Skip to comments.Senator Denies Possibility that Regulations Could Cost Jobs
Posted on 11/19/2012 11:41:28 AM PST by John Semmens
Encouraged by the recent election results, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) boasted that the Republicans contention that excessive government regulation causes increased unemployment has been convincingly refuted by voters.
Of course, the GOPs arguments were ludicrous from the beginning, Reid maintained. If we pass new regulations the government has to hire more people to enforce them. That means more jobs. Companies have to hire more people to ensure they comply with the regulations. That means more jobs. The regulations are kind of like a scissors cutting into unemployment from both sides.
The possibility that more regulations could boost the cost of doing business and, thereby, lead to cuts in the number of persons employed was derided by Reid. The cost of the regulations are just passed on to the customers, Reid explained. They dont come out of the employers pockets. So how could it hurt?
That passed on higher costs might deter customers from purchasing products was similarly disposed of by the Majority Leader. If consumers really need a product they will buy it no matter what the cost, Reid said. If a slightly higher price dissuades them from buying it means that they dont really need it. To the extent that we are eliminating the purchase of unneeded products we are improving the true efficiency of our economy.
As Reid sees it, money that isnt spent on unneeded products could be better used on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, or to invest in education or green energy. Theres no shortage of ways in which the government could more effectively deploy our nations resources.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
Let’s lower Reid’s pay and see if he still parrots this BS. He is a perfect example of the mindset of the government and what’s wrong with it.
Pinky Reid: If we pass new regulations the government has to hire more people to enforce them. That means more jobs. Companies have to hire more people to ensure they comply with the regulations. That means more jobs."
Liberalism is a revolt against reality.
I’m shocked there was a D next to his name.
< / sarc >
There. Fixed it.
The cost of the regulations are just passed on to the customers,
Obama&Co have beem cranking out about (68) regulations per day.
Companies have to hire more people to ensure they comply with the regulations. That means
more jobs higher costs.
Higher costs leads to lower profits which leads to a reduction in the means to invest.
Lower profits lead to lower rate of profit which leads to less incentive to invest.
Less investment leads to less productive expenditure, which leads to less production, which leads to less supply, which leads to higher prices for the product, which lowers the standard of living for all, including the poor.
“The costs of the regulations are just passed on to the customers”
I am so utterly sick of this sophism. He says that like it’s a good thing, first of all, though Dems are supposedly horrified by taxing non-kabillionaires. More importantly, it is not so. Price affects demand. Ceteris paribus when price goes up demand goes down, thus carrying the cost back to the origin of production. Less production means less employment.
You have got to be kidding me! Reid is a complete and utter economic moron, and lives in a fantasy world, to boot. He seems to be totally oblivious to the fact that millions of Americans live on shoe string budgets, and increased retail prices due to increased regulations will definitely reduce sales. People only have so much money, and most of them can’t just put any more on their credit card, if they even have one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.