Alert reader Bill sent this WSJ article in. As you know, I am of the opinion that less regulation is ALWAYS better than more regulation. Government busy-bodies needlessly regulating the economy harm everybody......except the regulators who earn promotions, bonuses, and raises proportional to how much they depress the economy. In any market place, if something doesn't work economically, the people will see to it that it stops being done, by buying something else.
Briefly, a small wine maker wanted to see if Cabernet wine in bottles submerged in the sea, safely sealed, would age differently than in a climate-controlled warehouse. Sounds kind of gimmicky, but who cares what I think?
The ATF and FDA got wind of it and sent them a warning to stop.....before they had sold a single bottle. Why? Here are the possibilities:
-overpaid government regulators have God-complexes and believe they have to right/duty to regulate every human activity, regardless of how innocuous.
-any "new" economic activity must be regulated and taxed, even if it's not new at all, just different, using "safety" as the premise.
-the government sees an opportunity to tax "ocean related" economic activity so they must stop the activity as the figure out how to maximally tax it.
Sadly for the average American who might like to try sea-aged Cabernet, all of the above probably come into the decision to stop the winery from this activity.
What an awful government we have that feels that it must regulate literally every aspect of our lives. I think all regulatory agencies should have their budgets and staff slashed by 90% and only issue new regulations in response to a public health or safety crisis.
13 comments:
I knew you'd appreciate this, Ed.
Aren't there some song lyrics about how regulators got to regulate? Can't have some activity unsupervised by our government overlords, can we?
Maybe Sen Tim Scott can introduce the "Charleston Harbor Wine Freedom" bill.
The effect of government, at all times and everywhere, is to transfer wealth and power from the many to the few. Regulations are the means to both.
Now two questions:
1) Who are responsible for the many regulations now on the books? Republicans or Democrats?
2) If the answer is "both", why should anyone in their right mind get orgasmic over any of the candidates on the coming election ... left or right?
That's a fair point Isaac and for that reason I've come to despise most, if not all, politicians and the unaccountable trolls who they allow to thrive in the malignant federal regulatory bureaucracy.
That said, election choices come down to personal philosophy: do you agitate for outright revolution? Do you abandon altogether and move to New Zealand? Or do you vote against the candidate you despise the most?
My preference is #2, but alas, I cannot afford to relocate down under.
I've decided that the middle east is pretty much out of our hands and a lost cause at this point. That leaves the economic health of the US as a voting issue for me. Any republican who doesn't promise to actually shrink, not slow the growth of but actually shrink, government will not get my vote....which means that I might be sitting this one out.
Hillary strongly encourages you to do so, Ed! "Ready?"
Philippe, do you think there's any practical difference, I mean at all, between Hillary and Jeb? There's barely a sliver of light between the two.
Hillary might bring gay marriage sooner....it'll happen anyway. Hillary might bring legalization sooner.....it'll happen anyway. Hillary might make permanent Obamacare.....it pretty much already is.
What would Jeb do that would distinguish him from Hillary, start another protracted war in the middle east? Nominate and/or appoint moderate,go-along judges? How about make permanent the vast and unaccountable regulatory bureaucracy, expand intrusive NSA surveillance programs, legalize 20 million Mexicans with full voting rights without building a single section of fence?
I could go on and on and on. Wait, that list sounds an awful lot like what Hillary would do, but I guarantee Jeb would do them all.
Thanks for your interest in "Ready for Hillary" Ed. Someone from the campaign will be getting in touch soon. Be well assured that Hillary will be a Much better president than another Bush!
We may assign James Carville as our media coordinator with your blog. Thanks again!
"Interest"? Heh heh, you mistake interest for contempt.
At Ready for Hillary we have a saying, "Every disgruntled winger who sits out the election is one less uninterested voter we have to round up and transport to early voting."
“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” ("Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Princeton Professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern Professor Benjamin I. Page)
Translation: the wealthy few move policy; the average American has little power.
Philippe/Ready 2016: won’t the next administration kiss fat cat ass no matter who wins the election? In what way will I be better off if the ass-kisser is a Republican rather than a Democrat?
We made indeed start an outreach program to the Kook-American community, but don't have one at this time.
READY, Isaac is correct, the clinton's do not owe a shred of loyalty or care for the average voter except to whatever extent they need to bamboozle them into voting for her. It is the representatives of the $2Billion the Clinton Foundation has taken in, to whom the Clintons owe their allegiance. It is they who will set American economic and foreign policy.
I think you may have misread Philippe's and Ready's posts, Ed. I don't think either were plumping for Hillary. I think both were sarcastically arguing that we dare not sit out this election otherwise we will get Hillary by default.
I must be dense Isaac, because I didn't get that.
Post a Comment