Re: Crazy 'Merkin here
@Tom 13
"Because I am in fact a free trade advocate. Less red tape and lower import taxes improves everybody's lot."
First thing: 'red tape' is a pretty loaded term. Calling something 'red tape' is saying that the regulations or procedures in question are redundant or unnecessary and thus should be removed. "Cutting the red tape" and all that.
So yes, removing 'red tape' is generally a good thing. The problem comes in differentiating between what should actually be considered 'red tape' and what is actually important. And just because something becomes a burden to businesses or reduces their potential profitability or increases prices, that does not mean that it is self-evidently 'red tape'.
For example, building code regulations certainly raise the price of construction but they exist to ensure that buildings meet certain standards that, when applied across a large area (local or state or nation-wide) increase safety and protect customers from potentially costly issues. Some might see some of these regulations as unnecessary and as adding to costs without providing appreciable benefits but, with the origin of (modern) building regulations being the Great Fire of London in the 17th century, the impetus is becomes clear.
Regulations generally come from experience where bad practices - either careless or unscrupulous - have had detrimental consequences for the public. For example, in Australia, the previous government, which was in power during the collapses of several financial advisory and investment firms, created some new regulations for that sector, focusing on increased reporting and more control over commissions.
The current government views those regulations as 'red tape' and wants to scrap them.
Likewise they want to scrap regulations aroudn charities, which are there to ensure that those companies running as charities are actually proper charities. Apparently the fact that adhering to this regulation costs the charities money makes it, ipso facto, red tape.
On the other hand, the government wants to remove the regulations around movie classification that requires movies tgo through classification whenever they are released on different format. So, a movie released on DVD and can be re-released on Blu-ray without having to be reclassified.
That is most certainly 'red tape' as it costs money and doesn't provide any real benefit for consumers.
Some things just ARE red tape and these are usually regulations that used to serve a purpose but have since been rendered irrelevant or redundant and cost time and money yet add little or nothing by way of benefit or protection.
Most other things bandied about as 'red tape' are classified based on ideological biases. If you are of the more strongly capitalist, free-market bent, then you are more likely to view regulations as unnecessary burdens on businesses and believe that their removal will benefit everyone, allowing businesses to save money while providing more and better choices for the consumer as well as driving down prices.
But this is not a purely objective matter because it often depends on what outcomes one views as more important.
If you are someone who is very pro-enterprise and simultaneously does not believe that climate change is real or that humans activity is a contributing factor, then you are likely to view environmental regulations - such as those enforcing energy efficient electronics or buildings or cars - as 'red tape' because you either don't believe there is a benefit or believe the benefit is small so the cost appears unbalanced.
One big element of the TPP appears to be around food exports/imports and much of the discontent is where local regulations of food safety are concerned. Some leaked parts of the agreement have the effect of limiting a country or state's ability to impose health standard on food brought in. In Australia we have strict regulations concerning (e.g.) poultry, to prevent any spread of disease. The US wants to see these removed to allow US corporations to sell more chicken to Australia.
Likewise regulations around mandatory labelling of food products, including GMO foods. Personally, I have little to no problem with GMO but it is not unreasonable to require foods to be labelled so people can make their own decisions. These requirements are also in the crosshairs.
These things are not so much barriers to trade as insurances that the trade that does occur will be to the standard that the country setting the rules expects.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
