Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Old 06-22-13, 06:02 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
BearFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 8,007
Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Summary
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/2...ade-you-75-per

Actual Report from North Carolina State University

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf


Federal Regulations Have Made You 75 Percent Poorer
Ronald Bailey|Jun. 21, 2013 1:30 pm

The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now.

The researchers, economists John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State, constructed an index of federal regulations by tracking the growth in the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1949. The number of pages, they note, has increased six-fold from 19,335 in 1949 to 134,261 in 2005. (As of 2011, the number of pages had risen to 169,301.) They devise a pretty standard endogenous growth theory model and then insert their regulatory burden index to calculate how federal regulations have affected economic growth. (Sometimes deregulation extends rather than shortens the number of pages in the register; they adjust their figures to take this into account.)

Annual output in 2005, they conclude, "is 28 percent of what it would have been had regulation remained at its 1949 level." The proliferation of federal regulations especially affects the rate of improvement in total factor productivity, a measure of technological dynamism and increasing efficiency. Regulations also affect the allocation of labor and capital—by, say, raising the costs of new hires or encouraging investment in favored technologies. Overall, they calculate, if regulation had remained at the same level as in 1949, current GDP would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 in 2011. In other words, current U.S. GDP in 2011 was $38.8 trillion less than it might have been.

Let's use those results as the starting point for some rough calculations. The Bureau of Economic Affairs estimates that real GDP in 1947 was $1.8 trillion in 2005 dollars. The real GDP growth rate between 1949 and 2011 averaged 3.2 percent per year. Compounded over the period, that would yield a total real GDP of about $13.3 trillion in 2011; that's the same figure the bureau gives for that year. If regulation had remained fixed at 1949 levels, GDP growth would have averaged 2 percent higher annually, yielding a rate of about 5.2 percent over the period between 1949 and 2011. Compounded, that yields a total GDP in 2005 dollars of approximately $43 trillion, or $49 trillion in 2011 dollars, which is in the same ballpark as the $53.9 trillion figure calculated by Dawson and Seater.

But let’s say that the two economists have grossly overestimated how fast the economy could have grown in the absence of proliferating regulations. So instead let’s take the real average GDP growth rate between 1870 and 1900, before the Progressives jumpstarted the regulatory state. Economic growth in the last decades of the 19th century averaged 4.5 percent per year. Compounding that growth rate from the real 1949 GDP of $1.8 trillion to now would have yielded a total GDP in 2013 of around $31 trillion. Considerably lower than the $54 trillion estimated by Dawson and Seater, but nevertheless about double the size of our current GDP.

All this means that the opportunity costs of regulation—that is, the benefits that could have been gained if an alternative course of action had been pursued—are much higher than the costs of compliance. For example, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's report Ten Thousand Commandments 2013 estimates that it costs consumers and businesses approximately $1.8 trillion—about 11 percent of current GDP—to comply with current federal regulations. That's bad enough, but it pales in comparison to the loss of tens of trillions in overall wealth calculated by Dawson and Seater.

Defenders of regulation will argue that regulations also provide benefits to Americans: lower levels of air pollution, higher minimum wages, and so forth. But the measure devised by Dawson and Seater accounts for both the aggregate benefits and the costs of the regulations. The two researchers note their results "indicate that whatever positive effects regulation may have on measured output are outweighed by negative effects." There may be some unmeasured positive outputs that result from regulation. But the benefits would have to be hugely substantial to offset the loss of $39 trillion in output in 2011 alone. Is that plausible?

Dawson and Seater explicitly do not attempt to separately measure the benefits of regulation in their study, only its overall effects on output. But the Office of Management and Budget does claim to measure the costs and benefits of federal regulation. In the most recent Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) report, the highest estimates for costs and benefits for regulations adopted from 2002 to 2012 are $84 billion and $800 billion respectively. Let's be extremely generous in calculating regulation's benefits and assume that they provide not just $800 billion in total benefits over 10 years, but that much in just one year. Then, just to be sure that we haven't overlooked any non-monetized benefits unaccounted for the OIRA, and to take into account of the fact that number of pages in the CFR have risen six-fold, let's multiply that by 6, yielding an estimated annual regulatory benefit of $4.8 trillion.

That's just a bit more than a quarter of the current GDP. Recall that Dawson and Seater have calculated that if the regulatory burden had remained the same as it was in 1949, the U.S. economy would be about $38 trillion bigger than it currently is. So the upshot of this wildly optimistic set of assumptions regarding the benefits of regulation is that Americans have foregone $33 trillion in income that we otherwise would have had. Or in the alternative case, where a lower rate of growth results in a GDP of only $31 trillion, that would mean that Americans have foregone about $10 trillion in income due to overregulation.

Whatever the benefits of regulation, an average household income of $330,000 per year would buy a lot in the way of health care, schooling, art, housing, environmental protection, and other amenities.

Since GDP growth rates in other industrialized countries more or less track U.S. growth rates over the period, I asked both Dawson and Seater via email if it would be fair to conclude that those countries had also adopted a similar suite of regulations that also slowed their potential GDP gains. Being careful not to go beyond the data in the study, Dawson replied, "Similarity of growth rates really doesn't tell us anything about the growth effects of regulations in the different countries. However, it would be fair to say that many studies (cited in our paper) examine the effects of regulation in many European countries and find large negative effects on employment, investment, rates of new business start-up, and so on."

For example, a 2004 World Bank study of the effects of regulation in a large sample of industrial and developing countries constructed an index of severity of regulation. It revealed that increasing a country's index of regulation by one standard deviation (34 percent) reduces its per capita GDP growth by 0.4 percent. Dawson and Seater's article, in comparison, finds that "an increase in total regulation of 600 percent reduces growth by just 2 percentage points. Relatively speaking, our effect is smaller." With appropriate caveats about differences in various studies, Seater told me via email, "The uniform message that comes through from all the studies I have seen is that regulation has strong negative effects on economic growth."

So if the effects of regulation are so deleterious to economic growth and the prosperity of citizens, why do countries enact so much of it? Dawson and Seater's paper mentions three theories: Arthur Pigou's notion that governments enact regulations to improve social welfare by correcting market failures, George Stigler's more cynical view that industries capture regulatory agencies in order exclude competitors and increase their profits, and Fred McChesney's argument that regulations are chiefly aimed at benefiting politicians and regulators. I asked if their results fit most closely with McChesney's. Dawson replied: "This could be the conclusion that one reaches based on our empirical results (since they show a net cost of regulation over time), but again we did not set out to prove or disprove any particular theory." Seater added that their research does not address the question of "why society allows excessive regulation....It's an important [issue], but it is one for the public choice people to study, not for macroeconomists like me and my coauthor."

One such public choice theorist, Mancur Olson, argued in The Rise and Decline of Nations (1982) that economic stagnation and even decline set in when powerful special-interest lobbies—crony capitalists if you will—capture a country's regulatory system and use it to block competitors, making the economy ever less efficient. The growing burden of regulation could some day turn economic growth negative, but in a note Dawson and Seater suggest that in the long run that will "not be tolerated by society." Let's hope that they are right.
BearFan is online now  
Old 06-22-13, 11:23 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Ghostbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,702
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Why should we expect GDP to remain fixed at the level in 1949, a time when much of the developed world, aside from the United States, was still rebuilding following World War 2?

To me, this assumption is entirely baseless, and the extrapolation is laughable.
Ghostbuster is offline  
Old 06-22-13, 11:52 PM
  #3  
Psi
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,942
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

I wasted $4.27 reading that article.
Psi is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 07:17 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,901
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Idiotic. This is like those articles that claim that March Madness "costs" employers billions annually.
Jason is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 09:46 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,588
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

The Journal of Economic Growth is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
wishbone is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 10:19 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
BearFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 8,007
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by wishbone View Post
The Journal of Economic Growth is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
Well you know " The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life"
BearFan is online now  
Old 06-23-13, 11:04 AM
  #7  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,192
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

I guess my own article, The Internet Has Made You 95% Dumber, doesn't seem so outrageous after all.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 12:39 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,901
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by wishbone View Post
The Journal of Economic Growth is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
And we all know how much conservatives love academic types.
Jason is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 02:47 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Troy Stiffler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Under an I-10 Overpass
Posts: 20,971
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Most American's net worth "then": $0 (the paycheck to paycheck lifestyle)

Most American's net worth "now": $0 (the paycheck to paycheck lifestyle)
Troy Stiffler is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 03:21 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
And we all know how much conservatives love academic types.
Oops...that borders on stereotyping. Shamey, shamey/mod squad alert/citizen's uh-ray-ist!
creekdipper is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 03:22 PM
  #11  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Idiotic. This is like those articles that claim that March Madness "costs" employers billions annually.
So you're claiming that all employers' bookies always cover the spread?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 04:17 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,901
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
So you're claiming that all employers' bookies always cover the spread?
Yeah, pretty much.
Jason is offline  
Old 06-23-13, 04:17 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,901
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Oops...that borders on stereotyping. Shamey, shamey/mod squad alert/citizen's uh-ray-ist!
Oh noes! I'm this week's Paula Deem!
Jason is offline  
Old 06-24-13, 04:40 PM
  #14  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Oh noes! I'm this week's Paula Deem!
Slathered in real butter!!!
creekdipper is offline  
Old 06-24-13, 05:36 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,901
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Slathered in real butter!!!
Bring it!
Jason is offline  
Old 06-25-13, 06:00 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 21,693
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Most societies start passing regulations when they can afford them. They require sewage to be put in underground pipes, even if it's expensive to construct sewers. They pass clean-air legislation. They beef up product liability laws. Pass pure food and drug laws. Regulate the transport of dangerous materials. Require honest reporting from financial institutions. All those laws are a drag on profits. Those profits compounded over 75 years would add up to a lot of money. But people like the results. Around the world you see the same pattern; nations get richer, and then they pass laws to improve the quality of life.

I know that Reason doesn't like it that people keep doing it that way.
Nick Danger is offline  
Old 06-25-13, 06:09 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
Re: Federal Regulations Have Made You 75% Poorer

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
And we all know how much conservatives love academic types.
Or maybe some Liberals love Regulation so much the idea that there are actual negative consequences is something they would not want to hear.....
BKenn01 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.