Today, I was caught in traffic at a business intersection, where traffic is controlled by a traffic light. And as I was waiting, I became aware of the orderly manner in which the traffic moved: vehicles were going and coming across. They were crossing from the left and from the right. Some were turning as other were crossing. Some vehicles were even appropriately turning right on red.
Now, that same intersection once had no traffic signals. It had no signs. Drivers just respected the right of whomever got to the intersection first to proceed first. Some even yielded that right.
But as activities and development in the area expanded, traffic at the intersection increased to the point where courtesy and who got to the intersection first no longer worked. Some people merely assumed the right to proceed first whether they had it or not.
So four-way stops signs were installed, which encouraged to drivers respect the rights of others. Drivers had to watch different cars headed in many other directions to determine their turn to proceed. That worked until the traffic increased even more and more people were in a hurry to either get to work or to get back home. That, along with prospects for even more activities and development in the area, caused the traffic signal to be installed. It was during this fairly long wait at this traffic signal that the similarity between regulation of traffic and the regulation of the economy became obvious.
As the number of cars increased, the need to regulate traffic did not decrease. Rather, it increased, necessitating further regulation of the traffic. Individual freedom or liberty to proceed according to one's own need did not trump the need and advantages of safe and orderly movement of the vehicles through the intersection. Being late for work or an appointment was not sufficient reason to proceed out of turn. Being impatient was not a good reason to take away someone else's turn to proceed. A wife is having a baby may not even work--unless she was in the car. Being parked on the railroad track with a train was coming likely would cause other drivers to yield the right of way if they sensed a problem.
I was at the intersection because my wife had sent me to get her a couple of tacos, after telling me she was in a hurry to eat. That means that I was in a hurry to get back home. But I had to wait my turn. When I arrive home with the tacos, my wife heated them in the microwave oven, and everything was find.
Those who don't believe in regulations will say that regulating traffic and regulating an economy are different. They are. But the need to regulate and the consequences of not doing so are the same. Regulation promotes order; deregulation promotes conflict.
The Great Recession is still trying--with the help of Republicans--to defy all efforts by President Obama to stimulate or impose healing on the economy. Like rude drivers at an intersection, they are asking that traffic signals be taken down. They say being regulated slow down the damage they can inflict. They forget that there are drivers of other vehicles (other businesses, institutions, workers and consumers) on the road who also wish they could proceed freely without restraints. These people who are anti-regulations have come to the collective conclusion that all drivers should be unregulated and allowed to proceed as they choose, at whatever time and speed they choose. They don't even want anyone monitoring their speed through the intersection and be penalized for the wrecks and injuries they cause at the intersections.
Now, I don't understand the workings of the economy. Given the choice to take either economics or sociology in college, I chose sociology after some my smart home boys told me economics was hard. But I do know that conflicts can occur where mutual needs and common interests converge without rules of engagement.
To my knowledge, however, drivers have not been required to clean their vehicles before entering the intersection. They don't have to wear sunglasses on sunny days. Their tanks don't even have to be filled with gasoline nor even have recently bathed before crossing. And there are also other such regulations that might have no--or at best minimal--impact on safe and expedited crossings at the intersection.
But in debates over regulations, there seldom identification of regulations that should be eliminated or modified, with reasons why. Such regulations are referred to as "job-killing" regulations. It's like preventing the ability to run through a business intersection when the light is red a "job-killing" regulation if it always prevents a worker from getting to work on time. Just saying that businesses claim they cannot hire because of the regulations is not enough. Why can't they hire?
Removing financial regulations that would have or should have prevented the Great Recession extends an invitation to cause the next one.
Let's face it, while the Great Recession has devastated some families, it has enriched others. The Great Recession reportedly produced double-digit percentage increases in the number of millionaires. One might reasonably assume that those who were already wealthy had their wealth similarly increased. Where did the wealth come from? Along with others, it came from the income lost by those who lost jobs, and from those whose homes have either been lost or declined in value. People who built those homes that people could not afford got paid. Those who built apartment complexes to house those who would lose homes got paid. Suppliers of building supplies got paid. And they also got paid who had these complexes built in anticipation that many people would lose their homes.
Government must patrol these intersections where business, workers and consumers converge. Whether that is done with three-way stop signs or with red, green and orange traffic lights is debatable but the need is not.
But just as regulations at traffic intersections can be imagined that may not contribute to safety, there can be regulations that may not contribute to the proper functioning of the economy. Most of us don't know what's best for our economy. We try to elect smart people to represent us in government. But too many of them--except for our own, of course--sleep with the enemy.
From what I have seen and heard, I trust President Obama and Democrats more than Mitt Romney and Republicans to care about and to pursue the best interests of all Americans: A bigger economic pie should yield a bigger slice for everybody. If fairness, justice and equitability mean something different, then my college home boys were right: Economics is too hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment