Common Sense in regulations?

[John Grossbohlin]

wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like industrial waste flowing out of a pipe...

[Larry Jaques]

Well, the EPA finally did something right, eh? I wonder why SCOTUS got into it knowing full well that the EPA was already involved. Pissing match? That seldom turns out well for the American people.

-- ...in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work. -- John Ruskin

[SonomaProducts.com]

eated like industrial waste flowing out of a pipe...

Just read an article where extension of BART rails lines in San Francisco a= rea spent $7 Million (so far) to scare away birds and relocate nests along = the new rail corridor to satisfy the EPA. Currently running about $23,000 p= er nest. I would prefer 25 cents for a 22 shell or maybe a buck for a shotg= un shell. More cost effective and 100% efficent.

[J. Clarke]

wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like industrial waste flowing out of a pipe...

spent $7 Million (so far) to scare away birds and relocate nests along the new rail corridor to satisfy the EPA. Currently running about $23,000 per nest. I would prefer 25 cents for a 22 shell or maybe a buck for a shotgun shell. More cost effective and 100% efficent.

Just let the train hit 'em. What does it cost to clean a splotted bird off the front of a train anyway?

[Tim Daneliuk]

> Environmentalists wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like industrial waste flowing out of a pipe...

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I am currently working with a company that is spending 10s of millions of dollars on nothing but compliance programs to able to stay in business. I cannot be specific but think in terms of stuff like Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, PCI, HIPPA, EPA, OSHA, ADA, EEOC, ObamaCare etc., blah, blah, blah.

When you're involved in this stuff you realize what an incredible waste of time, money, and human capital all this stuff is. The companies do what they have to in order to "comply". But "comply" just means getting some auditing firm (@ $300/hr +) to say, "Yes, you passed this year." So companies focus on passing the test, not necessarily on actually achieving the spirit of the regulation. They live in fear of government and/or legal reprisal if they do not have everything checked off their compliance list whether the compliance actually makes any difference or not. The auditors love it because it's a license to print money. Someone once referred to Sarbanes-Oxley as "The Consultant Full Employment Act." They're not far wrong.

The truth is that anyone that is sufficiently evil and dishonest probably can still game the system even with all that stuff in place. Remember that everything the credit rating agencies and Wall St. did was *legal* even though the end game of CDO mess in 2008 was economic disaster.

But that's not even the worst of it. Big companies can- and do spend the money to do this stuff because they have to. But the real tragedy is that it creates an enormous barrier to entry into these kinds of markets (finance, healthcare, records keeping, credit card processing, analytics, trading, manufacturing, construction, logistics ...). Market challengers and innovators typically do not have anywhere near the financial resources to do all this AND do their primary work. No wonder we aren't seeing a wave of startups and new ideas we once did. No wonder companies are being reverse IPOed and/or being moved off shore. No wonder medium skill labor manufacturing is moving out of the country. It used to be the unions that crippled our competitiveness, now it's our own government and the legal profession.

The irony is that the Saviors Of Mankind that occupy office in our nation's capital end up running around wringing their hands because there are no jobs. Shocking, really, isn't it? Their solution, inevitably is MORE regulation.

And that's not even the worst of it still. Regulators are typically appointed, not elected. They're like cockroaches - they survive the election cycle and stay in place, often for decades. There are smart regulators, but far too many of them are political appointees that don't even understand what it is they're regulating all that well.

What is actually needed is smarter liabilities laws. Instead of trying to regulate each and every tiny detail of the marketplace, the dunderheads in government should hire the consultants they're keeping in business and try and answer one question: Instead of regulation, what would a good product liability law look like? The subsidiary questions would be things like:

- When is a company liable for its actions? - What should the legal definition of "harm" look like? - How should compensation for harm be calculated? - When does liability rise to the level of fraud or felony?

If this was nailed down carefully, every corporate CEO would understand the rules and make sure they complied, or face jail time.

This will not end well.

[Tim Daneliuk]

>>> Environmentalists wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like industrial waste flowing out of a pipe...

Relevant:

[John Grossbohlin]

>>> Environmentalists wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like

I work in a regulated industry too... HIPPA, PHI, state and federal regulators are the tip of the iceberg as accreditation by NCQA and other organiztions burns millions more.

[Tim Daneliuk]

>>>>> Environmentalists wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like industrial waste flowing out of a pipe...

are the tip of the iceberg as accreditation by NCQA and other organiztions burns millions more.

Perhaps we should start a support group: Regulated To Death Anonymous

[John Grossbohlin]

>>>>>>> Environmentalists wanted the runoff from logging to be treated like

Nah... we need the work. :~)