UK Slashing Business Regulation to Promote Economic Growth: Should the USA Do the Same?

by Heisenberg Posted 2012/09/11 17:00:00

Related Topics: Associated Press, UK, Press, Regulation, Economic, USA, Business, Economic Growth

931 votes
Read all 952 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	555 votes	60%
	No	376 votes	40%

ASSOCIATED PRESS Reports:
"LONDON (AP) -- Britain's government says it will scrap hundreds of regulations affecting businesses, in the hope of boosting the country's lackluster economy. Business Secretary Vince Cable announced Monday that firms would be made exempt from up to 3,000 health and safety laws and other regulations. "Businesses need to focus all their energies on creating jobs and growth," Cable said."

+38

Add a comment above

DM Twin 2012/09/11 00:17:23

Yes

+32
CUT REGULATIONS......THROW OUT OBAMMIECARE... WATCH THE JOBS MARKET CHANGE OVERNIGHT.

Vote Republican right down the line....No more Commiecrats ... EVER
>> See Replies

More polls by Heisenberg

Mj PINKYFINGERDOWN 2013/01/03 22:55:48 (edited)
Eric 2012/10/28 12:01:01 (edited)

Yes

I think we should remove all regulations affecting business. Maybe we could bring back jobs to America! Those job killing health and safety laws cost money! Environmental laws cost money! Labor laws cost money! If we eliminate them, it would be profitable to hire American workers to work 116 hrs a week at $0.70/hr with no benefits. Off course, that would vary with the market value of the worker's skill set.

We could get rid of all the public workers we would no longer need. If we leave our general welfare to the private sector, we could eliminate even more public workers.

If we eliminate speed limits on our roads, our remaining law enforcement officers could concentrate on real crime.

It would be a true free market! Laissez faire is the way to go! I think this could be done without infringing on anyone's rights under the U.S. Constitution.

reply
Robert 2012/09/24 14:34:40

No

Why no? The article doesn't state what regulations are going to be scrapped! Most businesses have suppliers and I don't want to see the day when the suppliers start ripping them off because then they’ll rip their customers off. Then we'll be right back to the days when only wealthy business owners can get protection by owning security firms, lobbying firms and bought politicians and small business won't be able to compete. You think it's bad now with the small amount of regulations that we have now? It will be real cutthroat then. Those days held violent strikes, violent civil unrests, and race riots.

reply
Ramón 2012/09/22 20:28:00

No

No, common sense business rules are necessary to prevent blatant destruction... of consumer rights, of the environment, of legal tax structures... and so on. If there were no rules then a business could do ANYTHING to create a profit... and we've all seen those that do. Enron destroyed lives in the pursuit of profit. Bernie Maddox did too. And the list goes on.

Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." I remember a bit of a man that thought he was walking on snow and ice but was walking on congealed lard from a rendering plant. Men who pulled fur off of hides lost their fingers. Men would vomit coal dust after work. These were all legal and rule of law stopped this.

Don't believe for a minute that a conglomerate, a business would hesitate to profit at someone else's expense, or the environment.

Why do we have a Supefund? Because it is nice to have? NO, we have it because ruthless and reckless businesses destroyed their bed in the pursuit of profit.

reply
DDD 2012/09/21 20:10:51

Yes

Better yet, apply Dann's Law #1 to Business regulation Laws. The objective is to both improve AND simplify the Laws. This law would make the Legislators read more, think more, and write less. Here then, is Law #1 (there are only 3)

Dann's Law#1: No legislation shall be considered or enacted UNLESS an equivalent number of words, plus 10%, are removed from prior, related legislation. That is, a law of 1,000 words would have to remove 1,100 words from the same law-books before it can be enacted. The only exception to this law shall be any law that can be written in eleven (11) words or less, such as: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

reply
lm1b2 2012/09/20 15:59:10

No

Every time we slash regulations we end up with Savings,and Loan scandel,stock market crash(Wall Street),the thieve that run our Corporations can't wait to screw us everytime we drop regulations.

reply
DDD to lm1b2 2012/09/21 20:27:17

Yes. And it was Acorn and their ilk who forced the legislators to reduce the criteria for a borrower. They were called sub-prime loans.

And guess who was one of their attorneys? Once those criteria for loans were weakened, most banks fell for the trap... the government was going to some-how back up people who could not afford to own a house... and the banks could make a fortune by doubling or tripling their portfolios of home loans.

Of course, being such a sharp investor, if you were offered a small fortune, you would turn it down, right? But you now call them 'greedy' for loaning money to the poor... who they knew had little hope, little commitment, and little ability to repay their monthly mortgage.

Well, guess what, it didn't work. And you and I are bailing out the banks that fell for the trap. Of course those banks who weren't greedy, like Wells Fargo, would have been OK without any bail-out, but the Guvm'nt is penalizing them too, for what Acorn et.al. did.

Just another example of how little the politicians really understand about business... at least in a Capitalistic society.

reply
lm1b2 to DDD 2012/09/22 15:30:39

Yes the Banks that "Knowingly" sold Mortgages that they knew were no good to investors were innocent according to you,even by committing the biggest fraud in our history causing the stock market to collapse,and send us into a depression!

reply
DDD to lm1b2 2012/09/24 23:56:17 (edited)

Not Innocent, Just Opportunists. But they didn't set the Rules, Congress did. There arevsome simple mathematical guidelines, based on income and other debt, for determining who can and who cannot afford to buy a house. Congress aborted those guidelines for political reasons.

I saw a similar thing in 1976 when I was in Real Estate. Remember the S&L; collapse and Scandal. In that case the interest rates were so High that a young working couple could NO LONGER afford to buy a house... and keep it for very long. There was high inflation and the projected future value of the homes said that you could live in them and still make money on them.

That was a case of greed following greed. The S&L;'s and RE Brokers were lending and selling as much as they could, getting young people to 'bet on the come' with10%+ loans. (Its simple business math, they could barely pay the monthly interest, but they could not pay any principle.)

One State (Utah) did a remarkable capitalistic manipulation and got mortgage bonds (State guaranteed) issued at 8%... which made homes sold in that state affordable. When inflation stopped, people kept their homes and the State made a lot of money.

In the prior 'S&L;' case the wrong doing was mostly the responsibility of the Greedy Lenders. And, a few of the...

Not Innocent, Just Opportunists. But they didn't set the Rules, Congress did. There arevsome simple mathematical guidelines, based on income and other debt, for determining who can and who cannot afford to buy a house. Congress aborted those guidelines for political reasons.

I saw a similar thing in 1976 when I was in Real Estate. Remember the S&L; collapse and Scandal. In that case the interest rates were so High that a young working couple could NO LONGER afford to buy a house... and keep it for very long. There was high inflation and the projected future value of the homes said that you could live in them and still make money on them.

That was a case of greed following greed. The S&L;'s and RE Brokers were lending and selling as much as they could, getting young people to 'bet on the come' with10%+ loans. (Its simple business math, they could barely pay the monthly interest, but they could not pay any principle.)

One State (Utah) did a remarkable capitalistic manipulation and got mortgage bonds (State guaranteed) issued at 8%... which made homes sold in that state affordable. When inflation stopped, people kept their homes and the State made a lot of money.

In the prior 'S&L;' case the wrong doing was mostly the responsibility of the Greedy Lenders. And, a few of them got to respond to congress on C-Span and were soon Jailed. Others, however, continued where they were, and are still messing up the financial system.

However...

In the recent 'Bank' case it was the government yielding to PC pressure (by ACORN and others) to put low interest mortgages in the hands of people who simply could not afford them. The Banks stood to make a fortune at low interest rates, not from high interest but by doubling their mortgage portfolios. YES, the banks... and any smart businessman... knew it was going to fail. (Witness: Wells Fargo knew and didn't take the bait). Lots of people were talking about the RE Bubble... weren't you listening?

But these loans were being pushed AND GUARANTEED by the government... The people YOU sent to Washington. You know, those who didn't have a clue about business, but wanted to buy the votes of the poor.

The banks couldn't lose... AND they DIDN'T Lose... You and I LOST when the mortgage payments went long overdue, foreclosures started, and the Banks were bailed out with OUR tax money. But this time there were no major congressional investigations on C-Span as there were in the '70-'80's... because the congressmen would have been on the other side of the Bar. THEY were the culprits... The banks were just their henchmen.
(more)

reply
lm1b2 to DDD 2012/09/27 13:09:53

A thieft is a thieft,rules,or know rules!

reply
lm1b2 to DDD 2012/09/27 13:11:42

A thieft is a thieft,rules,or know rules,and if you condone what they did you are know better then they are !

reply
Steven 2012/09/19 15:09:07

No

We are in this mess because we had less regulation since the 80's. Austerity doesn't work. It won't work in England and it won't work here.

Justin.

reply
Raithere 2012/09/19 05:32:08

Yes

It really depends which regulations we're talking about.

For small businesses, done judiciously, yes. Small businesses are being buried.
For large corporations and the financial sector, not so much.
Environmental regulations, mostly no, but they need to be smarter.
Employee civil protections, yes, we need some sanity here.
Employee safety protections, no.
For taxes, YES! Major overhaul needed here.

The main changes we need to make if we want to increase employment are the tax regulations though... not the percentages as much as what is being levied.

reply
whitecollar 2012/09/18 17:31:57 (edited)

No

No, We should wait and see how it works for the UK. It may present more problems than it solves. Some of the UK's bright ideas do more harm than good.

reply
roman 2012/09/18 15:12:51

No

+1
these idiots dont know what they're getting into ,do you think electricity should be 50% higher in texas well our grand rethuglican rick perry has cut controls and now the public utilities comm. can legally raise our rates 50% no argument state approved vote out every commie rethuglican in any office vote liberal 2012 give our power back to the people after all how many of your bosses are going to gladly give you a 50% raise to offset this just so you can buy food???? think about it deregulation is for criminals just ask rick perry

reply
whiteco... to roman 2012/09/18 17:45:08

Criminals like deregulation, you are so right.

reply
DDD to whiteco... 2012/10/08 18:13:57

Do you mean 'criminals' like the ones who commit crimes with guns in DC where guns are regulated more than anywhere in the country, or 'non-criminals' like the private DC citizens who obey the law but can't protect themselves.

Some 'general' regulations are needed like the golden rule and the Constitution. And short concise laws and regulations. But what is really needed are Judges who can actually 'judge', rather than return political favors or (even if they are honest) just search for a precedent so they can get off the hook in making any real judgements. Human rules do not exist that can protect us from human criminals and their crimes... they can always find a loophole in the detailed laws. And, when we are not enforcing existing laws, then what does it matter?

What most of the bankers did in this case was to follow GOVERNMENT guidelines which were obviously financially STUPID: give mortgages to people who can't afford them??? But the Banks also had guarantees that our taxes would back those loans up if they failed. These Banks would have gone bankrupt if they had not had that guarantee (and they knew that). Those Banks (and even GM the year before) should have gone bankrupt... that is supposed to be the price of stupidity in business, isn't it?.

But if your own govm'...

Do you mean 'criminals' like the ones who commit crimes with guns in DC where guns are regulated more than anywhere in the country, or 'non-criminals' like the private DC citizens who obey the law but can't protect themselves.

Some 'general' regulations are needed like the golden rule and the Constitution. And short concise laws and regulations. But what is really needed are Judges who can actually 'judge', rather than return political favors or (even if they are honest) just search for a precedent so they can get off the hook in making any real judgements. Human rules do not exist that can protect us from human criminals and their crimes... they can always find a loophole in the detailed laws. And, when we are not enforcing existing laws, then what does it matter?

What most of the bankers did in this case was to follow GOVERNMENT guidelines which were obviously financially STUPID: give mortgages to people who can't afford them??? But the Banks also had guarantees that our taxes would back those loans up if they failed. These Banks would have gone bankrupt if they had not had that guarantee (and they knew that). Those Banks (and even GM the year before) should have gone bankrupt... that is supposed to be the price of stupidity in business, isn't it?.

But if your own govm'nt set some stupid rules which promised to increase YOUR private business and then to bail you out if you failed, wouldn't you go for it???

However, I don't see any Senators or Representatives or ACORN lawyers on the carpet for starting this fiasco, do you?
(more)

reply
chicku 2012/09/18 07:32:23

Yes

a free hand for a better growth

reply
rph3636 2012/09/18 04:45:47

No

Where is maybe, some businesses need/have to have a certain amount of regulation saying there should be no regulation would be the same as saying there should be no traffic regulations.

reply
pdt_ski 2012/09/18 01:23:27

Yes

If you want a less partisan viewpoint, look at what other nations are doing. Sure, they have their own political divisions but it seems here Britain figured something out. We should take a page from their playbook.

reply
T 2012/09/17 23:28:56

No

Please inform me as to what government regulations in the USA are actually causing these problems people are constantly complaining about.

reply
DDD to T 2012/09/21 20:48:09

How about the Tax laws. They are so complex that most large businesses have to keep two sets of books, one to pay taxes by, and one to run their business with... since the tax regs impede business growth. I was told by the comptroller of a major company that accounting is an art, not a science... and when you paint with the brushes given out by legislators it looks like something done by a chimpanzee.

This really is NOT rocket science. Ultimately ALL taxes are paid by the consumer. When we tax businesses (say put a 10 cent tax on a raw hamburger) the business has to pass that cost of doing business on to the person who eats their cooked product . (So a Big Mac must go up by 20 cents for two patties, or the golden arches will go bankrupt, and you will have to eat burritos at Taco Bell).

Meanwhile the government spends the 20 cents on... what? (their favorite is buying votes.)

Conversely, when was the last time you ever ATE, WORE, LIVED IN, or DROVE anything made by a government employee??? I'll wait for your answer... but I wont hold my breath.

reply
DDD to DDD 2012/09/22 08:08:46

PS: GM doesn't count.

reply
JOJO 2012/09/16 18:18:15 (edited)

No

Are you crazy? More dead coal miners? More wealth taken up by subprime mortgages? More ecosystems destroyed? And let's not even think about food, water and air.

reply
blumunofky 2012/09/15 20:40:28

No

Is somebody posing these questions nuts? Look at your history books and see what the robber barons of the 1800s did without regulation. What they did would be penny ante compared with the business sector, with the instant communication available now, would do to us uninformed boobs who aren't much better informed than our ancestors were in the 1800s. Talk about a major revolution in the making!!

reply
uppity 2012/09/15 17:18:06

No

R U kid'n? Anyone thinking we should, simply doesn't understand what deregulation has done to this nation. Better to advocate for the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagail Act.

reply
sglmom 2012/09/15 02:33:40

Yes

+1
Indeed ..
an IDEA whose time is right now ..
start with booting out the Executive Order pen holder with your vote ..
(ABO .. no more of anyone openly violating existing laws on the books)

By taking the onus away (of overpowering/overbearing and expensive regulations/rules)
we can free up the time and effort spend on these 'red tapes' ..
instead in the form of reinvestment .. retooling .. regenerating ..
business bases .. and new business opportunities ..
getting more people back to work ..

(and that includes repealing all the onus of ObamaCare too .. )

reply
JOJO to sglmom 2012/09/16 18:20:45

Oh, yeah. Just give those plutocrats more money to put in their bank accounts. I am a person. Corporations are not people. And yet they own the democracy. They can buy elections. They own the Supreme Court. And this is FAIR???

reply
sglmom to JOJO 2012/09/16 22:52:14

+1
Wow .. that's quite the propaganda statement there for sure ..
(the kind that is rooted in a serious lack of knowledge of the true nature of free markets .. )

Is it fair to lock out ..
via the sitting corruption ..
small businesses .. entrepreneurship .. from the marketplace in the first place?
why should I .. and others like myself .. have to struggle with regulations, rules .. overbearing government to the tune that it is taking 50% or more of our time .. when it is literally bankrupting the initial investment to pay for license start up fees .. just to start businesses in the first place?
why should the corrupt inner circle of the ones already there be continued in their lockgrip on the 'seats of power' .. and keep ideas repressed?

reply
Eric to sglmom 2012/09/17 19:15:42

Regulation is necessary because we cannot trust human nature to do the right thing!
History shows us that over and over again!

reply
sglmom to Eric 2012/09/18 01:14:04

+1
THAT is truly a sad (and disturbing comment)
one born of a cultivation of division and distrust ..

What is fascinating ..
is that I've met so many who are open .. honest .. and respect themselves, others, their employees/customers ..
who definitely do NOT need the DISRESPECTFUL and stifiling .. virus called "government Regulations/rules .. "

Let's see ..
a good current example of what happens when the Creche is overpowering and there's no breathing room ..
The WALL Was torn down ..
and Germany not only reunited ..
weathered its crisis .. but
the peoples are now all free too ..
(and gained economically as a result .. new businesses and markets!)

TIME to tear down that WALL of Regulations/Rules ..
get the Government CRECHE out of the Marketplace ..

reply
Eric to sglmom 2012/10/28 11:11:12

No, just history.

reply
sglmom to Eric 2012/10/29 00:09:20

Sadly .. what you've posted is just disturbing indoctrination borne out of a very thorough base of rhetoric from a very tender age ..

reply
Claybern 2012/09/15 02:11:55

Yes

+1
Get er done.

reply
belle 2012/09/15 01:02:03

Yes

+1
The small business owners would be happy if that happened. many new businesses would start up meaning growth alway around. Lets try it for the good of America.

reply
hilllary 2012/09/14 23:05:39

Yes

+1
Let's put the dummy out of the whitehouse.

reply
uppity to hilllary 2012/09/15 17:22:03 (edited)

The man in the Whitehouse is a jerk, but believe me, there's nothing dumb about him.

reply
me 2012/09/14 18:20:45

No

I said "no" because there was no "it depends". "Slashing" is a media word, of course, but it is why I chose "no" of the two polarized positions. Regulations are necessary, especially health and safety regulations on business, even more so on corporate business. Just as necessary as laws that "regulate" the conduct and activities of individuals are necessary. They shouldn't be "slashed" (which implies a lack of care and reason...kind of like Texas Chainsaw Massacree! lol) but approached with an eye to whether it is serving a useful and beneficial purpose, whether its working to serve that purpose, and if not, whether the parts that are not working can be surgically removed, or whther you have to throw out the whole thing and let it go, or start over on a different tack. I saw a lady post from GB who indicated that its not really that "slashing" going on in GB. We could use some surgery on some of ours, but we could also use some new regulations that work better.

reply
Todd Parsons 2012/09/14 16:07:36

Yes

+4
YES Socialism doesn't work.... look at Greece!!!!!

reply
Eric to Todd Pa... 2012/10/28 11:12:33 (edited)

Fascism does work? Communism works too. Just look at the economic growth in China for example.

reply