Skip to main content

We are gathered here today to mark the death of a great conservative trope: government regulation stifles innovation. This once mighty mantra has been chanted by every expert and across every medium, working it's way so far into the collective psyche that even Barack Obama began his defense of new consumer protections by paying homage.

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of Government regulations...

 For those who didn't take it on faith, there was simple math: more government equals less freedom. That may be fine when it comes to say speeding in residential zones, or legitimate scientific efforts to better understand traffic dynamics, but lord help us if liberal politicians keep jamming up the flow of job creation with their politically motivated and burdensome regulations. Hell, Obamacare alone cost 2.5 million jobs, just ask the CBO.

Or so went the "logic" until Kaiser Health News reported the findings of a recent  Georgetown University study. It turns out that 1.5 million of those workers, newly unchained from their burdensome jobs by the guarantee of access to quality affordable health coverage via Obamacare, are projected to become self employed or start their own business. What's that you say? Innovation and job creation born from government regulation? Inconceivable!

It's true that innovation needs freedom to flourish, but government is not the only source of oppression, nor in America the greatest. In the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act government fulfills, in some imperfect measure, what should be it's primary purpose: freeing people from unjust perils to pursue their dreams.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good riddance, "job lock!" (9+ / 0-)

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:28:08 AM PDT

  •  A job, in the culture of obedience, where (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PowWowPollock, Wee Mama

    coercion reigns, is the reward for people doing what they are told. Self-directed people don't have jobs. They are subservient to no-one -- i.e. a bad example to those who are.

    That said, regulation has absolutely nothing to do with innovation. The object of regulation is to make an extant function regular -- i.e. less susceptible to accidental interruption by the vagaries of man and nature.
    Innovation develops new functions, which may or may not fail. It is the latter which are then regulated to incorporate them into our productive routine.

    There's a proper sequence here. Innovation, implementation, regulation. The reason this is not understood by everyone is because, IMHO, some brains are not attuned to recognizing sequence or its importance in getting a process or function right.
    It is possible for a person to learn a sequence, like tying the laces of one's shoes, without recognizing that there is a sequence of steps involved. All that's required is that the instructor direct each step as long as it takes for a habit to take hold and make the process automatic. Of course, if there are too many steps, the task is likely not to get learned because the habitual memory can hold only so much. Or distraction sets in.

    The automated factory, in which the sequences of manufacture are broken down and individuals have to learn only a few steps, is the ideal venue for people who are sequentially handicapped. Which is why the demise of U.S. manufacturing enterprise is such a disaster.  Many people only thrive in an environment that tells them HOW something is done.

    HOW and WHY are key, I think. People, who don't get sequence, find it almost impossible to answer those questions with relevant responses. They recognize them as questions, but the answers they are likely to give are at best tangential. People who don't get sequence have great difficulty driving a vehicle with a standard transmission. They don't make good truck drivers, either.

    by hannah on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:04:49 AM PDT

    •  Hmm. A rudimentary understanding of sequence (0+ / 0-)

      develops in what Piaget termed the sensory motor phase. It's necessary for simple cause and effect physical environment interactions. We are talking infancy here. I suspect you don't think too highly of the general populous' intellect.

      What gets me is that people who are preoccupied with sequence often fail to recognize reciprocal interaction. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Who cares either one can produce the other, so if you want to totally wipe out chickens you'll need to address both.

      Regulation and innovation do interact.

      I cracked up over  a few of your paragraphs. Thank you for that. I won't say which ones because I'm not sure whether to praise you or condemn us both, but I'm leaning in favor of the latter.

    •  True. For example, media conglomerates. And (0+ / 0-)

      while sometimes regulations serve to protect against oligopolies other times they preserve or promote them.

      Definitely livestock! Those of us who eat a lot of red meat have no business hating on the people who drive hummers!
      Lamb, beef, cheese, and Pork, produce the most emission in that order

    •  There's the Opening for a Diary on the Story of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eagleray, this just in

      the AT&T breakup.

      Among the issues was electronic phone line switching that could be triggered by new-fangled "modems," enabling electronic dialing and connections between computers.

      AT&T was sitting on robust antique hardware that would still be in service today, much of it, and we'd all be stuck using CB radios good buhddy.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:10:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hence My Urging of "Medicare for Microbusiness" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, eagleray, this just in

    way back in the 08 campaign and transition period. As a self employed artisan I realize how many like me have long been chained to their craft as a mere moonlighting hobby for inability to secure health coverage. Same for craft people, countless household and family service workers, artists, performers, many blue collar types.

    Of course there is the uh-oh factor; my niche is so tiny that it wouldn't take more than a handful of new American full-timers to put me in serious income jeopardy because our consumer market is not expanding.

    But for the US people this is terrific, and 1.5 million new entrepreneurs means 1.5 million new job openings at employers.

    And that means 2 or more million combined job and promotion opportunities since many new entrepreneurs will be well up the career ladder, and therefore opening up chains of advancement opportunities as people below them move up in the process of filling the initial vacancy.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:07:36 AM PDT

  •  This is exactly the impact the ACA has for my (4+ / 0-)

    daughter - she felt free to leave her golden bird cage because now she can get health insurance despite a pre-existing condition.

    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:27:10 AM PDT

  •  This is what I have never understood about (3+ / 0-)

    corporate resistance to single payer or a nationalized health care system.  The only sector that truly financially benefits from a system of private insurance is private insurers.  

    Corporations have to pay "out of pocket" costs (subsidized through corporate tax deductions) to cover employee health insurance, this puts American corporations at a competitive disadvantage compared to similar corporations in countries with single payer - the cost of their employee health coverage is spread out to the entire tax paying population, not the corporation itself - so the cost is spread to non-employees of that corporation and that pool is enlarged to include healthy younger individuals.  

    The resistance has to be non-financial - ideological or the belief that the extraordinary cost of paying for insurance is enough of a benefit to either keep employees from leaving (for any reason) or gives them a competitive edge in recruiting from within the US market.  In either case a single payer system would free employees from economic bondage and give us choice.

    ACA, while not single payer, seems to prove that given the "choice" of remaining in subsidized bondage or paying a small fee for creative freedom, over a million Americans are opting for freedom.  

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:04:59 AM PDT

    •  I've wondered about that as well. Best I can come (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji, CFAmick

      up with is that perhaps it's ideology combined with fear of a slippery slope. If we embrace socialized medicine, what's next? And how much will our taxes go up to cover it?

      •  But this is the weird part (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J Williams

        The corporation would benefit financially from socialized medicine versus an employer-based employee health insurance, because the cost spread would reduce the corporations expense from the corporation itself to the broad American population.  

        Individual taxes would go up to cover the cost (as individual benefit would rise by having completely socialized medicine, no out of pocket, no limits on what provider is "in network", portability, etc) but the corporation's costs should decrease.  

        It seems to me that the anti-tax ideology trumpeted by the likes of Grover Norquist and corporate opposition are deeply rooted in a personal self-interest and knee-jerk selfishness, even to the detriment of the corporation itself.  The executives of major corporations would probably see their personal income taxes increase to offset the costs of a nationalized system, but the per employee expense of health care to the corporation (about $7K on average per employee, and $15K on average for family coverage) would disappear as a corporate business cost.  The theory there would be that profitability would increase and the value of stock options would rise, thereby offset the increase to the individual corporate executive.

        Individual corporate executives want to off-load all risk onto others (even onto their corporations) while reaping all benefit unto themselves as individuals.  

        All the Boards of these corporations are not performing their fiduciary duties.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:02:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How much money did Wal-Mart or UPS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uncle Moji

          lose when Wall Street pushed the price of oil past $147 per barrel? You didn't hear a peep in public.

          I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

          by CFAmick on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:46:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shareholders really wield more power than (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            J Williams

            Boards or executives would like to admit, and more than they would like you to know.

            Unions own a lot of influence through their pension investments, and have the support of a fair number of like-minded small investors.  

            If this is truly the capitalist way, then all those who own capital (through union pensions or other investments) need to get into the game and force changes through the governing corporate boards, as well as through the ballot box of government regulations.

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  But what about the cost from the slippery slope? (0+ / 0-)

          After health care these uppity socialists will probably demand daycare, a year of paid maternity and paternity leave, and a living wage. Next thing you know they'll all be able to afford college and then we'll really be screwed. Hello education and upward mobility, goodbye oligarchy. My dear chap you clearly know nothing about class warfare. Where are your irrational fears ;-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site