And actually people like Mansour Olson...

Mancur Olson.

But the point is... just as there is an unreasonable tendency among liberals to assume that government is the answer to everything, there is an equally flawed assumption among conservatives that any time the government gets involved it is a cause of concern.

Hmmm, I'd disagree with this characterization. I'd say that it should be worded as follows:

But the point is... just as there is an unreasonable tendency among liberals to assume that government is the answer to everything, there is an equally flawed assumption among conservatives that the government isn't the answer.

In this case the two positions are similar. I also think one should always have cause for concern when the government gets involved since control over the government is imprecise at best.

Further, I'd also question the use of the word "conservative" above. Today many "conservatives" as represented by the government have no problems with the government getting involved in various areas. National defense, national security, immigration, even education and health care are now areas "conservatives" as represented by the Republican Pary have now gotten into and used the government to achieve various objectives.

Now that we are all in agreement on that... i.e. that sometimes government regulation is beneficial, sometimes not, and that it is really a case-by-case issue... why are "we" so upset that the democratically elected leaders of Berkeley may choose to expand regulation in the area of energy efficiency?

Lets not fetishize democracy as something that always gives us good results.

just as there is an unreasonable tendency among liberals to assume that government is the answer to everything,

is not the inverse of

[the] assumption among conservatives that any time the government gets involved it is a cause of concern.

There is nothing that indicates the answer has to be one way or the other in all instances. The answer is an empirical question and should be answered on a case-by-case basis.

Absolutely.

I actually accept that a (constrained) government is the least objectionable way to provide for that infrastructure, but it's just tedious to read such a simplistic conflation of the two.

Yes, indeed.

And actually people like Mansour Olson have shown that rent seeking by special interests does until lead to a certain degree of stagnation.

But the point is... just as there is an unreasonable tendency among liberals to assume that government is the answer to everything, there is an equally flawed assumption among conservatives that any time the government gets involved it is a cause of concern.

Now that we are all in agreement on that... i.e. that sometimes government regulation is beneficial, sometimes not, and that it is really a case-by-case issue... why are "we" so upset that the democratically elected leaders of Berkeley may choose to expand regulation in the area of energy efficiency?

In regards to regulations there is also the issue of rent seeking. To the extent that rent seeking results in less competition and monopolistic competition then there is again a dead weight loss. Those gains from trade are again, simply lost. Again wealth is destroyed. Now it could be that the regulations result in better products (for example) that increase welfare and offset that loss.

The bottomline is that yes, taxes and regulations destroy wealth, or at least the gains from trade. However, those losses can be offset. For example providing public goods that absent government might be under provided could offset that deadweight loss associated with taxes. There is nothing that indicates the answer has to be one way or the other in all instances. The answer is an empirical question and should be answered on a case-by-case basis.

You doing any of those does not adversely affect me. You drinking and smoking at home does not affect me. You drinking and smoking in public does affect me, therefore there is recourse for government intervention.

Sure they do.

1. It would adversely impact insurance rates.
2. It would use up resources--contrary to public misperception health care is NOT a public good.

The simple fact is that the most prosperous countries in the world and the most prosperous regions in the United States are largely (not wholly, but largely) those with the highest taxes and regulations. The relationship is long-lasting and statistically significant.

I'd have to wonder about causality though. Does higher government regulation and taxation lead to more wealth or does more wealth lead to higher taxation and government regulation?

But regardless, what is also clear is that high-taxes don't seem to particularly destroy wealth either.

Depends on what high-taxes mean. If taxes get high enough people might decide to opt of more leisure/home production vs. work since taxes on labor income make leisure relatively cheaper.

The simple fact is that the most prosperous countries in the world and the most prosperous regions in the United States are largely (not wholly, but largely) those with the highest taxes and regulations. The relationship is long-lasting and statistically significant.

You're giving a pass to the question of those high taxes being the cause of that prosperity, or existing simply because in a more prosperous country, they CAN exist.

The taxes don't create the wealth, Bernard.

I don't know about that. Maybe a relatively large government is a requirement of economic growth nowadays. I'll see what I can track down research-wise.

But regardless, what is also clear is that high-taxes don't seem to particularly destroy wealth either.

Take the U.S. out of mix for a moment and tell me what your general conclusion is about the standard of living in high-tax/high regulation countries vs. low-tax/low-regulation countries.

The list is an interesting mix, in that China, Estonia, and others are high regulation states and some low regulation states like Taiwan are very livable.

Most advanced states seem to regulate and tax more (the two go hand-in-hand, really) as they complexify. It's interesting that Australia, generally considered to be much less regulated (economically, at least) than the US is ranked ahead of us in that regard.

post hoc fallacy

How so?

The simple fact is that the most prosperous countries in the world and the most prosperous regions in the United States are largely (not wholly, but largely) those with the highest taxes and regulations. The relationship is long-lasting and statistically significant.

Great link James, btw. It makes my point better than I ever could. Thank you. And yes, I'd prefer to be here as well. But that is for a large number of reason, and it is hard to be objective about our home country that way. Take the U.S. out of mix for a moment and tell me what your general conclusion is about the standard of living in high-tax/high regulation countries vs. low-tax/low-regulation countries.

Sure, but the same can be said about a great many activities as Drew noted. In addition to skiing how about this list:

Scuba diving,
Water skiing,
Recreational boating,
Motorcycle riding,
Rock climbing,
Basketball,
Bicycling and
Skateboarding.

You doing any of those does not adversely affect me. You drinking and smoking at home does not affect me. You drinking and smoking in public does affect me, therefore there is recourse for government intervention.

You consuming a disproportionate amount of a limited resource affects me, so again there is recourse for government intervention.

There is an insight post hoc fallacy there if you choose to look for it. Massachusetts is wealthier than Mississippi, New York wealthier than North Dakota, California wealthier than the Carolinas.

Population density predicts wealth? Or government regulation?

Both, I'd imagine. Certainly the latter. The closer one's proximity to one's neighbors, the more desire for regulation of their behavior.

make a list of the 10 countries with the most regulation and taxes and the 10 countries with the least... and pick where you'd prefer to live

A quick scan of the Forbes Misery Index shows a pretty interesting mix. I wouldn't want to live in most of the countries with lower taxes than the US but prefer here to most of the countries ahead of us.

True. I think the exogenous variable is population density.

Population density predicts wealth? Or government regulation?

I'm just saying, make a list of the 10 countries with the most regulation and taxes and the 10 countries with the least... and pick where you'd prefer to live.