Every regulation? Jesus Christ that is so ******* stupid I can't believe it. No, not every regulation. Some regulations impact business and the economy negatively and some regulations impact business and the economy positively.

I swear, when someone swipes at your face and shows you their thumb in between their fingers, you reach up to check your nose.

Here's what I want to see:
Regulation
Date signed into law
Date repealed
Negative impact
Positive impact

What is stupid, is being a business owner you of all people should get it... but you clearly don't.
If regulations for new construction make putting up a new building cost prohibitive, you don't put up that new building. Not putting up that new building comes at a cost to the economy.
Seriously man, I thought you were more on the ball than this.

Another good example: If you as a business owner are told you must provide health insurance for every full time employee, You'll hire part time people or use temps to fill your need when the need arises rather than hire more full time people.
But naturally you'll deny that too because you really don't understand business or how more regulations affect business and economic output.

To be brutally honest: the stock market isn't about investing, it's just institutionalized gambling.

The sooner we accept this fact, the better.

I don't think anyone would would argue that there is not an economic cost to business regulation but the idea of regulation is to create a tangential benefit to society. The auto industry *****ed and moaned about safety regulations but countless people have been spared death and injury from the government forcing the manufacturers to make their vehicles safer. The economic benefit to those laws were less people in hospital, off work, etc. Having had one of my kids in a serious car accident I am grateful that her car was forced to be safe. He driving decision that day is another matter...

Though it is getting much better, China was/is a great example of an unregulated industrial nation. Air quality is awful. Industrial injuries are commonplace. Dangerous products abound. Food quality frightening. When I started working in Asia in the 90s I left I was in a Dickens novel.

With everything there is a balance and the over regulation of an industry can be a death warrant (witness the private plane industry) but under regulation can be dangerous not just to your stock portfolio but your health.

What widebody said.. 100% spot on.

forgot to add in, many regulations have no economic impact at all or it's so small it doesn't enter into the discussion. Food service workers wearing hairnets or caps. Repealing that would probably add $20 trillion to the GDP.

Nick, construction regulation is a good example of regulations that may both positively and negatively impact the economy.

Show all the construction regulations that Obama signed into law that Trump repealed.

Then you clearly haven't seen the back and forth between Shaun and I. Yes, regulation is supposed to benefit society in general but regulations still have costs associated with them. A regulation can have environmental impact but an economic output cost. How one weighs against the other is up for interpretation.

That hairnet has a cost associated with it and that cost is added into the cost of the good or service provided by the business. The money spent on that hairnet could have been spent increasing economic output.

I'm going to shout, sorry.

THE TOPIC ISN'T WHETHER REGULATION IS GOOD OR BAD, CLEARLY IT'S BOTH.

THE TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME SET CLAIMS THAT TRUMP'S DEREGULATION HAS BALLOONED THE ECONOMY.

THEY NEED TO SHOW WHICH REGULATIONS OBAMA SIGNED INTO LAW AND WHICH ONES TRUMP REPEALED AND THE NET ECONOMIC IMPACT.

THAT'S IT.

Negligible. :rolleyes:

Your argument is massive economic growth due to deregulation.

Show it. SmileWavy

Am I safer or better off because your hair didn't end up in food? Probably not.
Am I less grossed out because I didn't find your hair in my food? Absolutely

My argument has never been "massive economic growth due to deregulation" Not once.
My argument has been that combined with the tax cuts and deregulation we're experiencing higher economic output. And again, because regulations don't get officially scored for cost/benefit and more specifically Executive Orders that add new regulations, you will never find a solid cost estimate for a given regulation.

I used to be the business manager of a composite fabrication company that did a lot of DoD work. My job was to bill the military for all of the projects we were working on, one of which was the Stealth bomber. When I took Managerial Accounting at Harvard, the professor told a story on the first day. A product manager in a cereal company reduced the size of the box and reduced the quality of the ingredients. His P&L was fantastic in the next quarter and he was promoted to VP. New product manager's numbers were horrible the next quarter and he was let go. New PM and next quarter was bad too.

Company did some research and found that customers had abandoned the lower quality and smaller package size cereal. The changes were great in the short term, just ask the new VP, but were completely unsustainable.

That's the corporate tax cut.

The corporate tax cuts make the USA a competitive market for business growth. Lower taxes along with less restrictive regulations make us more competitive globally. We can't do much about wages short of hire lower paid temps, but we can reduce cost by lowering the taxes on businesses that provide jobs for workers. IMO no business that employs people should pay tax. A sole member LLC such as myself should pay taxes and I do. But a business that employs full time workers should not pay tax.

No the tax cuts increase the national debt which weakens the country and the economy. Hey, I've been a government cost accountant. I know how this stuff works, I've done it for a living.

Regulations have both positive and negative impacts on the economy.

The problem with the Trump Derangement Syndrome set is the constantly moving goal posts. Long held Conservative principles like reducing the national debt have been thrown aside for the next installment of their own personal reality TV show.

Or perhaps you can show the economic benefits of a ballooning national debt?

There will be a sweet spot for tax rates based on economic growth.

We can all agree that a 100% tax rate won't lead to future higher tax revenue. We can all agree that a 0% tax rate won't be good for increased tax revenue moving forward.

Somewhere between 0 and 100% is the point where we get max revenue and economic growth. That point will be a moving target based on economic growth.

The sweet spot is slow and steady growth with a focus on reducing the national debt, not the artificial short term bubble with ballooning national debt we are in now.

Most of the corporate tax cut went to stock buy backs given the more buyers than sellers in the stock market we see today.

Toss it back in your lap.

What is the current best sweet spot for tax rates.

Give me the date of the specific cut. Give me the specific amount the tax cut cost in revenue.

Hell, we all know my questions are foolish to ask since there are far too many variables to give an accurate answer.

I too am concerned about debt moving forward. I also doubt that the lower rates will help the situation. Though they might. I do know I would support higher payroll tax rates (along with a higher age limit) so we can get SS back in the black..If our leadership can't get SS under control (limited action items available) I have doubts that either party can actually lead us out of the mess.

No, spending increased the national debt. With or without the tax cuts, the spending was higher than the revenue. That national debt would have gone up regardless of the tax cuts. And revenue is higher after the tax cuts than before so technically the tax cuts didn't increase the debt, spending did.
Anyone who wants to get serious about spending cuts and then creating a larger taxpayer base, meaning getting more people paying federal income tax, has my ear. But everyone wants higher taxes on someone else. Screw that! I pay my share and that of at several others who don't currently pay federal income tax. We aren't going to balance any budgets or pay down any debt by creating fewer taxpayers.