I'm having trouble understanding how fewer regulations lead to more certainty both in the operation of businesses and within the economic system where these businesses are seeking to find certainty? Many businesses have become like poker players who want to stay in the games, where they have already become big winners, but only if their chips are given double value. Playing that kind of game certainly makes increasing their winnings more likely. But it also more likely--if not inevitably--makes more of the other players bigger losers.
Deregulating is like suggesting that fewer rules and officials increases the chances that football and basketball games will be played more fairly. While there certainly can be too many rules in a game, such as requiring football linemen to always be a certain number of inches from the line of scrimmage, or requiring the quarterback to not take more than four steps before throwing a pass or handing off the ball. The rules applying to football now seem about right. From time to time rules are changed as circumstances justify them. But the rules aren't changed just because some running backs aren't able to make runs pass the line of scrimmage or some quarterbacks can't complete enough of their passes.
So far, I have not heard the argument that too many regulations being properly monitored is what caused our financial disaster. President Obama has said he is willing to review all regulations and make changes where a good case can be made for changing or eliminating them--and already has changes some. But deregulating so that some businesses can take unfair advantage of either consumers or other businesses is kind of certainty that reasonable people would not consider constructive in an economy struggling to recovery its better days.
Businesses have never had the certainty that they would make profits--or even survive. Businesses go our of business somewhere, everyday. Uncertainty is built into American capitalism. But now a days, some big businesses want regulations that will guarantee that their teams always score touchdowns, that dropped balls will never be called a fumble, and that they will not be required to play a better game than the competition in order to win.
When I was a boy, our baseball games often were played in the streets with the balls and bats of other children. But the boy that owned the bat (a broomstick) and ball (a wormed tennis ball) didn't say that unless we gave him five strikes he was taking his bat and ball home. Some businesses want five strikes and their right hand touched at first base before they can be called out. They can say that because they own the bats and balls.
Republicans say that placing higher taxes on businesses hurt job creators. But how can that be true? Businesses say they are refusing to hire more workers, not because they don't have enough money, but because there either are not enough of the kinds of people they need to hire or there is not a sufficient market for more of their products or services. How then can giving these businesses access to more money by reducing their taxes produce more qualified job applicants and more consumers for their products? And how can taxing them a little bit more and reducing their profits a little bit change those reasons?
What kinds of regulations and certainties do businesses want, the kinds that existed before Barack Obama became president--the kinds that caused the Great Recession? Are these the kinds of regulations and certainties that Republicans are pledging to reinstate? Overturning regulations intended to prevent the kinds of intentional missteps that caused the Great Recession cannot be justified. Neither, however, can over-regulating.
Who, then, should make decisions about what regulations are appropriate to equitably distribute uncertainty, and fairly serve all classes of Americans? And by what processes are fair and just regulations most likely to be achieved? Fair or not, it appears that those who own the bats and balls are most likely to make those decisions. And whatever decisions they make will be proclaimed also to be good for the rest of us.
An emerging problem with our American capitalism is that it is operating within a climate of uncertainty reinforced by internal conflicts and contradictions about the importance of propriety, ethics and morality in our society. Winston Churchill called old Russia "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." That's beginning to define attitudes, politics and economics in America.
Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net
Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment