My problem with this argument is that it's a case of tossing the baby with the bathwater. It boils down to "regulation done badly is bad, so we should not do regulation," when those are not our only two options.
Sure perfect regulation may be possible, but I'm saying it's hard to come by to a great enough extent that I'm not optimistic about it. And when things do get screwed up, when the government has less authority over whatever it is that it's getting screwed up, it impacts fewer people negatively. An example off the top of my head is Tom Wheeler. He shocked everyone by not doing a terrible job as head of the FCC. And what that really looked like was him saying that he wouldn't allow telecoms to operate directly in opposition to their customers. But now his replacement comes in and is going to totally screw up net neutrality to everyone's detriment (minus the cronies). But he can only do this because we had to regulate right of way to make utilities possible. So we have this excellent legislation with right of ways that makes telephone networks possible, but also is a huge threat to the internet. And it wouldn't be a big deal if we could trust the people in charge, but we obviously can't because they seem to be 90 percent plus in the pocket of whatever industry wants to buy them. I'm not saying sensible legislation and regulation isn't a good idea, but I would say it's less common than you'd expect. And there are always unforeseen risks that will have to be dealt with later. The one that's blowing my mind now is that young people are bitching about not being able to buy a house, but then scream idiot at adjusting the laws which prevent banks from lending to them more easily.
But this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Notice how the person you cited as doing good (and he did positive good in the form of net neutrality, not just getting out of the way) was appointed by the more pro-regulation party? And then the person who's in there now who's fucking it all up is from the anti-regulation party?but I would say it's less common than you'd expect.
Republicans broadly want less restriction on banking and healthcare (barely, Jesus what the fuck is that ACA replacement? It's like Obama wrote it with his left hand), but greater regulation on marriage, gender issues, abortion, etc. Dems want greater firearms regulation, financial regulation etc. Neither of those is an anti-regulation stance.
I am inclined to agree. We should throw out the dirty water and keep the beautiful healthy babies. Can you cite an example of regulation done well that I could look into? I have only researched a few narrow areas carefully, and it's likely that they haven't been representative.
The Clean Water Act, you recall, figured in our conversation about phosphorus. Late 1960's: Eutrophication is perceived as a significant environmental concern. 1964-1970: Detergent manufacturers recognize the need to remove phosphorus from detergents and spend considerable resources developing NTA, a safe alternative. 1970: The government tells detergent manufacturers to stop using NTA. 1972: The Clean Water Act and local laws restrict the use of phosphorus in detergent. 1980: The government says NTA is okay after all. Is it obvious that the government even did more good than harm by getting involved with this issue?The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).
Summing up:
The Clean Air Act is a pretty good one. One estimate is that it saved $22 trillion in healthcare costs. And that's just the costs, not counting the social good of a lot fewer sick people. And the reduction in global warming.
I don't get the impression that EPA shortchanged themselves counting savings. Table 13.1 shows 184,000 annual deaths avoided thanks to particulate matter reduction, each one valued at $4.8 million. That's a social good (a big one!) and over 21 years adds up to $18 trillion, the majority of the central estimate of savings if my math is correct. The EPA report includes dollar estimates for improvements in IQ points in children, missed work days, restricted activity days, shortness of breath in children, "household soiling damage," visibility impairment, and agricultural yields. I haven't gotten the feeling that they are exaggerating these (necessarily highly theoretical) numbers, but I do feel that they are counting whatever they can.And that's just the costs, not counting the social good of a lot fewer sick people.
Thanks, that does sound like a good candidate. My expectation after reading the Atlantic article is that I'll largely agree that it is cost-effective legislation. But I have had such positive expectations dashed before. It's a bit suspect that the source for this good news is the EPA itself. We all know what to think about research performed by Philip Morris. I also note that the act is a factor in the addition of ethanol to gasoline, which I think is bad policy overall. I have doubts that the EPA counts such secondary effects as "costs." It's not an easy calculation.The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an attractive alternative additive.