Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

This is a welcome op-ed by a prominent political figure. It is full of business/conservative-friendly buzz-words. While I think that there is a lot of spin in the piece, and could said to be "paying lip service" to some of the ideas discussed, the fact that it was written in that manner and published in the WSJ sends the message: I got the message.

I think it also shows something else that we often forget in politics: The "other guy" isn't motivated by some sort of dark and mysterious compulsion. We all want what is best for others and ourselves. The only difference between us after that is how we think we will arrive at the best possible outcome for everyone.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The immediate claim of the article is disingenuous. Saccharine is classified as hazardous waste because it's derived from coal slag. When we're talking about this particular chemical being hazardous waste, we're not talking about a few ounces of it getting spilled on a table, we're talking about thousands of tons of it being spilled out in a vile pastiche of other coal-mining byproducts. It's a typical WSG piece of disingenuity: make a superficial and specious one-sentence claim that doesn't reflect the whole reality.

The larger claim of the article is correct. What Americans often fail to realize is that what made our nation great and prosperous was neither free-market industry nor the labor/civil rights movement but their mutual interplay. Regulations aren't brick walls and they don't cost jobs; they ultimately force businesses to change and adapt, and the refusal of American industry to do so in many settings discrete from government regulation (see: GM) has been their own downfall.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The classification of saccharine as a hazardous waste stems from it being erroneously labeled as a carcinogen in a study from the early 1970s. No one was ever able to successfully reproduce the outcomes stated in that study, and whether or not saccharine is a carcinogen remains a controversy. While it may be derived from coal byproducts (it was originally synthesized from coal tar), I do not know if this is the common method for production. Still, if "X" PPM is safe for human consumption, then "X" PPM should also be acceptable for disposal without sealed lead containers and hazmat suits.


I'd be inclined to let you spout drivel about "typical WSJ" (not WSG) practices, except that...well, check the by-line and see who wrote it. It's an op-ed, you git.


Funny, I thought one of the points President Obama was making in this piece is exactly what you're saying wasn't the point: we have to strike the appropriate balance.
Saying that GM was dying from lack of regulation-instigated innovation completely overlooks a) how heavily regulated the auto industry is, from safety regulations to CAFE standards, and b) the parasitic effect of unions on the organization.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Except that's not true because autos are still made in America by companies that weren't fail, and the countries who do what we will not do so because the standard of living they accept is abhorrent, and the reason unions came exist was to escape that. Upton Sinclair and Iacoca agree on this - read his autobiography.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, though - how that interplay created a more wealthy, prosperous and just society.

Interplay is not the same as splitting the difference.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Outside of the usual suspects still clinging to Detroit, autos made in the country are generally made by foreign manufacturers in 'right to work' states, mainly to avoid the UAW.

That is not to suggest that we never needed unions or a better standard of living. The organizations have simply outlived their usefulness and their continued existence has become a drain on resources and a blight on the companies that are forced, by various state and federal laws, into an affiliation with them. I'm not sure what should really qualify as "abhorrent conditions" in this country. The way we define poverty in this country describes a class of people with several TVs, multiple optional services (like cable and cellular phone), and at least one car...some of whom own their own homes. To describe such a thing as "abhorrent" or "impoverished," especially when it's a better standard of living than is even enjoyed by many in other industrialized nations, reflects that a large part of our problem in this country is perception.

Interplay is splitting the difference, it's just that the difference is sometimes 5/95-45/65 instead of 50/50. Just because the fractions change doesn't mean it's not a split difference of some type.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I agree with Aestu on this one, the EPA doesn't do it's classifications just to be a dick. I'm not claiming they're perfect, they are certainly prone to political pressure from either side, but generally they are based on science. That's the thing about science, it doesn't give a fuck if you understand or if you agree, it is only interested in what is real. And just about every time a politician takes a simplified stance against what was probably a well-researched policy decision, it's usually the politician making an ass of themselves. Remember the railing against fruit-fly research during the campaigns? Remember when the scientists were like "um, we're doing this to study diseases and our research has helped us understand autism"? Never ask a politician about science, nerds don't become politicians.


As for the topic of regulation more broadly, my favorite analogy was a football game. A regulation should be the referee, not the coach. The referee sets and enforces limitations on what is simply not acceptable, but he does not call the plays. If a regulation sets and enforces a boundary that society has decided it wants to set, great. If it tries to tell a company how to operate within those boundaries, not great.

But as something that exists within society, even free-enterprise businesses must be bound by the will of that society. And one way that will can be expressed is through government policy. The market is good at shaping trends, but horrible at placing precise boundaries.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

Reposted via facebook..

I've been saying this for a long, long time. I don't believe there are many evil politicians or evil political groups in America. There are some. But most people who have ideas that they are willing to fight for, also coincidentally have enemies. It's only natural that if you have a belief you feel strongly about, someone else out there has an opposing view that they feel equally strongly about.

It's not so much that politicians in America are trying to set forth an evil liberal agenda, or an evil conservative agenda...they are trying to implement their ideas because they believe their ideas are the best way to make America successful as a nation. Along the way, there happen to be disagreements on what ideas are best for the country.

This is why I am staunchly oppositional to branding ideas liberal and conservative..because it limits the individual from being able to make their own judgment because they have already aligned with their chosen faction.

Let's say you agree with 80% of liberal/conservative ideas and values...that's still 1 in 5 subjects that you could potentially be disagreeing with and making your own informed decision on yet don't because you've already aligned yourself as a liberal/conservative.


We are all Americans first and foremost, we all have our own ideas on how to improve our country. What needs to happen is total abandonment of liberals/conservatives are bad people with bad ideas that just wanna harm America...and a civil discourse needs to unfold in which we examine each others ideas with an open mind, calmly discussing the pros and cons without resorting to ad hominem and tired old talking points that have been way overused in the media by pundits and other public figures.

I think this was a great article, good find Jubber.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

The EPA is incredibly political, and is generally used by both parties to get their way when they can't get something done legislatively. I remember a lot of kicking and screaming during the Bush years about deregulation at the EPA that had nothing to do with science. I remember wailing and gnashing of teeth during democrat administrations because they imposed stricter standards, not because of science (though it's always presented by those in agreement to be the case), but because of politics. Hell, it hasn't been that long ago that there was an uproar about the EPA imposing restrictions on Carbon-fucking-Dioxide without Congressional direction. I agree with you that when left to do what it's meant to do, it probably does a decent job, but I'm not sure how often that happens when the agency is kicked about as a political football every two to four years.

If you're going to use football as an analogy, the referees are more like our judicial system, as they're meant to be impartial arbiters of the rules. Much like football, our "rules" (laws) have developed over time, not always in a way that makes sense or indeed even enhances the game.

The point of the law/regulations is to prevent people/companies from engaging in acts that impose on the rights of others by causing them (even potentially) some harm. I believe that many Americans are in favor of legislation/regulation that protects the environment/public health. However, I also believe that many Americans recognize that sometimes those regulations go too far, and are not willing to bear the cost of unnecessary regulation. I do not think that our argument is "to regulate or not to regulate," but "how much regulation is too much/too little?" I think that the specifics of the changes to saccharine's status are not very specific in the piece (due to the brief nature of the op-ed), and it's likely that there are still limits on dumping saccharine (and many other chemicals) based on how much is released, what it's dissolved in/mixed with, where it's being released, and various other factors. When dealing with testing of public water supply, contaminants are still allowed in water for public consumption, but they are in such small quantities (PPM: Parts per Million) that their presence is negligible. There is likely still a PPM requirement that has to be met for releasing saccharine waste into the environment, and/or other disposal guidelines that must be met.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

IIRC, I remember a lot of people were pissed off because the person who Bush put at the head of the EPA was deeply involved with some industry (either coal mining, oil drilling, or lumberjacking, I can't remember).

You know, I bet people thought the same thing when we got rid of child labor laws, but we somehow got by.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I don't remember any reasonable objections to Christine Todd Whitman, but I remember why she left, because it was a bit of a controversy when her reason(s) came to light: It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. The person Bush picked to follow Whitman was generally hailed as a great choice.



There's opposition to everything. There were probably people opposed on the basis that families losing the income from working children would be adversely impacted. Child labor laws still allowed children to work in family businesses/on family farms, so it's not like child labor vanished, it was just relegated to socially convenient/acceptable places. We still have minors in the workforce today, so there is obviously some moderation in how far the regulations went. I think child labor reform shows that while a majority of Americans agree that we need rules to prevent the exploitation of children, they agreed that there needed to be limits on those laws that would allow for youth employment and participation in family business.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The reason debates about EPA regulation of auto emissions became political are immediately obvious to anyone who's lived in both the Bay Area and the Central Valley.

React, I largely agree with you, but what you underestimate is the capacity of people to create hugely destructive and false ideologies that not coincidentally vindicate whatever it is they're doing.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

They're political for more reasons than just the fact that people in California think they're entitled to all the benefits of modernity without any of the detriments, and are completely incapable of balancing the two without imposing their idiocy on the rest of the country. It's political because people in Kansas, who don't have a pollution problem, don't think they should have to pay $3+ a gallon for gas because of pollution in CA. It's political because people who care more about safety than gas mileage want to drive large, heavy vehicles regardless of gas mileage. It's political because we haven't built a new oil refinery since Jimmy Carter was president, and we're trying to meet modern demand with an infrastructure that is several decades old. It's political for many reasons outside of your myopic, singularly focused view.



Yet another fancy bit of verbiage that merely says, "people are wrong because they disagree with me, and there can't possibly be any rational way of arriving at a view that differs from my own." The idea that you would criticize anyone for holding their hands over their ears and yelling "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" in the face of contradictory evidence is an ironic act of self-projection that is epic in its proportions.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

$3 a gallon for gas is a bargain compared to most of the civilized world. What's gas going for in the UK or France or Australia? Regulation doesn't even increase the cost of gas; gas prices are driven by the huge profit margins of the distributors.

What I was getting at, Jubbergun, is that in California, air pollution is a serious problem. CA has air laws far stricter than the rest of the nation because experience proved it necessary. In the past 40 years, CA's population and miles driven in a year have risen dramatically, but thanks to vigilant air quality laws, our air quality is way better than it was. The Bay Area used to have some of the worst pollution in the country; now it's at the bottom of the list. When you talk about "balancing the benefits of modernity", this is how it's done...through regulation to minimize the impact.

Lobbyists don't like CA's regulation because it's an unpleasant reminder that such laws can get things done that corporations won't do on their own. It doesn't kill jobs because ALL cars and ALL gas sold has to meet state standards, not just those manufactured in a particular nation or by a particular company. No one manufacturer or regional supplier has a relative advantage.

Anyone who believes that these laws endanger anyone's way of life has never seen I-80 during rush hour. California's robust clean air laws don't prevent half a million super-commuters from driving further in a day than you probably do in a week. Nor does BART. Meanwhile, the third-world city of Sacramento makes do with its shitty RT system; its unreliability and terrible quality of service drives away business while San Francisco's excellent MUNI system keeps the city livable - and a great place to do business, even though land values and rents in the Bay Area are many times what they are in the Central Valley. It is the quality of life, backed up by regulation and public infrastructure, that keeps that economic motor humming. Sacramento takes the opposite approach, with no infrastructure and only as much regulation as the rest of the state can force down its throat, and the capital of the state is a commercial backwater.

I remember attending the 1996 state fair at Cal Expo and viewing GM's "EV-1", a functional electric car. No, developing it didn't bankrupt the company; they did this to placate the legislature which was trying to pressure them into accepting change (and failed). People loved the EV-1 and GM got a massive backlog of orders. Fearing change, they threw a wet blanket on it, and most orders went unfulfilled.

This is the thing: Big business is often very stubborn. They often will NOT accept change unless it is forced upon them. Even if that change is in their own long-term best interest. And the interplay of industry's pursuit of the bottom line and the efforts of regulators is what ensures success for America.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Not according to the EPA.


http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastety ... n/faqs.htm

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

So you're saying that a lot of people wanted to buy a car, and the makers of that car said no?