Regulation and Capitalism

[GutZ]

I was wondering what the fine people of this forum think about regulation. I know roughly the idea of capitalism is to create a fair and free playing ground.

 

It seems to me the train of thought is you either have capitalism or socialism.

 

What if you could make both parties happy and make regulations. Not just any regulations but something that will really cut down on greed and bad management of capital.

 

We have regulations I know, but we don't really enforce them. These days companies don't even have to answer to the president. Really reward good behaviour, and make it difficult to be bad companies.

 

I m not saying "tell them how to run a business". They can do whatever they want, but why not if they choose to be stupid, not give them tax breaks. If a companies only concern is short term profit like it is now, they will continually place the economy in danger.

 

If a company becomes enviromentally conscious and meet critiera as in they pay the workers decently why not give subsidies to those companies. Big or Small...if you do well and you do well for the economy (substainable business practice, fairness, and good captial) Here's tax breaks for you.

 

Wouldn't that be better? Instead of waiting and hoping things will turn out or wait for another issue to wake companies up, why not try to keep a consistant stable economy by giving proper motivation to go in the right direction.

 

Then it's not pure socialism vs captialism.

 

Decrease waste and increase effiecency is the idea behind any stable system. Why don't we apply that to our economy as well?

 

I think anyone who purchases or deal within in economic system should be responsible to maintain or do it part to maintian it's balance. I don't believe in the aspect that it's not the responsibility of a company to help out. I think thats a BS cop out. The reason they make profity is because it exist, because there are consumers, but the same for the consumer, I don't think bad consumer habits should be rewarded either. I think it time we take more control.

 

Your thoughts below.

[Pangloss]

Well in the US the regulatory approach is all this country has had since around the Great Depression and subsequent economic buildup of WW2. There was a great reform movement that called for increase product safety following authors like Upton Sinclair and a general impression that the industrial revolution had produced a situation in which men had become no more important than machines. The result was a great advent of product safety regulation and a bureaucracy to run it, often with mixed results. In my opinion the overall benefit is clear. The question of enforcement is certainly a good one -- we have a mixed history, for sure.

 

In my opinion all these current calls for pure-market economics are really just calls for decreased regulation. I don't think there's a good case for that even in the management of the financial sector. Even admitting the flaws of CRA (a regulation said to have lead at least in part to the mortgage meltdown, depending on who you ask) doesn't prove that regulations are themselves the problem. Throwing out all regulation doesn't feel appropriate or even necessary. Just my opinion, of course.

 

And I more or less apply the same reasoning up and down the line. The issue has become too politicized -- people accuse me of being a "flaming liberal" for having the above opinion; others accuse me of being a "partisan conservative" for even mentioning CRA or the benefits of removing incorrect regulations in general. IMO we need to take the politics out of regulatory determination.

[jackson33]

Capitalism is public ownership and operation of business...

Socialism is government ownership and operation of business..

 

'laissez-faire' is a French term usually meant indicate as no government or as little as possible 'LAW or regulation' imposed on any business, often called 'Free Market' Capitalism.

 

Consider a scale 1-100, Pure Socialism (ie Cuba) being one and where no government control exist 100 (there are none), the US has been dropping from 98-99 from the late 19th Century to probably 80 or so today, while many European Systems have dropped much further. Russia today for instance would be around 50, China 40, both embracing a form of Socialistic (Controlled) Capitalism.

 

If anything then it's not an either or, but to whats best acceptable to achieve what ever the goal may be. Socialism also infers equalization of all people of one society, with it's own scale. Cuba has about 11 million people, of which 10 1/2 million have about equal assets (no middle class) and the US has a still viable large middle class, which is the measure of a healthy economical system, or was before Obama.

 

Nobody and no business is subservient to the President. The President is the leader of a GOVERNMENT (one of three branches), that branch established to enforce/protect the Constitution and Laws of the Union of States, not one State or one person. This may not make much sense in all thats currently being said or going on, but IMO what should be...

 

Now Congress does have authority to make law or regulate whatever they please to and these usually involve the President signing off on the issue. If he/she will not, the Congress than can over ride the executive and has many time over our history.

 

Corporations, in fact your home town mom and pop grocery or barber, cater (do business) with individuals. If that customer base, keep in mind all sizes, is environmental concerned, or concerned about anything that barber or Company is going to address those ideas or eventually go out of business. Now Capitalism also encourages competition, which of course socialism wants nothing to compete with. If a 7/11 pops up next to your M/P Grocery, plays to the National Concerns of 7/11 and your local plays to your concerns, who will win...

 

Decreased waste increase efficiency, otherwise know as 'productivity' is the base of Capitalism and controlled by competition. Since the US is and has been number one in productivity for decades, I would think it has applied to our economy. Again socialism, without competition (no place else to go) is not the least bit concerned with cutting cost/waste or increasing efficiency. Why should they...

 

I totally believe the consumer, who are individuals, have every right to purchase and choose products or services as they see fit with out fear of other opinions. I drink beer and smoke, my little old lady neighbor thinks I am wasteful, while she may spend more on dog/cat/bird food than I would think appropriate, but would argue her right. Same for that 6 foot 400# guy I see at the store buying cookies, ice cream and boxes of frozen hamburgers.

[waitforufo]

Free enterprise (I like that better than Marx's "Capitalism") can operate just fine within boundaries defined by regulation. Often times regulation is intended to insure that the consumers of products (or services) pay the true cost of what they are purchasing. For example environmental regulation in the main is intended to prevent non purchasers, those downstream or downwind, from paying a price while not receiving value. In Pangloss's example, consumer regulation is intended to provide consumers with the value they believe and are generally told they are purchasing. Regulation in the financial markets may include providing consumers with the security they have been lead to believe they are purchasing or prevent financing cost from being passed to those not being serviced by the financing.

 

Excessive regulation increases cost for no reason and generally provides benefits to those who provide no product or service. One could think of excessive regulation as economic waste created by those receiving the benefit and passed on to those paying the increased cost of goods and services.

 

An example of excessive regulation might be overly restrictive urban growth boundaries. In the attempt to protect rural land, urban land prices are increased. Those that enjoy their rural surroundings benefit, and those that own urban land benefit, but those that want to develop rural land pay as do those that don't own urban land. Excessive urban growth regulation would benefit few at the expense of many.

[Pangloss]

Well there are other reasons to restrict urban growth, but I agree with that example. I live next to a boundary (the Everglades) that has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting human-owned land.

[GutZ]

Cool so we are sort of set up this way already. It;s still up to congress to make or create regulations then? ( I know nothing so explain it how it works if I am totally off) If this is the case though it's also up for abuse as well especially if companies have money to contribute to government campaigns and such during elections and such. You can persue congress to not pass a specific regulation right?

 

I guess it's more or less government again who is dropping the ball on this whole financial crisis? Was the bush era built upon creating alot of counter-productive regulations?

 

Also what are your ideas where regulation is limited and where regulation is too much involved?

 

Do you think doing a lot of fine-tuning to current regulation would help or be a waste of time?

[iNow]

Without question, it would help.

[bombus]

 

 

Decreased waste increase efficiency, otherwise know as 'productivity' is the base of Capitalism and controlled by competition. Since the US is and has been number one in productivity for decades, I would think it has applied to our economy. Again socialism, without competition (no place else to go) is not the least bit concerned with cutting cost/waste or increasing efficiency. Why should they...

 

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, and the comment above is certainly true to a large extent, there is the problem in capitalism of huge waste caused by market forces which do not always make the best choices. A good example of this is VHS vs Betamax. VHS was an inferior system but won the format war through better marketing, and all the energy and resources spent on making Betamax was more or less wasted. Recently the same happended with HD-DVD and Blu Ray. All the resources spent on HD-DVD is now wasted. Similar examples exist everywhere.

 

Whilst communist societies can (and did) suffer from a lack of 'competition' to spur on 'progress', I suspect that free market systems are on the whole not much more efficient, just efficient and wasteful in different ways.

[ParanoiA]

To the OP...the biggest thing that jumps out at me is the obvious: Who determines what practice is good or bad and then rewards it? Who is it this great arbiter of truth? God? Me? You? That business? The entire republic?

 

No one has a monopoly on opinion, and no one can prove their opinion is correct.

 

So, capitalism implicitly realizes this and and chooses to default this to those with the most interest, those with the most to lose - the individual, the owner. Freewill, free trade, the obvious follow through for a freedom first society. We aren't a freedom first society anymore though. We're becoming a performance first society. We are willing to sacrifice our freedoms for security, nowadays.

 

ecoli writes some good stuff explaining the concept of risk taking, inherent in trade and business, and how each individual serves as an accurate point of risk, over the notion of a central planner - which is essentially what you're talking about when you offer the idea that we, as in the government, reward good practice. Somehow we must sport the hubris to decree what is best for a private business, and that just seems really dumb.

 

I would never presume a business to put people first, and likewise would not presume government to put profit first. It's always seemed kind of obvious to me to use that relationship for what it is. For government to cast judgement on business practice as "stupid" or "smart" followed up with some kind of reward is just silly. But for government to cast judgement on business practice that hurts people, is necessary.

 

So maybe that's where I split from the main crowd. I like regulation to be applied to those markets and scenarios where we cannot afford the natural market checks and balances to trump people-first. It's fine to play supply and demand, quality-efficiency games with candy bars, but it's hardly appropriate with medicine. Sure, if I make a crappy candy bar, you stop buying and I get the message and straighten up. But if I make crappy pharmaceuticals, then people suffer and die before I get the message to straighten up - that's not acceptable. And that's where I find regulation to be honorable and necessary.

[padren]

Cool so we are sort of set up this way already. It;s still up to congress to make or create regulations then? ( I know nothing so explain it how it works if I am totally off) If this is the case though it's also up for abuse as well especially if companies have money to contribute to government campaigns and such during elections and such. You can persue congress to not pass a specific regulation right?

Regulation is born out of two branches of thought, and take some form of one or the other:

 

1) Get closer to a perfect free market:

A free market is based on the voluntary transfer of goods and services - for that to exist it must be free of coercion and fraud. So, there is naturally a body of regulations that protect consumers from being lied to as to the quality of what they buy, and protect them from being coerced into buying what they don't want via predatory tactics. This covers right down to accounting laws so a potential stockholder can evaluate the real value of what they are investing in.

 

2) Protect from the failings of a free market:

It is technically an infringement on free market principles to stop a felon from buying a gun, an 18 year old from buying heroine, or dictating what drugs are deemed "safe" enough by the FDA for pharmaceutical companies to sell.

To a degree, there is an argument that the need for these regulations are not because of the failings of a free market but the imperfections in it's execution - due to the fact that hidden costs are absorbed by non-consenting third parties. You can sell a gun or heroine for a low amount of money and some third party victim foots the cost in the increase of crime. If the true costs were always involved in the transaction the market could theoretically regulate itself in this regard, but that is arguably essentially impossible.

 

 

Since we are stuck with these two forms of regulations, we rely on our political system to try and employ only the regulations that address these issues and be as honest as we can make them.

 

I guess it's more or less government again who is dropping the ball on this whole financial crisis? Was the bush era built upon creating alot of counter-productive regulations?

That is hard to pick apart, I am sure others could give a lot more details. You may even consider it as several different "eras" that overlap the same timeframe, such the "Alan Greenspan era" overlaps with the "Clinton era" and "Bush era."

 

The issue is how much regulation is politically motivated, and how much is economically motivated, and of the latter how smart the thinking is. Lobbies have a lot of power to get regulations added, changed, and removed that can harm the economy. It gets very sticky, and there is a ton of debate on every possible issue. Is the gun lobby too strong, or the drug companies, health insurance companies....etc - these all impact regulations towards their interests, not market interests specifically.

 

Also what are your ideas where regulation is limited and where regulation is too much involved?

 

Do you think doing a lot of fine-tuning to current regulation would help or be a waste of time?

 

I really don't know too much about regulations that are specifically cited as harmful to the economy - I hear about them but always in the generalized sense and not any specifics. As for fine tuning them, I think we can definitely improve our regulations.

 

If you want to read a pretty straight forward article on the topic:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

It is pretty to the point and doesn't have a lot of specific bias. It can be hard to find "neutral" articles because most people who bother to write about economics have a "cause" they push as they see the system should be more one way or another.

[Pangloss]

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, and the comment above is certainly true to a large extent, there is the problem in capitalism of huge waste caused by market forces which do not always make the best choices. A good example of this is VHS vs Betamax. VHS was an inferior system but won the format war through better marketing, and all the energy and resources spent on making Betamax was more or less wasted. Recently the same happended with HD-DVD and Blu Ray. All the resources spent on HD-DVD is now wasted. Similar examples exist everywhere.

 

Whilst communist societies can (and did) suffer from a lack of 'competition' to spur on 'progress', I suspect that free market systems are on the whole not much more efficient, just efficient and wasteful in different ways.

 

A significant difference being that it didn't necessarily cost me anything to deal with the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray war (unless I chose to participate in it, which as it so happens I did).

 

But certainly the point would seem to be valid.

[jackson33]

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, and the comment above is certainly true to a large extent, there is the problem in capitalism of huge waste caused by market forces which do not always make the best choices. A good example of this is VHS vs Betamax. VHS was an inferior system but won the format war through better marketing, and all the energy and resources spent on making Betamax was more or less wasted. Recently the same happended with HD-DVD and Blu Ray. All the resources spent on HD-DVD is now wasted. Similar examples exist everywhere.

 

Whilst communist societies can (and did) suffer from a lack of 'competition' to spur on 'progress', I suspect that free market systems are on the whole not much more efficient, just efficient and wasteful in different ways.

 

Choice by the consumer can determine some perceived waste, but to the manufacturer of that style/method of some product, however more often then not it's a determined improvement over something else. It was no different when phonograph records were simultaneously going to 33rpm and 45's, from 78rpm or that CD's eventually took out both markets. Under socialism we would still be using 78's, no one to contest or produce otherwise and very much like 57-58 Chevrolet's still the most common car in Cuba, running or not...The US has grown from a $2 Trillion GDP 1980 to 15 T (48k/person) in 2008 for this reason and Cuba, who was near equals in 1957 holds onto a $144 Billion GDP 2008 (12K/person). That to me is 50 years of waste, not to mention the effects on Russia (hundreds of billions in aid) or to the US with 4 million new immigrants.

[bombus]

Choice by the consumer can determine some perceived waste, but to the manufacturer of that style/method of some product, however more often then not it's a determined improvement over something else. It was no different when phonograph records were simultaneously going to 33rpm and 45's, from 78rpm or that CD's eventually took out both markets. Une tnder socialism we would still be using 78's, no oo contest or produce otherwise and very much like 57-58 Chevrolet's still the most common car in Cuba, running or not...The US has grown from a $2 Trillion GDP 1980 to 15 T (48k/person) in 2008 for this reason and Cuba, who was near equals in 1957 holds onto a $144 Billion GDP 2008 (12K/person). That to me is 50 years of waste, not to mention the effects on Russia (hundreds of billions in aid) or to the US with 4 million new immigrants.

 

I get your point, but it doesn't HAVE to be like that under socialism - or lets call it a planned economy. Remember, the USSR was ahead of the USA in space technology for much of the space race because it put in the effort (although it can be argued without the USA as a competitor would they have bothered?). Also, as a result of a planned system the USSR the state was brought from a medeival level into the 20th Century in about 5 years. If the will is there improvements can occur more rapidly in a planned economy, but without competition would the will be there? I suspect not in many cases.

 

(BTW, I don't think it's fair to base anything on Cuba however, as it's been blockaded for years by the USA which seriously inhibits it's development.)

[Pangloss]

I get your point, but it doesn't HAVE to be like that under socialism - or lets call it a planned economy. Remember, the USSR was ahead of the USA in space technology for much of the space race because it put in the effort (although it can be argued without the USA as a competitor would they have bothered?). Also, as a result of a planned system the USSR the state was brought from a medeival level into the 20th Century in about 5 years.

 

Yes, and then it collapsed miserably under the weight of inefficiency and inability to predict demand. The planned economy was a spectacular failure and one of the main reasons for the USSR's demise.

 

The problem with a completely planned economy is that it's a bit like sorcery. You try to predict where all the needs will be and respond to them in an appropriate and timely fashion, but you've thrown away the most important data input you normally have (the impact of demand on price at market) and you keep getting distracted by social priorities that seem to run counter to what's actually needed.

 

It might work on a small scale, but an economy on the scale of major nations is just too vast to do that with effectively. This is the power of a mixed economy -- exhibiting some degree of control over supply while retaining the important information input of demand.

[GutZ]

To the OP...the biggest thing that jumps out at me is the obvious: Who determines what practice is good or bad and then rewards it? Who is it this great arbiter of truth? God? Me? You? That business? The entire republic?

 

Well I was think more along the lines when knowledge comes from trial an error (which I would believe would be a huge part in finding out that is the best way....was that when we DO find out that we impliement them. Regardless of political BS.

 

Example we know if a company isn't doing well, and they pay their CEO bonuses in the millions...that not helping anyone except CEO and leaving the mess for the general public to clean up. I don't think that's far. I would like to see if a company is failing that they do something about it. Personally I wouldn't care if they fail if it didnt have that much effect on the economy. I like freedom, I believe a company should be able to do whatever they want, but if they purposely or ignorant screw up I think just like safety policies and government regulations, either fine or tax bonuses like Obama wanted to impose.

 

I think that this way of organizing our society is crucial. Who know how long we are going to last on this planet, I think it's time, and I think we understand enough that we ALL should have a common goal of progressing as rapidly and intelligently as possible....that will never happy if we let people do whatever they want.

 

It's not a fair stretch I think. We limit behaviour all the time, there are rules for everything. It just seems the the corporate world lacks it, and they wouldn't need it if every company ran well like Berkshire Hathaway or companies with AAA credit. Maybe model after the best, see what they do and makes regulations around that.

 

Basically make it less likely for a company to tank once it gets to that level, and not to reward failure. Every company so far that I worked for has the mentality of short term profit. I told everyone around that a specific company would die withn the next 10 years....2 years later it filed for bankruptcy, and for what? This was an industrial company that made Die castings for ford and honda. They had the contracts, LOTs...the problem was the mangers were dumb, they forced workers to work beyond their limit, paid them horrble, turnover was ridiculous, the machinery rand at about 60% efficiency, and they NEVER repaired them properly. Again it didn't matter at the time because they were making the contractial agreements but jsut barely....This was a well know company....

 

All they would need is slight adjustment, and they would of been fine...To me...it's a waste. Freedom in market and business is there to give the opportunity to grow, but it seems like lat 10 years people haven't really taken it seriously...

 

That's why I brought this all up.

 

Sorry for my sentence structure spelling and grammar...I''ve been painting all weekend with not much sleep and I had to finish off the rest of my beers before I left so I tried my best to make sense,

[The Bear's Key]

Within unregulated economies, the infrastructure often shows it. What you see in those parts of the world are kids begging for pocket change, makeshift shelters off the roads, and few pockets of wealth (including tourism areas).

 

The most funny part of anti-regulation demands? Business is a main contributor to regulation -- through special interests and paid favors. If you can reduce competition by legal technicalities, the more power to you (literally).

 

The demands against regulation are very like the demands against big government. In reality, the former really just wants to chop at unfavorable regulation and keep the favorable $$-making ones in place (in the form of "do as we please without intervention"), and the latter really wants to chop at the opposition's bread and butter and keep their own in place.

 

It's not entirely like that obviously, but for a good part it seems to be.

[ecoli]

It's not a fair stretch I think. We limit behaviour all the time, there are rules for everything. It just seems the the corporate world lacks it, and they wouldn't need it if every company ran well like Berkshire Hathaway or companies with AAA credit. Maybe model after the best, see what they do and makes regulations around that.

 

You seem to forget that the mortgage-backed derivatives had AAA ratings.

[padren]

Example we know if a company isn't doing well, and they pay their CEO bonuses in the millions...that not helping anyone except CEO and leaving the mess for the general public to clean up. I don't think that's far. I would like to see if a company is failing that they do something about it. Personally I wouldn't care if they fail if it didnt have that much effect on the economy. I like freedom, I believe a company should be able to do whatever they want, but if they purposely or ignorant screw up I think just like safety policies and government regulations, either fine or tax bonuses like Obama wanted to impose.

Well, one huge issue that came out of this crisis is that unwilling third parties did get saddled with costs due to the behavior of other parties with no way to recoup them.

 

I have no problem with a company giving tons of money to a CEO that runs it into the ground because business is a risky and often "fly by the moment" enterprise that only looks easy to figure out in hindsight. There will be some sort of Board of Directors to determine the CEO's pay and evaluates performance, and that board will be determined by the shareholders, which includes any employees that hold stock.

It may be cruel to the employees that they work hard and the company they work for tanks due to bad choices above them that they (assuming they don't own stock, as most don't) have no say in - but that is exactly what they signed up for: A paycheck for hours put in as long as desirable, possibly with some sort of compensation plan under certain termination conditions.

If they signed up for the option to influence the direction of that company - they'd have to be stock holders, and they can, but that requires they put the money in or negotiate it into their terms of employment.

 

Now, if that CEO defrauds the company, there are already regulations in place to put that CEO in jail. They may need to be improved if legal loopholes make it too easy.

 

Also, consider the timing:

A train engineer may be fired after he runs a train off the tracks while over a bridge - and if you watched that in slow motion, you'd be looking at the train falling into a canyon thinking to yourself "and all this time every second that engineer is being paid more money while his train is in free-fall? This is insane!"

 

The bonuses we hear about that make us angry were negotiated far in advance of the big collapse and in hindsight they do seem like a bad idea, but in terms of contract life-spans it's not that big of a deal. I had to pay for internet I wasn't using because my contract had an end date, and I moved. It was smart, then seemed bad - but I took that chance when I signed the contract, and it wasn't necessarily a bad risk, just one that ended up face down.

 

I think that this way of organizing our society is crucial. Who know how long we are going to last on this planet, I think it's time, and I think we understand enough that we ALL should have a common goal of progressing as rapidly and intelligently as possible....that will never happy if we let people do whatever they want.

 

We never have let people "just do what they want" because we've always been aware that often what people want to do is to directly interfere with what other people want to do - resulting in a "might makes right" society that is basically despotic.

 

The thing is it's very hard to know what we should or should not limit, and be very reserved about imposing limits unless they are really justified. I think it's a good idea to have some new laws to prevent this sort of crisis from happening again but it is very important we do not make knee-jerk laws based on some of the more obvious results of the crisis. Right now giant bonuses seem horrible - but they weren't when things were rolling well. Should we put caps in place? The answer should not come from our current anger at this situation and the bonuses going out - but should be based on a simple course of evaluation:

 

Take one issue: "Salaries and bonuses for destroying the economy seem unfair"

 

1) Were free market principles broken in the transaction:

Did fraud, coercion, collusion, or "involuntary third party expense" take place in facilitating those contracts?

 

2) If so, are there regulations in place to prevent this that were violated but unreported?

This tells us if existing laws need more teeth or enforcement, or if new laws are needed.

 

3) Is the issue being examined a result of some greater issue that should be examined first?

Sometimes it's easy to make a mountain out of a molehill when there is a far larger cause that created an actual mountain. The bonuses anger us so much because of the much larger damage, and the fixing of those causes should be a priority.

 

 

Also, it's important to see legislation as almost a surgical procedure: It's messy, creates unforeseen consequences, requires some time for observation to track it's effects and requires time to heal. Businesses adapted to one set of laws suffer trauma as they adjust to new ones - even the good guys. Too much too quick and you get a patient that looks like Frankenstein monster and bruised from head to toe. Regulation, being a very blunt instrument can't be thrown around like you are making god-like perfect incisions. On top of that as the surgeons, we feel hurt by the patient and are less empathic to it's suffering. We need to strive that much harder to remain objective... because even if we hate the cancer it's the whole patient that feels the knife.

[ParanoiA]

Example we know if a company isn't doing well, and they pay their CEO bonuses in the millions...that not helping anyone except CEO and leaving the mess for the general public to clean up. I don't think that's far.

 

No, we don't know that. What if the company was set to tank much worse, months earlier, and by the sheer genius of their new CEO, they were able to merely "not do well"? Did you ever think that he might deserve those bonuses?

 

Depending on the circumstances of the company's position, considering the economy, market issues, and what the CEO's bonus was based, I would say it's quite fair.

 

You're presenting these things as facts, when they are still opinion - business opinion. Let the guy with the capital - the guy with the most to lose, taking all of the risk - handle it like he wants and let us stick to governing.

[waitforufo]

Well there are other reasons to restrict urban growth, but I agree with that example. I live next to a boundary (the Everglades) that has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting human-owned land.

 

The Everglades are publicly owned and are maintained for the benefit of the public. There are indeed many varied reasons why the public would like these lands to be maintained but the public are indeed humans.

[Pangloss]

I could have been clearer: It's not about protecting human-owned land within the Everglades. This was in response to your point about excessive regulation hindering rural development.

[waitforufo]

Well then I guess I could have been clearer as well. I am not talking about land owned by human individuals within the Everglades either. The Everglades is owned collectively by the people of the United States. Those people are humans. Development within the Everglades or outside but still impacting the Everglades could reduce the value of the Everglades for its owners, the people. Development regulation regarding the Everglades protects the value of the Everglades to its owners, the people of the United States. The same is true for other publicly own lands like the national forests, parks, and wildlife preserves.

 

A film produced by the national park service call "The Greatest Good" covers this topic well.

 

One hundred years ago, Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot announced a land management policy that sought to develop wisely all natural resources for “the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time.” The principle of conservation—managing the land and its resources for multiple uses on a sustainable basis—has guided the United States Forest Service since the agency’s creation in 1905.

http://www.fs.fed.us/greatestgood/film/related.shtml?sub2

 

Notice that Gifford Pinchot was for wise development. He understood that the people wanted to exploit their publicly owned property while at the same time preserving it for future generation.

 

This is an example of good regulation.