Regulations really need to be done from a cost benefit analysis, many of the US regulations are overly complex, and don't have a good payoff.
The new banking regulations are a good example, it used to be that investment and saving banks had to be separate, the removal of those rules is supposed to be one of the things that led to the crisis. So what did they do, did they re-institute the simple and easy to follow rules? No they created a morass of regulations and exceptions that are confusing even to top lawyers, and that are far less effective than the old simple rule.
This afflicts all US regulations from food safety, pollution, banking, taxes, and everything else. That is the real problem, you could replace 99% of the volume rules with a simplified version and the regulations would be easier to comply with, easier to enforce, and have a better payoff in terms of increased safety (or other regulatory benefit such as fair markets, no conflict of interest etc. But most regulations are about safety of some kind). It will never happen because all the special interest will whine about their one exception, and each exception is backed by a lot of money in campaign contributions.
I remember sitting with a lawyer and tax professional trying to figure out if I could use some of my funds for something, and there was the basic rule, and the exceptions to it. However the exceptions had exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions had exceptions and so forth 8 levels deep. Beyond that there was this other rule elsewhere in the tax-code that affected some of the exceptions to my exceptions, and this other rule that nullified some of the exceptions under some conditions. How are people supposed to work with all these rules, or even comply with them? If I would have had to pay the lawyer for it it would have cost a small fortune, easily dwarfing the amount of money in question, and there was no hope at all that I could have figured it out without help, I wouldn't even have known to consult the other rules in a completely different part of the book. Attempting to comply with the law should not be a risk factor, and yet these days it is.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
The new banking regulations are a good example, it used to be that investment and saving banks had to be separate, the removal of those rules is supposed to be one of the things that led to the crisis. So what did they do, did they re-institute the simple and easy to follow rules? No they created a morass of regulations and exceptions that are confusing even to top lawyers, and that are far less effective than the old simple rule.
This afflicts all US regulations from food safety, pollution, banking, taxes, and everything else. That is the real problem, you could replace 99% of the volume rules with a simplified version and the regulations would be easier to comply with, easier to enforce, and have a better payoff in terms of increased safety (or other regulatory benefit such as fair markets, no conflict of interest etc. But most regulations are about safety of some kind). It will never happen because all the special interest will whine about their one exception, and each exception is backed by a lot of money in campaign contributions.
I remember sitting with a lawyer and tax professional trying to figure out if I could use some of my funds for something, and there was the basic rule, and the exceptions to it. However the exceptions had exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions had exceptions and so forth 8 levels deep. Beyond that there was this other rule elsewhere in the tax-code that affected some of the exceptions to my exceptions, and this other rule that nullified some of the exceptions under some conditions. How are people supposed to work with all these rules, or even comply with them? If I would have had to pay the lawyer for it it would have cost a small fortune, easily dwarfing the amount of money in question, and there was no hope at all that I could have figured it out without help, I wouldn't even have known to consult the other rules in a completely different part of the book. Attempting to comply with the law should not be a risk factor, and yet these days it is.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."