(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Since it's been about a week since the last major earth-shattering event, I'm declaring the topic over and moving on to some real stuff that actually matters.

American government at every level appears to be working hard at preventing people from starting a business, while giving lip service to the claim that they are working to help. You can give out all the money you want to "create jobs", but if you don't touch the legal restrictions and excessive fees that are the cause of people not starting businesses in the first place, it won't do a lot of good. And often, the money given out is just payouts to campaign contributors or friends. A lot of the regulations are claimed to be for "health and safety" or some other buzzword, but it's really just a way to shut out competition for existing businesses. This is the main problem that needs to be fixed if we want our economy to improve and if we really cared about helping the unemployed.


The Institute for Justice has started creating reports on cities that study what regulations are a problem and give suggestions on what can be done to improve the business climate there. Here are the first few (links are to intro pages, the full reports are PDFs):
Milwaukee
Washington D.C.
Philadelphia
Newark

Comments

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

Why can't Chuck get his business off the ground?

*shrugs* 'Cause Johnny can't read?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

Next topic?

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

Why can't Chuck get his business off the ground?

Well, it'd help if fines/courtcosts etc were a little more balanced... a few years back british steel/gas/w/e(I think it was) killed a man through neglegence, corporate manslaughter if you will, their bill 5K, inclusive of compensation to the mans widow... had Jo bloggs have set up shop and done same, he'd now be doing 25 to life and have all his assets sucked up by the state to pay for the compensation (If any) was awarded!

Big gov screws the little man!!!

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Yeah, ain't we got fun!!!!

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

I have always envied the quality of weed you guys get. ;)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The republican guy worked out awesome. What are you going to do when Jerry makes things work?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Only some of us elected him. :)

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

but it's really just a way to shut out competition for existing businesses

I always suspected it's all an elaborate conspiracy by the already existing businesses to shut out the still unexisting ones.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

I always suspected it's all an elaborate conspiracy by the already existing businesses to shut out the still unexisting ones.

Sounds pretty much like here, Monopolies (we're told) are bad, yet our government insists on them for education, policing and healthcare here!!!!

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

It's a worthy question -- I mean, I'm in favor of licensing and regulation but one persistent problem with them is that are rarely ever truly evaluated or removed when they are no longer rational. And they are too often written and administered in ways that require lawyers to figure out...a truly small business is very pressed to keep up and understand them. A lot of people "cheat" simply because being in compliance requires specialized knowledge.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

This is truth. Having watched a small fixed-base operator (independent airport, basically) deal with just the tool calibration regulations from the FAA, I can say that it's quite clear that some things are just well beyond the realms of realistic compliance.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Exactly. There is some small need for regulatory guidelines, and that's what they take advantage of. I think that it should be just that though, guidelines, and not enforceable provisions. The goal of government is met by having it just provide information, so it can validate whether businesses are meeting some standard, but if they don't, still let people choose to risk it if they want. As long as people are well informed, they can make their own choices.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I notice a common theme in these reports that can be summarized in a sentence: They're against occupational licensing.

I don't know about anyone else, but my experience is that people who aren't licensed for their jobs (like plumbers, doctors, lawyers) are fly-by-night shysters and frauds looking to scam a buck. Any monkey worth their shit should be able to pay a test fee and ace it.

But that's besides the point. I don't trust anything from the "Institute of Justice". They're in the pocket of Koch Industries organization system known as the Kochtopus (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Koch_Industries). They're about as trustworthy as Conservapedia or Liberty Counsel (http://www.lc.org/). Got anything from more neutral sources?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Good catch about the Koch connection ;)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't know about anyone else, but my experience is that people who aren't licensed for their jobs (like plumbers, doctors, lawyers) are fly-by-night shysters and frauds looking to scam a buck. Any monkey worth their shit should be able to pay a test fee and ace it.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is the case. Even if it is, does the help for a license to do plumbing work translate into needing a license to be a barber or a florist? The broader point is that, too often, the licensing is there to put a significant roadblock in front of competitive forces rather than aid in educating the populace or preventing fraud.

More to the point, how does paying for a license do the trick? Couldn't we just as easily make the licensing free?

. I don't trust anything from the "Institute of Justice". They're in the pocket of Koch Industries organization system known as the Kochtopus. They're about as trustworthy as Conservapedia or Liberty Counsel. Got anything from more neutral sources?

The Koch conspiracy is quite tiring. The Institute of Justice, whether getting money from Koch or not, does excellent, necessary work. This is a great interview with the founder (http://reason.com/archives/2008/03/03/litigating-for-liberty) - their work on and following Kelo v. New London alone makes them deserving of a lot more respect than you're willing to give them, I think.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Here is the problems with occupational licensing.

First, they do absolutely nothing whatsoever to protect the public from frauds. As you said, "Any monkey worth their shit should be able to pay a test fee and ace it."

This is the most damning thing one could ever say about the value of a license because it clearly shows that the test is not a test of skill or quality, but a test of ability to afford the license which makes it clear that the goal of the licensing is *NOT* to protect the public but to restrict competition.


Second, even if you removed the fees or altered them such that they could be paid for after receiving the license such that they are not a barrier you while also removing all other barriers so that the only remaining one was the ability to pass the test and then reworked the test such that is really was a true test of skill that took more than "Any Monkey" to pass what does that buy you? Well, nothing. See there is this little problem with tests, all they really test is the subjects ability to pass *THAT TEST*, sure the test is intended to be an analog for real world use, but just because the Plumber knows the appropriate way to install a toilet does not mean how wont cut corners and do a poor job to save money or time.



Third, even to the extent that licensing does serve to filter out the truly incompetent from participating in the market place you still have a problem. That is, who are you to decide what level of risk that I consider to be acceptable? If your licensed plumber wants to charge me $150 an hour but the guy across the street who I know the be quite handy is willing to do the job for $50 an hour? Only a paternalistic denial of individual freedom can possibly make an argument for this.

There simply is no argument that can be derived that shows mandatory licensing offers superior protection from fraud than a system of voluntary certification does. That is you replace the existing licenses with certifications and then allow the consumer to determine whether they are willing to pay the higher price that a certified specialist can command or if they are comfortable hiring an uncertified one and saving money.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

1. It doesn't matter if someone's a fraud, as long as you know about it. Let there be licenses, just don't prevent people from operating a business without one. You should be able to choose to use an unlicensed person if you want to.

2. I don't care about your opinion on IJ, they're pro-liberty, they don't need to be neutral. Do you object to the ACLU on the grounds that they're not neutral?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Since it's been about a week since the last major earth-shattering event

Half of my country is under water. To put it in perspective, sink Europe. Towns across six states (out of seven) are being evacuated. Those parts of the country not underwater, are on fire or are desert... Imagine Katrina; across the whole East Coast. We won't take five years (and counting) to clean up either.

Not a lot going on really, the biggest story here is how shit the cricket team were this summer. Ponting is toast.

Oh,

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

A+

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

This is the easiest place in the entire world to start a business. I can think of about 30 businesses that people I know have started in the past couple of years. They're all successful.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I can't get too riled about this. Really, starting a business in the US is fairly easy, becoming self-employed is ridiculously easy. My SO has done it three times, I've done it twice. Here in MD you can even get financial assistance starting a business in lieu of accepting unemployment payments.

Regulation is something one has to deal with, one might as well get used to it. Even taxes: If done right, you won't have ANY federal tax liability until you start actually making money, even then you can carry over losses from previous years. It isn't starting a business that is hard, the hard part is making money with your business, and sleeping at night given an income that isn't steady.

Owning and operating a profitable business is hard. If it were easy, everyone would do it. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the fast lane.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Since it's been about a week since the last major earth-shattering event, I'm declaring the topic over and moving on to some real stuff that actually matters.

Stay classy!

Spoken like someone completely ignorant of the subject.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

All I had to do to open my business vis a vis government was:

- create a fictitious business name by announcing my intention to do so in a cheap newspaper ad, and fill out one small form at the county for a minimal fee.

- open a bank account using said fictitious business name.

- get a business license in each city I want to do business in.

That's it.

The only one I find at all excessive was the individual city licenses, and those cost me the equivalent of dinner for two at Olive Garden each.

OMG TEH OPPRESHUNZ!!!1
*eyeroll*

Ironically, the only time I find excessive regulation in my way is when I deal with other companies. There are 'best practice' policies in place at many medium to large companies that require cost prohibitive extra insurance and liability agreements specific to a given company that I refuse to participate in because it gives them the upper hand in any and all disputes.

Peddle your fear porn elsewhere.

Re: Spoken like someone completely ignorant of the subject.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I think the overall issue extends beyond an anecdote, unless you're claiming that your experience is typical irregardless of locality.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

"it's really just a way to shut out competition for existing businesses."

This is key. We have to understand that the private sector isn't really all on the same side, & stop the rhetoric about opposed private & public sectors.

If we move (at least partially) to a wealth tax base, we can have lower transactional taxes & less barrier to startups.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Years ago they called it "kickbacks" and every once in a while a politician got in trouble for it.

Now they just call them "regulations", "fees", "taxes" and "deposits".

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Before that, they called it "simony" and every once in a while, a church official got in trouble for it.