» News

Regulated To Death

Home - by - February 17, 2013 - 18:00 America/New_York - 8 Comments

There Is No ‘Good Regulation’

by Michael Moeller, American Thinker

According to the Small Business Administration, the total cost of regulations in 2008 was $1.75 trillion dollars. In other words, over 13% of the U.S. economy is chewed up just so services can be delivered, or just to get goods on the shelves.

Advocates of economic regulation will claim that regulation is a necessary cost of doing business and will reduce the costs of harm created by businesses. Let’s dig a little deeper into that claim. [snip]

For instance, consider that the average cost of getting a new drug past the FDA is $1.3 billion dollars, and can be as much as $11 billion dollars.

How many live-saving and life-enhancing drugs are never developed because of the prohibitive cost of regulation? How many other products are never produced because of the capital wasted in complying with government edicts, which would otherwise be put to productive enterprises? The number is inestimable. And this is just one product market.

Classical economist Frederic Bastiat referred to this phenomenon as “the seen, and the unseen”. The “seen” being the allegedly prevented harms, the “unseen” being the development of new life-enhancing technologies that were never undertaken because of the prohibitive cost of regulation. [snip]

What of the claim that regulation keeps us “safe”? Not only do FDA-approved drugs kill 106,000 people per year, but the increased FDA regulations in 1962 increased the number of deaths — due to increased delays and expenditures — by a 4:1 margin over the allegedly live-saving benefits of the new regulations, according to this study. [snip]

But this is not primarily a cost/benefit analysis. The essential issue is an individual’s moral and constitutionally-protected right to the possession, use, and disposal of property. The goal of statists is to condition individuals to placidly accept paying tribute to the government for the privilege of exercising their inalienable rights.

[snip]

Read the article here.

» 8 Comments

  1. IronyCurtain

    February 17th, 2013

    For all the “brilliance” bestowed upon B. Hussein Obama by the slobbering press, if he ever actually saw the inside of a Walmart I swear to God he’d have NO IDEA how any of those products made it to any of those shelves.

    Thumb up +4

     
  2. Unneutral

    February 17th, 2013

    Regulation, control, power….synonyms that express governments’ desire over its people.

    Thumb up +4

     
  3. 123321123321

    February 17th, 2013

    Big business lobbies Congress and the President to pass regulations to put small business out of business. Here’s the end results.

    Thumb up +4

     
  4. Kevin R.

    February 17th, 2013

    One of the core principles that came of the Enlightenment was the idea of Natural Rights wherein the law, to serve justice, had to be constrained to making unlawful and punishable only that which has caused harm to one party or their property by another, provable in a court of law with evidence. Things like fraud and theft and the like. A lot of people put their faith in the constitution to preserve our freedom. I don’t. Regulations are an end run around Natural Law where a person violates the law by violating state edicts. The regulatory state is just an end run around Natural Rights by the statists. There is no way the Left could even get a toe-hold on power without first corrupting our system of law. They did it slowly over the course of over a hundred years. But that’s what we need to get back to – Natural Rights. Because without it anything goes.

    Thumb up +6

     
  5. Stranded in Sonoma

    February 17th, 2013

    These regulations are for nothing more than to put a iron boat anchor around the neck of free enterprise. Socialists live in fear of allowing capitalism to actually work as well as it can. They know that if capitalism is even given half a chance, it will outshine socialism in every way.

    Take a look at what Oscumbag is doing. 23% unemployment and he couldn’t care. Rising taxes and he couldn’t care. Economic stagnation and he couldn’t care. He fears capitalism. Remember the video of Bill Ayers saying how his daily dream was to find a way to end capitalism? It’s because they fear it. With no justification other than some moldy old words written by some moldy-brained moron in the 19th century.

    Do I fear socialism? Yes. But my justification is 100 million dead in a century. Entire countries destroyed. People starving to the point of cannibalism. If socialism would actually work there might be a reason for discussion. But since it has failed miserably everywhere it goes, I really don’t see the need to keep performing the same experiment over and over just to end up with the exact same genocidal results.

    Thumb up +3

     
  6. scribble

    February 17th, 2013

    In 1988, liberal 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern briefly left politics to go into the hotel business. His venture went bankrupt in 1990. Afterwards, McGovern admitted that part of this was due to the burden of federal, state, and local regulations and frivolous lawsuits. He said, “I … wish that during the years I was in public office I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.”

    Duh.

    Thumb up +5

     
  7. Dan Ryan Galt

    February 17th, 2013

     
  8. sablegsd

    February 17th, 2013

    I call BS on the mcgovern story. It would not have made one damn bit of difference if he had the business experience first. Insane, regressive commies cannot change.

    Thumb up +2