Regulations

>>1765425
oh hey, it's you again.

small business owners don't want less regulation.

that would be retarded. Regulations protect us from big businesses.

Who the fuck knows? It's basically little more than an abstract expression of intent.

>>1765425
Given the chaotic nature of meme magic it's hard to predict.

But what makes you think that a billionaire media mogul would want to help small businesss? I hope you didn't get memed into voting him because of that. kek.

>>1765440
>billionaire media mogul
The what now?

>>1765440

I try to be bipartisan as possible.

I voted for Hilary because i didn't want any change that would most likely in theory not go well.

>>1765448
Trump is a billionaire media mogul. Didn't you know that?

>>1765449
You did right. Too bad the winning minority wanted to see the world burn.

>>1765460
>Trump is a billionaire media mogul. Didn't you know that?

You amazingly found a statement that both sides of the political spectrum would vehemently object to. Good job.

>>1765435
Are you fucking retarded? Big businesses back all regulations; it's an anti-competitive measure. Very easy for big business to front regulations, very hard for small business. It's a regressive tax.

>>1765514
You know that person is a fucking retard. I don't know why you'd even doubt it.

>>1765514
>Big businesses back all regulations
>totally unaware of the SBA and everything it does
fuck I hate you.

>>1765435
WRONG

>>1765629
you know how I know you don't own a business?

>>1765425
It's going to make things much worse since now the big companies can do things for even cheaper.

>>1765425

Small business owner. I really don't see him doing anything that could help me. But if he helps the economy as a whole then more customers will buy my product.

File: US National Debt.png (416KB, 844x499px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 844x499px

One law I do really, really like:

"Any new regulation by any department that passes will require 2 existing regulations to be removed."

>>1765672
>bush doubles the national debt and that's A OK
>obama does it and he's the worst president we've ever had
I don't even like him, but come on

>>1765425
since when did this board become full of retards? literally no discussion but fucking 1 liners, is this fucking /pol/ or something?

Do any of you guys think it wont have any effect? seems to be like its way too easy to fool by combining smaller provisions into larger one, at least for forseeable future?
are there any scholarly articles on this shit? seems like something that could have been theorized before

>>1765674

lets not play word games,

you're trying to compare 10Trillion to 5 Trillion

>>1765706
there's no need for scholarly articles,
less regulation is literally our history.

a history littered with monopolies, complete disregard for safety, rape of the earth, crooked politicians, and literal war between employees and owners, where employees were often shot and killed.

>>1765425

As a small business owner not held down by things like regulations I will now be free to fuck over my employees (slaves now, haha!) and the environment itself. Fuck OSHA. Fuck slaves. Fuck nature.

Oh wait, I'm not a fucking cunt.

>>1765725
less regulation =/no regulation
are you going to defend every single regulation there is and claim its essential for 'the worker' to not get fucked over

>>1765727

What Trump says
>Remove cumbersome regulations that serve no purpose and benefit virtually no one

What liberals hear
>Trump bringing back child labor camps and allows corporations to directly dump waste into municipal water supplies

>>1765754
but thats not what executive order does. It probably will not remove the most cumberstone regulation, but rather small and unimportant ones that were probably never followed in the 1st place. I am not saying its bad, but its probably not going to be the greatest executive order ever signed. I hope to be wrong though

>>1765750
>are you going to defend every single regulation there is and claim its essential for 'the worker' to not get fucked over
are you going to pretend any regulations weren't enacted for a reason?

>>1765765
>are you going to pretend any regulations weren't enacted for a reason?
some were for bad reasons, i've no idea why you apply the kind of efficient market hypothesis to bureaucrats, Fama wouldnt even suggest for stock markets

File: US-Chamber-EPA-Regulations-Chart.png (757KB, 1136x790px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 1136x790px

>>1765765
>i am sure all of those regulations serve a fine tuned purpose that your average bureaucrat can clearly forsee

>>1765771
>i've no idea why you apply the kind of efficient market hypothesis to bureaucrats
bureaucrats don't prompt legislation.

lawsuits do.

>>1765778
>bureaucrats don't prompt legislation.
uwotm8
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process

holy shit even economist thinks there's too much regulation
http://www.economist.com/node/21547789
shoo shoo beurocrat >>1765776

>>1765789
read the links from the page you posted, moron.

>>1765798
>https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process
ctrl+f lawsuit 0 results
yeah bureaucrats crrate regulaion, congress approves of it, whats the problem lad do you think your congressman will read 830 pages of dodd franklin act and have a perfect idea of how all of it worked?

>>1765754

What is supposed to happen
>Ban people from entering the United States from certain countries (that doesn't have Trump's business interests in it)

What really happened
>Everyone was banned if they were from those countries whether they were legally able to be here or not

It's a blanket deal just like everything else. Trump is a retard.

>>1765821
this has nothing to do with the thread

back to >>>/pol/ with you

>>1765425
Market news outlets release articles on small business bill. It's extremely favorable. Really good. great, even. The best.

Russel 2000 drops 17%

Trump does nothing but hurt stock investor value with everything he does. Unless 'oh, he said something about nukes back in the early primaries', so naturally URA, a stock totally unrelated to nuclear weapons, jumps 20%.

Investors are fucking retarded. I can't get on this wavelength. Help me to be retarded so I can make gains on the market, anon. Please.

>>1765827

My entire point was that Trump will not look over anything and it will just be a blanket thing. It won't matter to him what gets axed or doesn't.

>>1765829
>seeking advice from anon msg board
time to quit 'investing', because with your knowledge and expertise its just gambling

>>1765813
This is how thin of a grasp your average American has on his legal system. Wow.

>>1765835
I read 'The intelligent Investor' and all it's derivatives about value investing. All my 'value' investments are bleeding red, I ran out of money to average into them, even.

Only profit I made in the market was dumb-ass speculating on oil price stocks and leveraged metal ETFs and UVXY.

So clearly, there is a disconnect. So I'm wondering what the fuck I'm doing wrong, since researched, sound investments are shitting the bed and dumb shit is profitable and I can't figure out why.

>>1765834
all of your posts are proof that you'll oppose anything and everything Trump does because he's Trump.

>>1765862

If anyone else were as stupid as him I'd just be replacing proper nouns.

competition will doom most small businesses, not regulation.

File: 1483495064712.gif (2MB, 330x166px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x166px

>>1765578

>thinks people need licenses to cut hair
>thinks trucks costing $250,000 thanks to emissions regulation makes it easier on independent truckers
>thinks you need FAA license to operate drones

Big business pays for legislation on regulation. You gotta be an idiot to think they dont do this shit as a form of protectionism against otherwise more competitive small firms.

>>1765435
It's the other way around

>>1765849
its not at all uncommon to make loads of money on speculative stocks, but remember u can have 1000000% gains, u only need 100% loss to go broke.
I dont see it as a disconnect at all honestly, you just invested in much riskier assets and didnt get suffer the consequences.

I am sure u are familiar with EMH, now lets ay6 that over 10 years, 2 good investors that diversified their porfolios made different returns A made 10% a year and B made 5% a year. The only explanation is that investor A invested in much riskier assets than investor B!
Maybe somebody else can explain it far better than me, but it jsut seems like luck to me

>>1765425
Small business owner here. Unless he passes some regulation where I can cheat on my taxes without repercussion, not have to worry about osha rules, or pay below minimum wage I don't see how it will benefit me.

Also if that happens I'd only do 1 of the actions above because I'm not a shitbag to my employees.

>>1765829
Remember when nintendo stock went up +15% because of Pokémon GO?

It was a game released by a different fucking studio (Niantic) and had almost nothing to do with Nintendo

>>1765435
My friend, its the other way around.

Regulations protect big businesses from being usurped by smaller businesses.

The more regulations there are on the marketplace, the more corporatist your economic system is. Big businesses favor corporatism, not free markets.

Trumps regulation reduction is a breath of fresh air. Businesses/entrepreneurs will find great success because of this

>>1766204
>protect big businesses from being usurped by smaller businesses.

>>1766011
against otherwise more competitive small firms.

yep, multinationals are just fucking scared of small businesses fucking up their schemes.

>being this retarded

It's going to backfire bigly.

>>1765758
This!

>>1765706
Like I've said in the second post - there's nothing to discuss yet. You've said it yourself - we don't even know what counts as "one regulation". It's just a vague inconsequential quantitative promise without any regards to the quality of the regulations in question.

They will never be regulations of equal weight. And the regs being axed will be the most obscure and fringe regulations possible. That's just basic economics and common sense. You think someone in an agency will repeal a reg that applies to millions of businesses or one that applies to just a few? Risk backlash from a huge consumer audience or just a few? You think they want to analyse a complex multi-layered regulation instead of a nonsensical two-liner? Fuck no, they'll take low-hanging inconsequential fruits to serve the letter of the law.
Or worse: They repeal those regulations that are most heavily lobbied against. I'm sure Big Pharma and Big Tobacco have a few things bothering them about how cumbersome the assessment of danger to humans of their products is and I'm sure certain members of regulatory bodies could use a few million dollaroos here or there.

And when we get the new "2017 Money Tracking Regulation" requiring every business owner to record the serial numbers of any bills receiced, it's little consolation that the "1872 Regulation on Impromptu Furnace Smoke Stacks for Travelling Horseshoe Smiths" and the "1942 Regulation on Coastal Fishing Boats Spotting Nazi Submarines" are repealed. Sure, it's nice to throw out the old dirt, but it doesn't mean any advantages for businesses. You can still fuck business owners over and regulated them to death under the new "rule".

>>1765425
So we go from
>all widgets will have a safety valve
>all widgets will be corrosion resistant
to
>all widgets will have a safety valve and corrosion resistant

>>1765435
your a dumbass, hes reducing regulations on the small business not the big business.