President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[myboynoah]

EPA for one. Customs issues import licenses for materials. Immigration and Naturalization in case you need to bring in talent. The FDA has all kinds of roadblocks for drug manufacturers. Some are good and some are bloat.

Yeah, EPA can be difficult, but for good reason. Of those you list (which exist for good reason), the only one we heard concerns with were visas for workers. They wanted to bring everyone. We wanted them to hire Americans and help develop American talent. We helped get some through, but that wasn't that onerous. It was a matter of doing what everyone else had to do to get a visa: file the form, pay the fee, go to the interview. That's pretty standard and should be expected. That process should not change. And cutting federal workers will only serve to make the process longer and more difficult.

As for FDA, not at all an expert. Like I said I'm happy to have the hoops in order to make sure that our drugs are safe. Does anyone have an example of the "bloat?"

[myboynoah]

lol

Likely fake, but is it?

Still funny.

Embedded Tweet

[USUC]

Occupational licensing is particularly important. AnCap, extreme libertarianism doesn't really work on a broadscale.

I'm not an AnCap. I'm a minarchist. A limited government that protects property rights, not the interests of a protected class, is the most humane. Broadly speaking, occupational licensing is bad. Hairdressers need to be licensed? Florists need licensing?

[USUC]

It is a serious question, because I'm not aware of which federal regulations out there are negatively affecting our lives. And of course, I wouldn't believe that all government programs are a net good, although my experience is that the programs with which I've worked have had net goods. Most government programs have a constituency they benefit (foodstamps, drug approvals, meat inspectors, FAA, USAID, etc.). I have no problem taking a look at them and making changes, but I think the current slash and burn approach will have seriously negative consequences for the various constituencies, and those will likely bleed over into everyone.

I don't know a whole lot about occupational licensing, but aren't those mostly local regulations? For example, does my plumber or HVAC guy or even lawyer need to get federal licenses? And wouldn't the purpose of those licenses at the federal level (like meat inspectors, pilots, etc.) be in place for our safety and protection? The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour and has been that way for 16 years and only applies to larger employers. Is $7.25 an hour really destroying job opportunities? It's OBE. The average starting wage at McDo's is over $12 an hour in Utah. Can't speak to FDA's backlog. Maybe it needs to be reviewed, or maybe we need more inspectors and not fewer. But I'm pretty happy to wait on FDA to make sure drugs are safe. And frankly, high drug costs in the U.S. are not due to the FDA approval process. The market is deciding those prices, as well as Big Pharms making the U.S. the cash cow as it charges less for the same drugs in the rest of the world which is governed by single payer systems.

I'm sure there are plenty of federal regulations out there that affect industry (petrochemical industry, financial industry, etc.) that could or should be tweaked or changed. I'm asking what those might be and how they are really negatively affecting my day-to-day life. Are they really that overbearing?

Again, over regulation affects us all by limiting economic growth and prosperity. Most of all, they stifle innovation. This is the driving force for all advancements for humanity.

[myboynoah]

Again, over regulation affects us all by limiting economic growth and prosperity. Most of all, they stifle innovation. This is the driving force for all advancements for humanity.

Okay, so you want no or very very limited regulation. We'll just talk past each other.

[USUC]

Okay, so you want no or very very limited regulation. We'll just talk past each other.

In general, yes. Little regulation. Are we talking past each other?

[YOhio]

Yeah, EPA can be difficult, but for good reason. Of those you list (which exist for good reason), the only one we heard concerns with were visas for workers. They wanted to bring everyone. We wanted them to hire Americans and help develop American talent. We helped get some through, but that wasn't that onerous. It was a matter of doing what everyone else had to do to get a visa: file the form, pay the fee, go to the interview. That's pretty standard and should be expected. That process should not change. And cutting federal workers will only serve to make the process longer and more difficult.

As for FDA, not at all an expert. Like I said I'm happy to have the hoops in order to make sure that our drugs are safe. Does anyone have an example of the "bloat?"

Really interesting conversation. Appreciate your perspective and you raise a lot of good points, particularly on the compliance side.

One of the major frustrations I hear regarding federal regulations is the time taken when approvals are needed. Especially if an environmental impact study is needed for an infrastructure or energy project, where it may be 3-4 years before a study is completed. Maybe it's a manpower issue. Maybe it's due to political pressure. Probably a mix of both in some cases. But that's a lot of time for an investment to stay on hold with an uncertain outcome.

I have similar frustrations when it comes to working with the military. To get approval to put software on a DoD network you need to obtain an Authority to Operate approval. That's great. I support the principle of ensuring that only vetted and secure software be used on USG systems. But the process of receiving an ATO is opaque, expensive, time intensive, and incredibly lengthy. Like anywhere from 6-24 months, during which time you've likely lost two federal sales cycles. It also requires use of government approved contractors, whose rates aren't negotiable, that comes out of hide. Around $750K-$1M. Any update to the software will push the timeline back and drive costs up, so there's no incentive to enhance functionality or security. This process needs to be repeated for each branch and, in some cases, for different units within the same branch. The AF has tried to streamline this since 2018, but hasn't really been able to make it widely accessible.

Another annoyance is NIST 800-171 and CMMC compliance. It's expensive and causes significant burden on small businesses. Though I think it's overkill, I recognize that it's needed to play ball. Where my annoyance comes in is when I'm working with USG officials who routinely bypass, ignore, or disregard those same controls. It's not just at the individual level, either. It's at all levels and it's a tacit acknowledgment of the ridiculous restrictions they've put on vendors who, if they acted the same way, could lose a contract.

[myboynoah]

Really interesting conversation. Appreciate your perspective and you raise a lot of good points, particularly on the compliance side.

One of the major frustrations I hear regarding federal regulations is the time taken when approvals are needed. Especially if an environmental impact study is needed for an infrastructure or energy project, where it may be 3-4 years before a study is completed. Maybe it's a manpower issue. Maybe it's due to political pressure. Probably a mix of both in some cases. But that's a lot of time for an investment to stay on hold with an uncertain outcome.

I have similar frustrations when it comes to working with the military. To get approval to put software on a DoD network you need to obtain an Authority to Operate approval. That's great. I support the principle of ensuring that only vetted and secure software be used on USG systems. But the process of receiving an ATO is opaque, expensive, time intensive, and incredibly lengthy. Like anywhere from 6-24 months, during which time you've likely lost two federal sales cycles. It also requires use of government approved contractors, whose rates aren't negotiable, that comes out of hide. Around $750K-$1M. Any update to the software will push the timeline back and drive costs up, so there's no incentive to enhance functionality or security. This process needs to be repeated for each branch and, in some cases, for different units within the same branch. The AF has tried to streamline this since 2018, but hasn't really been able to make it widely accessible.

Another annoyance is NIST 800-171 and CMMC compliance. It's expensive and causes significant burden on small businesses. Though I think it's overkill, I recognize that it's needed to play ball. Where my annoyance comes in is when I'm working with USG officials who routinely bypass, ignore, or disregard those same controls. It's not just at the individual level, either. It's at all levels and it's a tacit acknowledgment of the ridiculous restrictions they've put on vendors who, if they acted the same way, could lose a contract.

YO, these are awesome examples. And these are way outside my area of experience. Security, especially in DOD and other security agencies, is paramount and will too often trump common sense. But no one wants a major breech on their watch. I also hated the double-standard I experienced.

As for EPA, the investors we dealt with didn't complain. They saw it as a necessary evil and built it into their plans. Maybe EPA was sitting on approvals hoping they would go away? Seems unlikely. Were they overly proscriptive? There might be some of that. No doubt people who work for EPA are dedicated to protecting the environment. And a lot of this might be manpower issues.

But none of this is going to be made better by arbitrary cuts in manpower IMO They will all likely be exacerbated, especially if one's primary contact is cut.

[Bo Diddley]

But none of this is going to be made better by arbitrary cuts in manpower IMO They will all likely be exacerbated, especially if one's primary contact is cut.

Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

I'm just saying they're bound to chance upon some good cuts.

[Moliere]

Serious question, what federal regulations are out there that are negatively affecting our lives?

PCAOB

[USUC]

YO, these are awesome examples. And these are way outside my area of experience. Security, especially in DOD and other security agencies, is paramount and will too often trump common sense. But no one wants a major breech on their watch. I also hated the double-standard I experienced.

As for EPA, the investors we dealt with didn't complain. They saw it as a necessary evil and built it into their plans. Maybe EPA was sitting on approvals hoping they would go away? Seems unlikely. Were they overly proscriptive? There might be some of that. No doubt people who work for EPA are dedicated to protecting the environment. And a lot of this might be manpower issues.

But none of this is going to be made better by arbitrary cuts in manpower IMO They will all likely be exacerbated, especially if one's primary contact is cut.

What are you arguing exactly then? There are small industries that arise from navigating the burdens of regulations. Once these industries form, is it unethical to get rid of the regulation because it puts the jobs that arose from that regulation at risk? Would it be unethical to enact a flat tax because a huge portion of the tax industry would cease to be necessary?

That is a huge problem with overly complicated regulated industries. Is it a concern to you that the most heavily regulated industries just so happen to be the most expensive for the consumer? Think about healthcare, education, and housing. Costs associated with these are what's exasperating the cost of living crisis right now. The amount of administrators needed to navigate the regulations in Healthcare and education alone are massive. Zoning and environmental regulations have contributed to the housing crisis we are now experiencing.

[frank ryan]

I'm not an AnCap. I'm a minarchist. A limited government that protects property rights, not the interests of a protected class, is the most humane. Broadly speaking, occupational licensing is bad. Hairdressers need to be licensed? Florists need licensing?

Florists? No. Physicians, Teachers, Cops, Psychotherapists, Drivers who transport dangerous chemicals, pharmacists, even barbors. I think licensing and regulations are needed with areas like this. He have plenty of stories of how things went without it

[myboynoah]

What are you arguing exactly then? There are small industries that arise from navigating the burdens of regulations. Once these industries form, is it unethical to get rid of the regulation because it puts the jobs that arose from that regulation at risk? Would it be unethical to enact a flat tax because a huge portion of the tax industry would cease to be necessary?

That is a huge problem with overly complicated regulated industries. Is it a concern to you that the most heavily regulated industries just so happen to be the most expensive for the consumer? Think about healthcare, education, and housing. Costs associated with these are what's exasperating the cost of living crisis right now. The amount of administrators needed to navigate the regulations in Healthcare and education alone are massive. Zoning and environmental regulations have contributed to the housing crisis we are now experiencing.

I get it. You believe in a minimal level of regulation approaching zero as much as possible. I don't. I believe there is a place for regulation because there are bad and dishonest actors out there that will take advantage of an environment with minimal oversight. Any cuts to that should be done in measured manner. That's why we will just talk past each other.

I certainly don't believe that regulation is a primary reason for high healthcare costs (those being aging population, obesity, labor, a bloated healthcare industry). As for education and housing, those are largely, if not totally, locally regulated. That should be addressed at the local level. And most of these are for safety. I'm happy to live in a house that complies those minimum standards.

[myboynoah]

PCAOB

Ha, I was waiting for you to weigh in. I did a google search. Is that even a federal entity? In other words, is it staffed by civil servants that might be subjected to getting let go?

I am curious as to why this body is so objectionable. What does it do? Why was it even established?

[myboynoah]

Oh brother.

Embedded Tweet