processed into product, and ship it back than it is to just build it here. That's just nuts. Maybe some sort of tarriff to even out costs?

What I'd like to see is a much friendlier stucture for small to medium businesses, and a much sterner one for huge multi-nationals. Spread the business around. I think it won't be long before we find out that centralizing goods and resources isn't a real good idea, and a lot of small businesses would, I think, be better for the economy than one huge one. However, I realize that my values are stuck somewhere in the mid-70s, and probably aren't applicable in the "world village" of today.

reply to post by poet1b


I'm guessing you have had no formal education in economics? I bet you would say deregulation caused ENron? But ENron was able to exploit the complex regulations (does not sound like free market to me) to obtain profits. Also, in terms of housing regulations, the govt said hey mortgage companies since the housing market will never fail (ha) we are going to force you to give mortgages to people that cannot afford them. So the banks, like any business would do, looked for ways to offset these losses and increased risk. They created a new financial instrument, credit default swaps, to address this issue. All encouraged by regulation. As for your comments of deregulation, since the turn of the 20th century the U.S. has passed more regulations then ever existed prior. regulations create incentives for business to find ways to offset costs and find loopholes. Are you really talking about drinking the cool aid of corporations? You know how populous it is to blame businesses for anything because they have money? The average person would immediately accept and support anything agains businesses because they have wealth...no cool laid needed for that. You are the side of the coolaid drinking majority.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by subject x
Business laws/regulations create jobs.....in other countries.

Apparently so do tax cuts.

You're probably right. Let's eliminate those for multi-nationals, too.

When corporations have been getting away with paying less and less all around and still ship jobs overseas, where is your argument?

I see them paying less in taxes, but not "all around". Materials keep going up, employees certainly don't want their pay cut, and constant new regulations equal constant cost increases.

Just imagine all the jobs that would come to America if people were willing to work for a penny an hour, right?

Probably lots. However, I wouldn't even suggest that pay be cut like that. What's your point?

reply to post by DoesAnythingEverHappen


You are confusing economics with law. Yes, I have taken classes on economics, and nothing your are posting has anything to do with economics. Using economics as a legal system is communism.

The fed gov has successfully enforce regs many time in the past, leading to our best economic times. When we elect politicians who refuse to enforce the laws in business, we get economics armeggdon, which is what happened over the last decade.

This doom and gloom approach by everyone who clings to the communistic free market approach is just corporate propaganda, Learn something about history, and wake up to the con of the free market.