government regulations

http://www.economist.com/node/21547789


"Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions."

...................


"Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis."

But lending is complex....it is not like someone can borrow money and just pay it back under a simple agreement, that just won't work....

(kidding).

The worse part is that before this rule it was already hard to set up a bank/lending institution, I was close, now this stuff is only reserved for the larger institutions, but that is the end result of most regs, all things get pushed to larger organizations/companies/govts and individuals have less oportunity in order to be safe and equal. If you would have done well without the regs, you will do worse now, if you did poorly before regs, it will get easier for you, that's why we made the regs.