More Regulation or Less Regulation? That is NOT the Question.

During the 2010 election, a major media outlet presented me with a survey they said was developed by a range of political and policy experts. One of the questions was whether I favored more or less regulation. This is a silly and pointless question. The real issue is not how many regulations you have, but how good they are. Do they do what they are supposed to do?

Healthy competition, which is a fundamental basis for a functioning capitalist economy, requires regulations. Sports provide a good example. How about eliminating the rule against goaltending in basketball? Or the shot clock? (Who remembers the four-corners offense?) What about getting rid of the penalty for pass interference in football? Or limits on the number of players? ("Hey, I have 45 players, why are they limiting me to only using 11 at a time?")

Those are all regulations. But they serve a purpose of creating good competition. Getting rid of them would result in boring or one-sided games. Anarchy, rather than competition.

Going to the regulation of business, you could create one regulation that would completely stifle competition. Here is an example: all laptop computers sold in the United States must be made by Dell. Just one regulation, but suddenly there is no Apple, no Lenovo, no Sony. And how much incentive would Dell have to innovate or cut prices? None. Prices would be high, and there would be little or no innovation, all from just one regulation.

But you could also put in place a series of regulations that would create more competition. For example, US manufacturers complain that foreign manufacturers have a price advantage, which gives them an unfair competitive advantage. So one solution would be to add regulations that say: no laptop computer (or any component in that laptop computer) sold in the US can be made with child labor; no laptop computer sold in the US can be made by a process that results in a discharge of toxic chemicals to the air, water, or ground; and no laptop sold in the US can be made by slave or prison labor. Even though this is three times as many regulations as the previous example, the result would be that US manufacturers could better compete against foreign manufacturers.

Are there stupid regulations that should be eliminated? Yes, of course. Is blindly eliminating any and all regulations a good idea? No. There are fewer things more expensive and inefficient than a sloppy or botched deregulation. The savings-and-loan crisis and the California energy crisis are prime examples.

Most regulations are put in place one or two at a time, to address specific issues, and then they get adjusted as people figure out how to make them work. Deregulation should be done similarly - eliminate one or two regulations at a time that are no longer are effective, and adjust the remaining ones (or maybe eliminate one or two more) as people start to understand the new situation.

The real question is not how many regulations we should have, but rather how good they are. Quality, not quantity, is the right criteria.

Re-Starting Blog

I want to start posting items on my blog again. I know the election is over, so I thought about starting a new blog, but for now at least I think I will just post more to this one. So stay tuned for more posts!

Thank you!

I finished the election in third place, with over 250,000 votes. Thank you for your support and your vote!

Still Counting...

I was going to post something when the election was over; but while the election is now over, the vote counting is not. There may be close to 2 million ballots still to count, and the race between Harris and Cooley remains very close. I am in third place, with a lead of between 4000 to 5000 votes over the Libertarian candidate, which hopefully I can maintain. Thank you for your support, and I will post something as things become clearer.

Peter's Quick Guide to the Propositions, Part 2 - Props 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Here is the rest of them:

Prop 22 - Neutral. The idea of keeping the state from raiding local coffers when it can't balance its own budget is good, but this may go a bit further than that. I simply have not dug deep enough into this one to tell if it is good or bad. (If you have, feel free to let me know.)

Prop 23 - Strong NO! This is the effort by the oil refiners to halt implementation of California's landmark greenhouse gas law. It is nothing but corporate dirty energy self interest, pretending to be a jobs bill. But it presents a false choice between jobs and protecting our environment. Failing to take action on global warming will cost us far more than taking action. Furthermore, Prop 23 it will damage the ability of renewable and clean energy developers to get funding, by creating uncertainty in state policy. So it will actually harm job creation in the state. Prop 23 is bad for the California businesses that are actually growing, and it is bad for all Californians. Vote NO.

Prop 24 - Medium Yes. This repeals three corporate tax breaks, mostly benefitting large corporations, that the Republicans managed to extract in budget negotiations in 2008 and 2009. It seems like a weird time to be creating new billion-dollar tax breaks for large businesses. (I understand the right-wing theory that says you get more tax revenue by cutting taxes, but it just does not work in practice.) This puts things back how they were before 2008. Businesses seemed to mostly be doing okay then, so this should not do them much harm.

Prop 25 - Medium Yes. This allows the state budget to be approved by majority vote, rather than the current 2/3 vote. Given the embarrassing gridlock the 2/3 requirement has caused, this is probably a good idea. Very few other states require a 2/3 vote to pass a budget. Of course, this also makes it easier to pass a lousy budget, too.

Prop 26 - Strong No. This would require certain fees (such as fees to pay for cleaning up oil spills and toxic waste) to be approved by a 2/3 vote. While increased fees can be a problem, the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes and pass a budget have eviscerated California's infrastructure and education systems, so extending that requirement to fees appears more likely to extend the harm than to solve the real problem.

Peter's Quick Guide to the Propositions, Part 1 - Props 19, 20, 27, 21

Prop 19 - Strong Yes! Legalizing Marijuana. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol - people kept drinking, and it financed the rise of organized crime. Funny, but the same thing happened with marijuana. Substance abuse is a serious problem, but criminalizing the user is not the answer. Will there be implementation problems? Yes, but it is still worth saying "No" to our expensively failed drug policy.

Prop 20 - Mild No. Redistricting. In 2008, we passed Prop 11, which shifted state legislative district drawing from the legislature to a new commission, but it has not actually gone into effect yet. Prop 20 would extend the new process to federal congressional districts, too. Since we have not seen how Prop 11 actually works (it sounds good in theory, but may have some issues in practice), it seems a bit early to be extending it to other offices. Let's see how it works first.

Prop 27 - Medium No. More Redistricting. This would repeal Prop 11, and give state legislative district drawing back to the legislature. Of course, the last time the legislature did redistricting they engaged in extreme and shameless gerrymandering that has contributed to our ongoing budget gridlock, and that led to passage of Prop 11 in the first place. Why should we trust them again? Besides, maybe we should see how Prop 11 works before we repeal it.

Prop 21 - Medium Yes. Vehicle Fees for Parks. Parks are good. Higher fees on cars are good (see my entry of July 10 re taxes). Fees on cars paying for parks instead of going towards public transit or air quality or road maintenance is sort of weirdly indirect. And having a specific budget set aside for parks will make budgeting harder still. On balance, while not the ideal approach, it is probably still a good thing.

More Propositions coming soon.

See Me, Hear Me!

You can now see my videotaped interview on the California Channel, as well as the interviews with (most of) my opponents. Take a look here: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/sr1/Candidate%20for%20Attorney%20General

Kamala Harris totally botched one question - seemed like she was not listening very well.

I was also on Forum with Michael Krasny on KQED radio. Steve Cooley declined to participate, which for those of us in the Bay Area seems very weird. The four minor candidates shared half the show, while Kamala Harris got most of the other half. Take a listen here: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201010060900