[penny500]

How is "regulation makes us less competitive" a straw man argument? If your Singaporean or European competitors operate under a set of different and less stringent rules, that wouldn't increase your costs to doing business (and in effect making you less competitive relative to foreign competitors)? Even the regulators know about the costs of Dodd-Frank.

[pyoung]

I think Singapore does so well because of the low taxes and because it is one of the few Asian countries in that region that isn't hampered by corruption. Europe's economies are way too diverse to group together, some of them are 'business friendly', some of them are not. The 'Celtic Tiger' was largely due to low taxes, and hasn't turned out too well (most of Europe is hurting right now), so I am not sure why we should aspire to emulate them. Regulatory policies have little to do with their success (but a lot to do with their failures, in the case of Ireland).

I think most people agree that over-regulation is a bad thing. What I take issue with is when political groups and lobbyists scream 'regulation makes us less competitive' anytime regulation is mentioned. The fact is it might increase the costs of doing business a little bit, but it also might mean that my air and water aren't horribly polluted (see Beijing air quality) or that I can count on my retirement account actually being there when I need it. I feel like one side is trying to find a good balance, while the other is being completely obstructionist. The end result is watered down regulatory policies that increase the complexity and costs of doing business, while at the same time, being completely ineffective. One major issue with this result is that this greatly benefits entrenched players, as they are already adept at navigating complex regulatory environments (which keep out new entrants) but in the end, they aren't actually affected by the regulations in any meaningful way.

[disgruntledphd2]

Just to note, as I always seem to whenever that damn "Celtic Tiger" comes up. It wasn't about low taxes, it was about allowing major US multinationals (Google, Apple, Facebook, Oracle etc) to legally tax dodge on their EU profits. That's where the money came from. Then we all went mental (except for me, as I was dirt poor) on buying and selling property to one another.

Then our last (hopelessly corrupt) government decided to guarentee all of the bank liabilities when the crap hit the fan. The EU decided that one of these banks was never going to pay back the money (Anglo Irish), and so the money the government had given them went on the national debt. The markets panicked, the IMF were called in, and here we are.

Arguing that it was primarily due to low taxes is somewhat incorrect, while if the tax base had been more diverse the current deficit would have been less bad, we were still really screwed by the nationalisation of banking losses.

[rayiner]

The US is a model of reaching the right regulatory balance. No joke. The Asian countries are headed in the direction of more regulation as their economies mature and the naturally explosive growth of new industrialization transitions to a sustainable economy. Meanwhile, after decades of stifling over regulation, in the 1990s and 2000s Western Europe has liberalized it's economic policies and become more like the US. Australia has always been like the US and has been very successful for it.

[Evbn]

Regulation is also a hedge against the risk of fraud, providing similar function to a hedge fund or futures derivative.