Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

LightNews

@tejparikh.ft.com

560 followers 4 following 91 posts

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 2d

I hope that's a good thing!

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 2d

(2/2) For weekly data-driven contrarian perspectives, subscribe here: ep.ft.com/newsletters/...
if you're a standard subscriber, upgrade to premium here: ft.com/manage/subsc...

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 2d

Check out the latest edition of my @financialtimes.com newsletter. (1/2)

Welcome to Schrödinger’s economy, where the US looks both resilient and fragile, Trump’s policy agenda appears at once disruptive and oddly inconsequential, and markets feel euphoric yet uneasy: on.ft.com/4n0nO4a

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 7d

Send @financialtimes.com your questions on the global economy and I will answer them, alongside Martin E. Sandbu, in a live Q&A from 1pm to 2pm (BST) on Thursday October 9.
www.ft.com/content/b355...

Submit your questions: Can the global economy withstand new shocks?

Take part in a live Ask an Expert Q&A with the FT’s Tej Parikh and Martin Sandbu on Thursday October 9 at 1pm BST

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

I not sure what you mean. Its possible for both the burden of regulation to be rising, and for regulators to be playing catch up for failed regulation before. The article runs through 3 reasons why the supposed rise in paperload. There are several drivers, and I agree Adam that yours is one factor.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

Yes, that is part of my argument....in my write up

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

im not the one compelling what language you use or misrepresenting your argument, youve done that. the article simply says edcessive regulation is bad, and its caused some sort of meltdown among some here.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

surely that only means i have a clearer experience and knowledge about the risks of businesses calling for regulations...not sure how calling out large businesses for creating anti competitive legislation is "capitalist bollocks".

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

Ok. My assumption then is that you dont think redtape, regulation or whatever other synonym one might use is a significant problem. We can disagree.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

Ok, I won't use the word "red tape" or complain anymore. Any further diktats?

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · 29d

so a high amount of bureacuracy doesnt hurt small businesses and poor people?

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

"Seems to have forgotten"....the conclusion says that big cuts, aimlessly make things worse. Does everyone see a headline, then assume the writer's motive and politics, and then type their hot take here?

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Thanks for your advice. But not everyone is triggered by that word equally. Some, clearly on this platform are. But most aren't. So, as a writer, I also need to play the odds. Otherwise one will find it impossible to write anything given the plethora of words people get triggered by.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Yes but we know its it rammed with random reliefs, thresholds and carve outs created by lobby groups....that arent to do with the economic complexity point.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Right the difference is that I believe it can be simplified without causing widespread harm, and that it can in fact create benefits. The complexity hurts smaller companies, and indeed households that can't afford the tax help.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

So I should not be allowed to use the word "red tape" in my articles?

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

If it helps, individual sectors in the west can be submerged in bad regulation too, including those that are promoted by large companies lobbying to keep small companies out of the market. do you not agree with that?

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Its a proxy for carve outs, thresholds, reliefs which add complexity to the tax code. word count isnt a perfect measure. but the length and complexity of the code is pretty much widely acknowledged

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Why do people on here swing to the most extreme intepretation...Im not at all suggesting we just swipe chunks of legislation, I say that explicitly in the piece. It seems like most assume the piece will be free marketeer porn, before even reading the piece

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

There are other metrics used in the piece. I'm aware replacements and consolidations means all aren't new regulations. At best there are proxies for this kind of thing. I dont have an agenda here.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Yes. Which is the question i raise in my conclusion, among others.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

The argument I make is not for a free for all. There is a middle ground. Genuinely stunned by the black and white responses to a simple point that filling out excessive paperwork isnt always a good thing.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

Red tape is a term for bureaucracy. Its incredible how many people are triggered by a word, and dont bother to understand what argument is even being made.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

It means better regulation, not necessarily more. Thats the argument I make.

tejparikh.ft.com @tejparikh.ft.com · Sep 14

The article mentions that. Nuance. Regulation can be both good and bad. Lets try and advance the discourse a little further please.