California Carbon Rationing Is a Jobs Killer - Who Could Have Possibly Known that Boosting the Price of Electricity Would Do That?

Back in 2006, California's legislature passed and then-Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act which aims to reduce the Golden State's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As I reported earlier this goal would be achieved by a mix of policies including a cap-and-trade carbon market along with a set of complementary measures. Those measures include setting fuel efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, requiring that 33 percent of the state’s energy be produced from renewable sources, setting a low carbon fuel standard for vehicles, and zoning changes to discourage automobile travel, among other new regulations and mandates.

A 2010 study by the California Air Resources Board, the agency in charge of implementing carbon rationing under the Global Warming Solutions Act, reported that its best case analysis estimated that implementing the law would boost California’s employment by 10,000 extra jobs by 2020; its worst case projected 330,000 fewer jobs than there would otherwise have been by 2020.

A new study commissioned by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association finds that that worst case is the likely case. From the press release:

California families will be forced to pay $2,500 annually and lose $900 in earnings per year by 2020 as a result of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, according to a study released today. The costs to families will start to mount immediately in 2013. Losses to employers and the state's economy will be counted in the billions....

The study also shows that by 2020, California will have 262,000 fewer jobs, 5.6 percent less gross state product and $7.4 billion less in annual local and state tax revenues.

These figures were reached based on an "optimistic" scenario, where costs for each policy are assumed to be at the low end of a range of expected costs and the environmental goals are achieved. It assumes plentiful low carbon fuel with limited demand outside of California, 2.5 percent energy efficiency improvements and a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

When less optimistic projections are used, the costs are staggering. In the study's "high case" scenario, families pay $4,500 in annual costs and California receives $38.8 billion less in local and state tax revenues by 2020.

Even in the rosiest of scenarios, the “low case”, families still pay $1,300 in annual costs and California loses $15.8 billion in local and state tax revenues.

Just the sort of economic boost from green energy policies that that a state with nearly 11 percent unemployment needs.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Alternative Energy Revolution

    http://xkcd.com/556/

  • Brutus||

    State-wide seppuku.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Carbon rationing: State-wide seppuku.

    High Speed Rail: State-wide bukkake.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You might be on to something EDG. Japan already has an "Airline Bukkake" series. Train bukkake just might be the next trend!

    [If you click any link with the word "bukkake" while at work, you deserve what you get. Except if you're Buttman.]

  • Bill||

    Hey now! They had the best of intentions. Once something is passed with good intentions and you put TOP MEN on it, it is never fair to go back later and actually look at costs and performance.

    Once it gets bad enough, the real culprit can be readily identified. Any guesses as to who or what that will be?

  • sarcasmic||

    Bush?

  • SugarFree||

    Corporashuns and whitehetmales.

  • Chupacabra||

    The Free Market, obviously.

  • Sevo||

    CA might end up bankrupt, but it's looking like it'll get the cool Euro-choo-choo!

  • Brutus||

    They can use it to house those made homeless by all the brilliant schemes!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Or better yet, to dump them in Nevada!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    All those leftists who claim the Fair Tax would be "regressive" for the poor... just can't be intellectually honest and admit higher energy prices *definitely* are regressive for the poor.

  • sarcasmic||

    Regressive taxes are good when they are well intentioned.

    Raising the price of energy forces poor people to use less energy, and that is good for the planet. So it's OK.
    Same with regressive cigarette taxes. They punish poor people for smoking, which is good.

    The Fair Tax is not intended to punish anyone, therefore it is bad.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    'Punishment' here is not intended to provide karmic retribution, just to discourage costly behavior. Us liberals do not have Judeo-Christian roots, so unlike republicans and libertarians we don't get our kicks from harming the "sinful" (welfare-dependent) or worshiping the "virtuous" (Job Creators). If the net effect of higher tobacco prices is that much fewer poor people smoke, then I don't have to pay for lung cancer treatment or respiratory diseases they can't afford to have treated (letting them die is not an option).

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, you're in favor of regressive energy taxes, shitheel?

  • Brutus||

    So you put yourself in the position of paying for the health care of the poor, congratulating yourself on your selflessness, then turn right around and dictate to the poor what they will be allowed to do so it doesn't cost you too much money?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, Brutus, he just admitted he wants to screw the poor out of their limited income via higher energy prices. Don't you know you're dealing with a heartless bastard?

  • Brutus||

    Yes, but they'll be breathing 15 ppm less CO2 in 25 years. My god man, do you know what this means?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It don't mean a thing, man.

  • Brutus||

    You might be right...when you're boiling rocks for soup over a cow dung fire, that 15ppm less CO2 kinda loses its luster.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Can Emeril *bam* that dish up?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    No religious talk for me thanks.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You already engage in religious talk, shitheel; you proselytize for statism every time you're here.

  • James Otis||

    Statism has been added to the Big Libertarian List of Religions? Erroneous or divergent thoughts and convictions necessarily involve mysticism, the supernatural? Let's review for accuracy. The following are religions, according to the collective:

    Statism
    Global warming
    Laws
    Law Enforcement
    Socialism
    Fascism
    Political Parties
    Criticism of the collective

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, only statism, socialism, and fascism are religions (and they're fairly closely related, but with slightly different tenets). Global warming isn't a religion, it's just one of the doctrines of environmentalism, which is often a religion. Political parties are surrogate tribes or nations, not religions.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's your response to having been proven to be full of shit? You're wronger than wrong.
    Intellectual checkmate, bitch!

  • sarcasmic||

    The longer someone lives, the more medical care they will consume over their life.
    Illnesses associated with smoking cause people to die earlier, and the death is comparatively quick.

    So smoking actually reduces the total medical care that one will consume over their life.

    Same with obesity. You don't see many fatties in their seventies. They're dead. Which means they're not consuming expensive drugs and getting new hips on the taxpayer's dime.

    It's counter intuitive, I know, but it's true.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Plus they become net contributors to Social Security when they die early.

    The real problem for progs is that those selfish poor bastards that die young do not fulfill their end of the bargain; of voting for progs for a three more decades.

  • Sevo||

    "Us liberals do not have Judeo-Christian roots, so unlike republicans and libertarians we don't get our kicks from harming the "sinful" (welfare-dependent) or worshiping the "virtuous" (Job Creators)."

    Well familiar with it; the State as God.
    Been tried; millions died.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    So, market as god is going to work?

  • Brutus||

    The market is nothing more than the individual judgements of billions of people. So yes, if we're going to have an earthly guide to follow, it ought to be each one of us acting in mutually beneficial ways with the rest of humanity.

    Or are you acquainted with some perfect beings suited to telling the rest of us what to do?

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    But the market is obviously infallible, seeing as we are currently doing economic damage to ourselves and our future and we are unwilling to account for this externality in our behavior.

    A man who is 40 today won't experience the damage caused by greenhouse gases, but his society, other regions and his children will. Hence, rational selfishness fails to account for the future, and government has to step in.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "fallible".

    Doye.

  • Brutus||

    But the market is obviously infallible, seeing as we are currently doing economic damage to ourselves and our future and we are unwilling to account for this externality in our behavior.

    No, what the market is saying is that the externality is insignificant (your doomsday scenarios notwithstanding) next to the benefits provided by electricity.

    And anyway, even your "solution" does nothing to abate the externality. If my neighbor throws trash onto my property, at least in abating it I'll make him pick it up.

  • fish||

    ....and government has to step in.

    And fuck things up further!

  • ant1sthenes||

    "But the market is obviously infallible"

    It's as fallible as the people in it.

  • sarcasmic||

    So, market as god is going to work?

    When government fails at something it spends more money, consumes more resources, curtails more freedoms, and otherwise tries harder and harder while continuing to fail.

    When something in the market fails, it goes away.

    Markets work because they allow failure.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So "government as God" is going to work?

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    If it limits its godhood to increasing costs of economic activity that causes damage to others and future people, yup. Then it is doing what government should do even to libertarians - uphold libertarian ethics.

  • Brutus||

    If it limits its godhood to increasing costs of economic activity that causes damage to others and future people, yup.

    There's the problem: You can't even quantify the damage, Mary. And since the wealthy breathe the same air and live on the same planet as the rest of us, any externality is being borne by them, too.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ethics is a big concern for people with religious leanings, shitheel.

    Like your religion of the state, for instance.

    *hint*

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If it limits its godhood to increasing costs of economic activity that causes damage to others and future people, yup

    Which will happen right after JFK and FDR return to earth on the backs of unicorns.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "If it limits"

    Government NEVER limits itself.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    The failure, in this case, is not limited to the market actors in the US, today. If they fail because it turns out their economic activity was unsustainable, then they won't have to suffer for it.

  • Brutus||

    All activity is ultimately unsustainable. Nothing can or will go on forever. A brain-dead red herring.

  • SKR||

    Goddamn thermodynamics.

  • Sevo||

    Apparently a 'statist'|7.6.12 @ 11:09AM|#
    "So, market as god is going to work?"

    Strange no one has ever created a society where the market is god.
    But the closer they get to leaving the market alone, the better off everyone is.
    Unlike those where the state is the religion.

  • Trespassers W||

    Us liberals do not have Judeo-Christian roots

    Now that's just a weird thing to claim.

  • Enyap||

    I'm sure William Jennings Bryan would have something to say about that.

  • The Heresiarch||

    What if their early deaths are a net benefit to the general fund? Many smokers die at the end of their working lives, so you end up with a citizen who pays taxes his whole life and keels over before he can suckle on the state's teats. Win-win from the statist perspective.

  • Juice||

    The "Fair" Tax is bad regardless.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Better than what we have now, Juice.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "All those leftists who claim the Fair Tax would be "regressive" for the poor..."

    It would. The lower revenue levels would also hurt them, since cuts would be made and the poor don't have lobbyists.

    "just can't be intellectually honest and admit higher energy prices *definitely* are regressive for the poor."

    Sure I can. Higher energy prices hurt everyone the same, which is proportionally more painful for those who need a minimum level of energy usage.

    Of course, there are poorer people in other places of the world and in the future, and they have it way worse than the poor in America.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nice wall of text. Vapid and full of empty calories, though.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    For a person used to reading 1000-pages long pamphlets detailing how a Russian flapper wants to get a good dicking from successful men, you sure have a low threshold for "wall of text" status.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Actually, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand.

    Tell another lie, shitheel.

  • sarcasmic||

    If it wasn't for straw men, our troll would have no one to argue against.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No, there are plenty here who engage them despite their vacuousness.

  • ||

    No, there are plenty of idiots here who engage them despite their vacuousness.

    Corrected.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Romulus Augustus||

    the poor don't have lobbyists"

    I don't know where you live but in Penna. they sure do. Their lobbyists are the Democrat Party and guilt-induced Republicans. The measures which actually hurt the poor are well-hidden and spun into "free market failure" memes. The only one consistently advocating against measures hurting the poor are Libertarians and no one listens to them.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "The only one consistently advocating against measures hurting the poor are Libertarians and no one listens to them."

    TRICKLE DOWN (TM). PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY CHARITY WILL MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE (TM).

    That about right?

    I would be perfectly OK with trying libertarianism if there was a road back if poor people started dying because private charity is insufficient and the sky-rocketing economic growth fails to manifest.

    But, much like communists, libertarians would never walk back even in the face of massive empirical defeat. You would basically burn down democracy if poor people tried to vote back government in the face of libertarianism's failure. There is no plan B, only Plan A = A with you guys.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    if poor people started dying because private charity is insufficient

    And I give a fuck about that because....?

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    I give a fuck about that and I have one vote just like you.

    Two, if I am willing to risk prison or massive fines, which is something republicans and libertarians are convinced poor minorities are ready to risk.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "risk prison or massive fines"

    Keep voting Democrat, and we'll have a police state soon enough. Team Red isn't the only bunch wanting that, you know.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "Keep voting Democrat, and we'll have a police state soon enough."

    Nah. Besides, if we vote libertarian being born poor will mean virtually zero freedom or life quality.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue is just as capable - and willing - to impose martial law as Team Red.

    Live it, own it, shut the fuck up and leave this website while you're at it.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "Team Blue is just as capable - and willing - to impose martial law as Team Red."

    And yet I don't feel bad about not being TEAM PURPLE.

    I *think* it has something to do with the fact that even when you aren't actively criticizing people you sound like kids that don't even believe the hyperbolic garbage you are spouting.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You come here and criticize us, yet expect to be taken seriously.

    Fuck off.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And you're damn skippy I believe there will be a police state in this country, shitheel - we've been moving in that direction for years, now.

    But go ahead and place your faith in the state. It's fun to watch.

  • T o n y||

    You come here and criticize us, yet expect to be taken seriously.

    It is after all your playground, and nobody else is invited.

    If you people were intellectually curious enough not to pout and call anyone who disagrees with you poopyheads, you wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.

    Closed-bubble cults are a dime a dozen. You've just chosen a very well-financed one.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not fucking pouting, shitheel.

    Not "my" playground, either, but it DOES belong to Reason, not "the public".

    All I'm asking is for valid criticism, which you, Nando, Apparently a "shitheel", and shrike have never done.

    Go act better than other people somewhere else. Your bullshit wore thin a long time ago, you snooty bitch.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Keep voting Democrat, and we'll have a police state soon enough.

    We already live in a police state.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Two, if I am willing to risk prison or massive fines, which is something republicans and libertarians are convinced poor minorities are ready to risk.

    You're missing a "that" clause. Without an independent clause your sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. This is a symptom of your sloppy thinking.

  • Fluffy||

    You would basically burn down democracy if poor people tried to vote back government in the face of libertarianism's failure.

    Yes, of course. Because whether or not I think you should get to steal from me is not an empirical question.

    Let's say you could prove to me that there are dire empirical consequences associated with not having a state church.

    My response to you would be to say, "Get ready to suffer, then. Into every life a little rain must fall."

    And if you got together with a bunch of people and said, "Well, we don't like these consequences so our democracy has decided that you have to join our state church," I would kill every last one of you motherfuckers if I could, and piss in the face of the last asshole to say the word "democracy" in such a context.

  • SKR||

    "Higher prices hurt everyone the same, which is proportionally more painful for those who need a minimum level of energy usage."

    If it's proportionally more painful then it doesn't hurt everyone the same. :facepalm:

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    I am impressed they are willing to take the difficult route of introducing externalities into the economy rather than pretending they don't exist just because the damage is spread over time and across other regions. Too bad they have to shoulder the weight alone.

  • Drake||

    A few words need to be translated from your comment:

    "externalities" = Government imposed horseshit.

    "shoulder" = crushed like a bug under a falling boulder.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    If an economic activity causes damage to the economic interests of a party unrelated to the transaction - boom, externality.

    You take a fish from a public lake, you reduce the chances there is fish in the lake in the future. Hence, fishing licenses create a cost for fishing that discourages the activity.

    Driving more than you need to today increases the chances of someone's private property getting fucked up by a tornado. Externality. Greenhouse gases causes a greenhouse effect, at least according to physics.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, you want to force poor people to give up driving. Got it.

  • Brutus||

    Don't worry, he'll be along with public transportation in a jiffy. So the poor will be able to get where they're going, so long as they have an extra two hours to burn at each end of the trip.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    Give up leisurly or recreational driving, maybe.

    The purpose here is to make market forces contend with prices on energy that reflect the cost the energy usage imposes on society. It's the ideal economic solution.

  • Sevo||

    Apparently a 'statist'|7.6.12 @ 11:02AM|#
    "Give up leisurly or recreational driving, maybe."

    Fuck you, slaver.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Notice how leftists always want *less* freedom, just like their so-con counterparts.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    No, fuck the recreational drivers. Their behavior causes economic damage to others, and then they beg for respite when the government forces them to act according to libertarian ethics.

  • Sevo||

    Apparently a 'statist'|7.6.12 @ 11:19AM|#
    "No, fuck the recreational drivers."

    Fuck you, slaver.

  • Brutus||

    You don't have the slightest idea what those costs are, if any.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "You don't have the slightest idea what those costs are, if any."

    And yet every libertarian on this website is in favor of disenfranchising voters because republicans tell them voter fraud is a big problem.

    Instead of looking at the costs, it is wiser to look at cut-off points where the staying power of greenhouse gases coupled with positive feedback pushes the global environment into a region with very dire temperature increases and economical damage. Then, the carbon prices are raised to encourage bringing down energy usage to a point where that threshold is not reached.

  • Brutus||

    So you admit that you are imposing a cost onto consumers to offset costs that you don't have the slightest idea of.

    Thank you, Statist, for the confirmation.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Actually, some of us are in favor of voters proving who they are, shitheel. Not the same thing you're describing at all.

    But do tell us how you're superior in the liberties department, what with your desires to impose high energy costs and travel restrictions on the poor, whom you claim to champion.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "Actually, some of us are in favor of voters proving who they are, shitheel."

    Then pay for the new IDs republicans are asking them to get.

  • Brutus||

    Then pay for the new IDs republicans are asking them to get.

    I'm in MO. Our voter ID law did just that. Democrats still shrieked in horror and opposed it.

    Because, in the end, their electoral futures are tied to voter fraud.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "Because, in the end, their electoral futures are tied to voter fraud."

    Because republican politicians tell you that is the case and you want to believe that because you want an excuse to attack people that vote the "wrong" way. Major fascist vibes from you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Did you even read what he said about how the MO voter law paid for the IDs, shitheel?

    Probably not.

  • Brutus||

    Because republican politicians tell you that is the case and you want to believe that because you want an excuse to attack people that vote the "wrong" way. Major fascist vibes from you.

    When a young, white non-Georgetown-dwelling fellow can walk up and be offered the ballot for old, black Georgetowner and Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder, we have a problem.

    And I don't see you saying that Democrats in MO were wrong-headed for opposing the law, even though it did exactly what you insisted on, namely providing IDs gratis.

    I hereby rest my case.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, actually, because I've heard enough Democrats jokingly brag about voter fraud that I'm not willing to help them pretend that the thing they've been bragging about for the last 75 years is somehow or another an "eeeevillll Rethuglicannnn scheeeeemmmmm".

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Until the day comes - if ever - when no one will ever have to show an ID for ANY transaction... well, that would be nice, but it's not going to happen. I don't know why I started that sentence in the first place.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    "Driving more than you need to today increases the chances of someone's private property getting fucked up by a tornado."

    So does the flapping of countless mouths at a conference in Rio.

    Will TOP MEN decide how much driving I "need" to do? Do some of us then get to decide what you "need?" Maybe we don't need art museums or artisanal mayonaise shops? Maybe you'll be happy when President Rand Paul decides what you "need" or don't need.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Driving more than you need to today increases the chances of someone's private property getting fucked up by a tornado."

    Funny how these leftists can predict the future.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    "Funny how these leftists can predict the future."

    The power of physics.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    Greenhouse gases having a greenhouse effect is *kinda* provable via physics unrelated to the chaos theory. *Kinda*.

  • Brutus||

    So let's "kinda" not ruin our economy until we "kinda" know for sure.

  • Brutus||

    I've known some brilliant physicists, and not one claimed the power of prognostication beyond dropping an object under the expectation of it falling to the floor.

    You're ridiculous.

  • fish||

    Using the AGW gas models you guys can't even predict the past.

    Try again Mary.

    How are you coping with menopause?

  • R C Dean||

    If an economic activity causes damage to the economic interests of a party unrelated to the transaction - boom, externality.

    And, of course, if it benefits a non-party, that's also an externality. See, also, economies of scale, and network effects.

    Identify, quantify, and net out all the externalities, and we can talk about a public policy response. Until then, STFU.

  • Fluffy||

    So it's your position that you can provide me with a mathematical proof showing which properties will suffer wind damage in the future, and causally relate that wind damage to the specific CO2 generated by my activity and no other?

  • Drake||

    And never twirl around with your arms out - so much death and destruction will be your fault.

  • Brutus||

    Please delete the "Apparently" from your name.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I asked him in the AM thread why he is here in the first place, as he has no friends and never will win anyone over on these threads.

    I mean, we KNOW why he's here, but there is no logical reason [DRINK!] for him *to* be here.

  • Juice||

    I generally don't go into internet message boards to make friends or reinforce my own beliefs. I go to them to argue and prove random faceless people wrong.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It would be more fun if these fuckstains actually had some valid arguments in favor of their leftist causes du jours.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    Actually, the government penalizing energy usage follows the same logic as preventing your neighbor from throwing his trash on your lawn - he is saving money by harming your property, and the law steps in.

    Likewise, using energy pushes negative side-effects into the future and onto other people in other geographical areas. Tragedy of the commons.

    Even if you believe the government shouldn't only handle a small army and police force, if that, then physics and economics conspire to perfectly justify higher prices on energy usage contributing to the greenhouse effect.

    You can't harm another's property by your own actions.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why are you here, shitheel?

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    Why are *any* of us here, man?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Go the fuck away, then.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Brutus||

    I haven't the slightest idea of how much energy my neighbor is using, and I do not perceive any damage being done to me if he's using 1 kWh/day or 10,000. I do, however, perceive damage being done to me by specious "carbon taxes" imposed by government.

    Guess which I'm going to oppose?

  • Sevo||

    Apparently a 'statist'|7.6.12 @ 11:00AM|#
    "Actually, the government penalizing energy usage follows the same logic as preventing your neighbor from throwing his trash on your lawn - he is saving money by harming your property, and the law steps in."

    That's your excuse for "logic"?

  • Sevo||

    Apparently a 'statist'|7.6.12 @ 10:47AM|#
    "I am impressed they are willing to take the difficult route of introducing externalities into the economy..."

    Like, oh, 20% unemployment? That sort of externality?

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    That's the result of an economic collapse brought on by financial deregulation.

  • Sevo||

    Apparently a 'statist'|7.6.12 @ 11:01AM|#
    "That's the result of an economic collapse brought on by financial deregulation."

    What deregulation?

  • Brutus||

    It happened because they said so. Regulation is like a sweet, healing elixer one pours over any perceived malady, rectifying it immediately and perfectly.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's one of the dumbest leftist memes out there. I made a living for the better part of a decade (including all of the Bush years) on being an expert in financial services regulation. The regulatory burden increased over the period, it didn't decrease. And in the years since the crash, things have gotten worse.

    Also, it's a complete myth that relaxing Glass-Steagall caused the bubble or the collapse. Which is the only possible "deregulation" anyone can point to. The bubble wasn't created by that, nor did it expand or create the secondary market.

  • tulip||

    ^This^

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Gotta agree with tulip. ^This^

    The funny thing is Dodd-Frank was palmed off to the public in the name of preventing "too big to fail", yet its actual provisions:

    * Regulate the derivatives market to mandate central clearing and counterparties, which had nothing to do with the crisis.
    * Ban proprietary trading, which had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis.
    * Establish a CFPB, when there's virtually no evidence that mortgage borrowers didn't understand the products they were buying and would have bought them anyway.

    The one thing it doesn't really do much about is change "too big to fail".

  • R C Dean||

    Faster, California, faster!

    The sooner it collapses, the sooner we have a cautionary example that others might (or might not!) learn from.

  • SugarFree||

    I want to get a beach-side bungalow for $60,000. Keep it up, California!

  • Brutus||

    Not to mention legions of pauperized locals to work the garden, give massages, etc. for crusts and crumbs from your table.

  • ||

    They'd rather starve to death than work for less than $12/hour.

  • Brutus||

    We shall see.

  • Brett L||

    In Libertopia, they'd have that choice.

  • Drake||

    Only somebody who has never truly been hungry would say it.

  • Brett L||

    I've already got my eye on some Spanish beachfront real estate. Just waiting for the Germans and British to join the slide, because they're keeping the prices artificially high.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    "The sooner it collapses, the sooner we have a cautionary example that others might (or might not!) learn from."

    I'm trying to help: a subordinate of mine, a staunch Obama supporter, just returned from a vacation in Los Angeles
    and gushed about how lovely it was. I suggested she might start applying for jobs there. Let's get all the so-called progressives to move there and clean out their little pockets in places like Austin, Boston, Manhattan,
    Society Hill, and Denver.

  • Chupacabra||

    Please don't! I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future. :-(

    At least I can enjoy perfect weather while the state around me collapses.

  • R C Dean||

    Pish, Chupa. Your weather is about to get unbearably hot.

    Its an externality, you know.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes, they will learn that even one drop of capitalism will completely destroy government plans. Totalitarianism is the only viable solution.

  • Tim||

    California's going to end up like the house at the end of Poltergeist.

  • mb||

    Funny CA has managed to cripple their economy trying to do what fracking has done in less time, with no taxpayer costs and tremendous consumer savings.

    US emissions are at 1991 levels this year. 1990 level by 2020 - no problem.

    Onward central planners, many problems remain.

  • mb||

    Funny CA has managed to cripple their economy trying to do what fracking has done in less time, with no taxpayer costs and tremendous consumer savings.

    US emissions are at 1991 levels this year. 1990 level by 2020 - no problem.

    Onward central planners, many problems remain.

  • NotSure||

    Incredible how "Apparently a 'statist'" keeps on talking her shit completely impervious that all the shit she is supporting has been done in California. No mention that California is facing economic collapse and ever higher taxes (so much for her concern about reducing costs).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Mary doesn't speak in order to engage in argumentation. She spews her drivel due to instinct, like the cry of an animal, specifically, the braying of a jackass.

  • The Fatman||

    At least the braying jackass makes sense to other jackasses. This thing is just incomprehensible.

  • Sevo||

    NotSure|7.6.12 @ 12:13PM|#
    "Incredible how "Apparently a 'statist'" keeps on talking her shit completely impervious that all the shit she is supporting has been done in California. No mention that California is facing economic collapse and ever higher taxes (so much for her concern about reducing costs)."

    Has nothing to do with 'costs'. The sinners must wear hair shirts to atone for their sins! Economic ruin is a small price to pay for 'sustaining' something or other.

  • ||

    Ugh....'apparently a statist' keeps running about throwing strawmen in the air and yall keep chasing them down. Before you finish tearing them apart two more get tossed up. Shit.
    Please stop feeding that goddamn idiot troll.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement