Regulation and Growth

For a government setting the level of how much to regulate is seen, on the right as something of a tighrope, and on the left, mostly as something which is required but which has little if any downside … the only question for them is how much and will it be enough to do what they hope (if not of course, more will be needed). This is unfortunate because, there is a very significant downside to setting to high of a regulatory burden, namely it can slow or in some cases completly stifle growth. First off, a little clarfication is needed. The term regulation can be widely interpreted as any government law or prescription. Some regulations then, might be conducive to growth like the regulations establishing tech corridors, which can by local proximity allow synergies to develop between neighboring firms. The common meaning of regulations when discussed in the context of business and growth are restrictions and rules of conduct and practice and licensing requirements. This latter meaning is the one I will adhere to in the following. I should also make clear that there are other private and government protocols which are similar to regulations, but not the sort of thing I mean to discuss here. Those protocols (sometimes government enforced, but more often (?) just agreed upon by industry groups) also are called standards. Standard voltages, connectors, or other specifications (consider the plethora of Internet RFCs for examples). These are protocols which when enforced by law and the government are (again) by definition regulations but serve a different purpose. They are different in kind from emmision limits, testing requirements, minimum price/wage laws, and so on.

Different industries in the past decades have been differently regulated. One might suggest that going from a scale of highly to lightly regulated industries one might include nuclear power which might be the most stringently regulated industry we have and the power and oil industries which are tightly regulated to mostly unregulated industries like electronics and electrical engineering products to the almost completely unregulated industries like software publishing (although the large corporations have their dueling over patent and other such rights). 

This issue has been brought up in a variety of context, but I think a more useful approach in discussion is to move to a little more abstraction. Consider an action (in an economic/business perspective) {X} you with to take. In business, each action or endeavor you undertake has an expected return. If the return is not greater than the (anticipated) cost then it isn’t undertaken. Regulations all add additional requirements on your action, your action will require additional paperwork to be filed (at the very least), it may require a fee, additional time, additional requirements to be completed before the action is taken or be prohibited entirely. So {X} then, through regulation has added to it additional external (regulatory) costs. This means that at any given time there are a subset of possible actions to take, in a regulated business environment, which are not feasible due to regulation. 

Regulation on the other hand has expected benefits. Nuclear, financial, and medical regulations are in place in the attempt to prevent or minimize the chance of certain outcomes from happening. Financial regulation, for example, attempts to ward off fraud as well as minimizing the chance finicial melt-downs (like in 2009). It is pretty clear what the aims of most regulation is attempting to do. However, by slowing (or stalling completly) innovation the goal of regulation is often only a short term realization. For example, the regulation to prevent nuclear disaster on the one hand has held releases of radiation (in the West) to astoundingly low levels, but all the reactors in service are of a 50 y/old design and are more than 20 years old. If, for example, the Japanese reactors struck by the tsunami of a 30 y/old Westinghouse design but a newer intrinsically safe reactor (say a He cooled pebble bed or one liquid sodium cooled) the problems being dealt with in the wake of the tsunami would be trivial in comparison to today. But the only way that in turn could have ever happened would be to allow a looser regulatory environment that allows new building, new construction and innovation to take place. So regulation is a way to acheive in the short term what might be cheaper and far better reached in for long termin the absence of that same regulation. The same holds true for healthcare. Global healthcare gains in the long term will be far better realised through innovation than redistribution, greater effectiveness and safety might also be found in the long term by reducing regulation to hold to those things in the present. 

The difference between right and left regarding regulation, as I see it, is that the left tends to minimize or even ignore the existence of the (often quite high) costs of regulation, e.g., regulation has entirely killed of innovation in the Nuclear power industry.  The right on the other hand, sees the high costs clearly and is skeptical about the effectiveness of regulation to perform its appointed tasks. 

What has been surprising to me in conversations about regulation with those on the left fail to even consider or admit that there are any costs at all, high or not, due to regulation. The point is this is a subtext of the debate over healtcare, the new financial regulations, and other issues in Congress. The left’s strategy has been to ignore or deny any suggestion of costs to regulation, they seem to take that as both negiligble and irrelevant to policy discussion for the most part. 

To put this in context. Suppose an effective cure for an illness, say AIDS is 24 years off … and that regulation is slowing innovation by 50% at this time (this is very conservative, I’d think that regulation is slowing innovation far more). If the regulatory burden was halved, doubling the rate of innovation that 24 years would be twelve. The regulation making innovation safer in just this one instance would cut out 12 years of people’s suffering. The question at hand really is whether the personal injuries resulting from the release of some of the regulatory burden would be greater or less than the benefits from finding cures that much faster. 

This latter point, that the costs of healthcare regulation for example is negligible would be laughable if ignoring or not was unimportant. Recently one of the booming new avenues in healthcare has been the rise of companies whose sole purpose is to “handle” for either your doctor’s office or for individuals navigation of the maze of regulations. In fact the existence and advances in effectiveness of such companies has been cites as a “savings” that the new healthcare bill wishes to exploit. The problem is of course that the entire need for this bill is one manufactured by regulations, for which new regulations are creating agencies that will assist with the same. Yossarian would be proud. We however are left with no pride in that, and fewer options. 

19 responses to “Regulation and Growth

  1. The difference between right and left regarding regulation, as I see it, is that the left tends to minimize or even ignore the existence of the (often quite high) costs of regulation, e.g., regulation has entirely killed of innovation in the Nuclear power industry. The right on the other hand, sees the high costs clearly and is skeptical about the effectiveness of regulation to perform its appointed tasks.

    I disagree. The left, as I see it, sees the need for regulation. The right often prefers to live in denial with such claims as “there is no AGW” and “this industry can regulate itself” and “the free market will take care of that” etc. etc.

  2. JA,
    Uhm.

    The right often prefers to live in denial with such claims as “there is no AGW” and “this industry can regulate itself” and “the free market will take care of that” etc. etc.

    Is that your interpretation of my statement

    “The right on the other hand, sees the high costs clearly and is skeptical about the effectiveness of regulation to perform its appointed tasks. “

    That is what I wrote. Is that just not merely a more charitable way to say exactly the same thing you claimed. Should I have said you are “in denial” over the costs of regulation?

    Oil drilling was and remains extremely highly regulated in the gulf. How’d that work out? So was the financial sector. How’d that work out? Why is it that you continue to consider that regulation qua regulation is very effective at all as compared to the absence of the same. Software basically completely unregulated. How many viruses or trojans do you get in your downloaded or shrink-wrapped software? Hmmm? You do realize an unscrupulous company (which you regularly seem to assume is the default) could really profit from a little info skimming hidden in their software.

  3. There’s some core ideas here worth considering. One is trying to extract a ‘cost’ of a proposed regulation. But one has to compute it as a net cost. To use an earlier example I cited, eateries are required to have doors on their bathrooms with springs that automatically close them. The reasoning is doors between bathrooms and eating areas and food prep areas create are a barrier to flies who would otherwise spread contanimation from the bathroom to the food areas.

    How much does this cost? That question isn’t so easy to answer. Is it plausible that all restruarants would have no doors on their bathrooms absent the regulation? Is it possible that fear of being sued may induce them to put such a door on absent a regulation (the door is probably cheaper in the long run than staying on top of your employees to clean the bathrooms often).

    If you compute the cost as simply the number of places subject to the regulations times their bathrooms times the cost of the door….well you’re going to get a huge number but dropping the regulation will likely produce little if any detectable growth.

    On nukes, let’s just be clear there’s been no great spur of regulatory crackdown on nuclear power. Nuclear’s problems is that in order to achieve the lowest possible costs you need a huge plant, a huge amount of money and a huge amount of time. In the meantime low prices for natural gas and coal has meant that Return on Invetment projections for nuclear got a lot worse in many spreadsheets.

    Additionally, let’s not make too too much of ‘no new plants have been built in X years’. There’s lots of things that are like this, though. There’s been no major bridges built across or under the Hudson in quite a while. No new major airports in NY-NJ. Come to think of it, there’s been no major new fast food hamburger places in at least twenty years, probably more either.

    Part of this may indeed be regulatory drag but a large factor is that an existing plant often has advantages over ones that don’t exist.

    * A lot of essential infrastructure is already in place. Nuclear ideally wants to be near major power users in order to market its strong baseline generation, near a body of water for cooling, but also can’t be using the highest priced land in an area. Not surprisingly, many already existing plants targetted the best locations.

    * Since you’re not building from scratch, you can often retrofit the existing plant for less money.

    * You already got an experienced workforce in place around the area.

    I’m not saying that no nuclear project has ever been nuked by regulation, but the fact is you got economics dragging down nuclear and as far as new plants go for the investor who wants to pour money into nuclear investing in existing plants is in direct competition for his investment dollar as brand new ones. In fact, if anything nuclear is a net beneficary of regulation enjoying guarantees from the gov’t for loans & caps on its liabilities that other power companies don’t get….which leads me too….

    Some regulations then, might be conducive to growth like the regulations establishing tech corridors, which can by local proximity allow synergies to develop between neighboring firms. The common meaning of regulations when discussed in the context of business and growth are restrictions and rules of conduct and practice and licensing requirements.

    What exactly are these regulations that ‘establish tech corridors’? I always assumed the best model to explain them and other ‘cooridors’ was simply network effects. If an area has a company in industry X, it’s easier for other companies in the same industry to move in and take advantage of a local workforce, infrastructure etc. What regulations would you have that ‘establish tech corridors’ that don’t also restrict business practices?

  4. Is that your interpretation of my statement

    You were trying to present the right as clear-eyed on the subject. I believe they are the opposite of clear-eyed on the subject.

    Regarding your examples, the financial sector may be “highly” regulated but that isn’t the same as “well” regulated. The fact is that better regulations could have prevented the tragedy.

    Please don’t pretend that I (or the left) mindlessly supports all regulations at all times. That’s a straw man. We support good regulations when necessary/beneficial.

  5. JA,

    Regarding your examples, the financial sector may be “highly” regulated but that isn’t the same as “well” regulated. The fact is that better regulations could have prevented the tragedy.

    And you think this is an accident? Your party just foisted a zillion pages of more bad regulation on the financial sector. Cheerio.

    You were trying to present the right as clear-eyed on the subject. I believe they are the opposite of clear-eyed on the subject.

    LOL. So says the cost-of-regulation denier.

    And yes, I think the position that regulation is rarely “good” is clear eyed. The reverse is not.

  6. Boonton,

    One is trying to extract a ‘cost’ of a proposed regulation. But one has to compute it as a net cost. To use an earlier example I cited, eateries are required to have doors on their bathrooms with springs that automatically close them. The reasoning is doors between bathrooms and eating areas and food prep areas create are a barrier to flies who would otherwise spread contanimation from the bathroom to the food areas.

    You don’t need a regulation for that … what eatery is not going to put a spring in without regulation? None. Not a single eatery is going to want people leaving that door open (or worse letting some perv expose himself accidentally on purpose).

    On nukes, let’s just be clear there’s been no great spur of regulatory crackdown on nuclear power.

    Never said there was. The huge burden of regulatory costs has been in place for decades.

    Nuclear’s problems is that in order to achieve the lowest possible costs you need a huge plant, a huge amount of money and a huge amount of time.

    Untrue. Nuclear’s problem is the assumption (which is false) that to acheive the lowest possible costs you need a huge plant.

    What exactly are these regulations that ‘establish tech corridors’?

    Typically they come in the form of tax breaks for tech companies.

    What regulations would you have that ‘establish tech corridors’ that don’t also restrict business practices?

    If you’re not a tech company … no tax break for you.

  7. And you think this is an accident?

    No, I think big finance owns both parties, unfortunately. That doesn’t make regulation bad, it makes legalized bribery bad.

    LOL. So says the cost-of-regulation denier.

    Straw man. Never denied there are costs to regulation..

  8. I’m not sure the purpose of financial regulation is really to prevent a bubble. Bubble’s by nature are highly unpredictable and I suspect they ‘want’ to happen they will seek out wherever the regulation is weakest. More serious housing loan regulation would have hit upon predatory lenders pushing horrible loans on unsuspecting people, financial institutions would have been a bit less leveraged and would have been made to put up more capital behind their speculations. But I’m not sure that in itself would have stopped a bubble rather than just taking some of the edge off of it. I’m not sure you can really stop a bubble, unless you’re going to tank the economy to do so. After WWI, for example, Germany’s central banker decided that the stock market in Germany was in a bubble. He ‘ordered’ it to lower itself and raised interest rates to force it down. He did deflate the stock market, but also tanked the economy into a recession. Since you ended up with a recession anyway why not just let the bubble happen and worry about dealing with the aftermath?

    You don’t need a regulation for that … what eatery is not going to put a spring in without regulation? None. Not a single eatery is going to want people leaving that door open (or worse letting some perv expose himself accidentally on purpose).

    So then the regulation has zero cost since while it may take up many pages, it’s more or less enacting stuff most people will do anyway.

    Untrue. Nuclear’s problem is the assumption (which is false) that to acheive the lowest possible costs you need a huge plant.

    I’m not clear then what’s the problem. Call your local friendly venture capital fund and let them know.

    Typically they come in the form of tax breaks for tech companies.

    Translation: Tax increases for non-tech companies. But I think you hit upon the issue. Regulation is often not burdensome in the sense you try to depict because the regulated exercise a great amount of influence on the regulation. What’s more likely to happen, IMO, is that network effects create a ‘tech corridor’, tech companies then lobby for special tax breaks (i.e. tax increases on everyone else) and other special rules which reinforce the network.

    Another example was the town my friend’s parents retired too. They built a house there, interesting place….every house design had to be approved by the town. No house could look too much like the other houses. Needless to say this regulation was inflicted not against the homeowners of the town but by the homeowners in order to keep their home values as high as possible.

  9. Boonton,

    I’m not clear then what’s the problem.

    Uhm, hello? Try excessive regulations such as requiring annual emissions (of radiation) to be less for nuclear plants than coal plant’s daily emissions. How about changing statutes regarding the freedom of environmental group to block construction at any time for yet another environmental study. How about … (the list goes on).

    Regulation is often not burdensome in the sense you try to depict because the regulated exercise a great amount of influence on the regulation.

    Except that in the prelude to this piece this isn’t the sort of regulation I’m talking about. Your housing example however is. So, do you admit those regulations inflicted costs?

  10. JA,

    Never denied there are costs to regulation..

    Oh please. I spent a week trying to get you an Boonton to admit that there are costs which reduce the rate of innovation that come with healthcare regulation. I still don’t’ think you’ve admitted to that as yet.

    No, I think big finance owns both parties, unfortunately. That doesn’t make regulation bad, it makes legalized bribery bad.

    And every single regulation that comes in contact with large companies has this sort of problem. I’m guessing that’s where you’d also blame the failure of the Gulf/Oil drilling regulations. So … if regulation as a normal state are bad … why do you support more of them? Why then is someone being skeptical of their impact and usefulness a “denier” if the normal state is that they are normally ineffective and inflict costs as well?

  11. Uhm, hello? Try excessive regulations such as requiring annual emissions (of radiation) to be less for nuclear plants than coal plant’s daily emissions

    Care to be a bit more specific? http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/iodine.html seems to indicate that the EPA regulations emmission of radioactive iodine from nuclear plants. However because fuel reprocessing doesn’t happen in most US plants, the release of this element is rather minimal assuming nothing really bad is happening at the plant.

    So given this what is it that you’re asking for? Maybe you’re asking that coal plants get the same treatment. In that case you’ll increase the cost of coal based power generation thereby making nuclear more appealing. But you’re doing it through regulation (the coal plant owners aren’t going to think you’re lowering regulatory burdens!). Or you could relax the rules on nuclear plants. But since iodine emissions are already pretty minimal, how is that going to save any money for the nuclear plant thereby making it more appealing? It sounds like a case of dropping the door requirement on bathrooms.

  12. Boonton,

    So given this what is it that you’re asking for? Maybe you’re asking that coal plants get the same treatment. In that case you’ll increase the cost of coal based power generation thereby making nuclear more appealing.

    Huh? Are you pretending that Iodine release is the only regulation regarding radioactive release? Please.

    Now if you told me that no one really wanted Laden captured, no one expected him to be captured I could buy that. I could also buy that the orders were written with a very strong ‘wiff’ of “kill unless you’re absolutely perfectly sure you can capture him with no danger to your team”. That’s not a ‘kill order’ but I’ll grant you it would make it very hard for Osama to have surrendered safely if he wanted to do so.

    How is an order that in no practical interpretation could result in capture not be a kill order?

  13. Boonton,
    Specifically, in Three Mile Island the release was mainly Argon and Krypton isotopes. This, being as you note, completely unregulated went ignored.

    What Planet do you come from? That isn’t what happened at all.

    Clearly (it should have been clear) is that I’m asking for the regulations regarding release of radioactive isotopes for nuclear plants be in accord with what is already released by coal plants.

  14. How is an order that in no practical interpretation could result in capture not be a kill order?

    Didn’t say no practical interpretation, just a rather difficult one.

    Clearly (it should have been clear) is that I’m asking for the regulations regarding release of radioactive isotopes for nuclear plants be in accord with what is already released by coal plants.

    So you want the ‘limit’ raised to be in accord with coal. But bear with me, let’s talk about iodine since I actually found some info about it, just for the sake of argument, assume that coal plants emit some small amount of radioactive iodine too. Note what the EPA says about iodine emissions from nuke plants:

    Cracked rods can release radioactive iodine into the water that surrounds and cools the fuel rods. There, it circulates with the cooling water throughout the system, ending up in the airborne, liquid, and solid wastes from the reactor. From time to time, reactor gas capture systems release gases, including iodine, to the environment under applicable regulations.

    Herein is the difficulty in comparing hetrogenous regulations. For coal, a tiny bit of radioactive emmission is the iceberg. For nuclear, a small amount may be the tip of the iceberg. Asking a nuclear plant to limit its emmissions might simply be a requirement that they keep the plant in decent order, asking coal to do the same is basically banning coal. Even on the surface, the regulation that ‘looks’ the same may not really be.

  15. http://www.slate.com/id/2293009/ seems to indicate that the ‘story’ of Bin Laden’s death may be being managed for strategic purposes. The truth then is that we both may have to wait until we are old men to hear the true story. I’m skeptical, though, that the other Slate.com story is legit. From what I’ve read about ‘Team Six’, they are a quiet bunch and even if they aren’t why assume they have even arrived stateside already and have begun leaking to reporters?

  16. Boonton,

    From what I’ve read about ‘Team Six’, they are a quiet bunch and even if they aren’t why assume they have even arrived stateside already and have begun leaking to reporters?

    I’ve assumed no such thing. Who has? I’d be shocked and appalled if the SEALS said a thing to the press or anyone else without authorization for that matter.

    So, the story has been managed …. hmm. To what end? Managed well? From the WH we’ve had many statements and retractions. What sort of management is *that*?

  17. Boonton,
    For the nuclear plant, the small amount “might be” the tip of an iceberg, it might not (if it comes from a cracked rod … if one rod is cracked that will not cause the cracking of other rods … it would just be the iceberg).

    JA,
    I should point out … I’m not asking for “no regulations” in any venue, be it nuclear, healthcare, or finance. The point is, that “more”, “smarter”, and “better” regulation is a chimera. You need to think of it as a tightrope. If you have to little regulation that can cause. If you have too much (which is generically the case in the US in most areas) then you also that also causes problems. Most matters self-regulate better than you’d naively expect ..

  18. I’ve assumed no such thing. Who has? I’d be shocked and appalled if the SEALS said a thing to the press or anyone else without authorization for that matter.

    Slate has a whole series that goes into a lot of details about the attacks, including even that Osama was in his pj’s. Where this is coming from is, IMO, a more interesting question than the details themselves. Are the people talking to reporters passing themselves off as members of the team? If so how is the media confirming that? Or, more likely, the reporters are talking to people who have access to the reports, briefings and summaries of the attack…but then there’s no way to confirm that these people aren’t spinning, fabricating or telling the truth.

    So, the story has been managed …. hmm. To what end? Managed well? From the WH we’ve had many statements and retractions. What sort of management is *that*?

    Well part of the management has clearly been to discredit Al Qaeda. The early emphasis on the luxury of his home was clearly managed to deflate the Al Qaeda narrative of bin Laden & co. as ascetic, religious cave dwellers whose only motive was fighting for Islam. Presumably the call for a 19 yr old wifeless male to go kill himself for jihad will not be as appealing if he sees it as coming from an old man living in a mansion in comfort with his four to five wives. Ditto for the initial stories emphasizing the women in the compound being human shields later changed to just ‘leaping in front’….either way it does seem to discredit Osama to have his women fighting Americans instead of loyal jihadist men.

    Likewise it may well be that the orders were kill not matter what….but that part doesn’t want to be released because it may play too much into making Osama into a matyre….like Che became after his death. Maybe the end then is to create a cloud of confusion around Osama’s death, no real way to know what the truth is or who to trust regarding the details but to plant the seeds of a dishonorable death in the mind to short circuit future attempts to use the dead bin Laden as a rallying symbol. There’s a historical precident for this, the FBI tried the same with Martin Luther King Jr. It planted and fed stories that he had mistresses, cavorted with communists etc. The purpose wasn’t to have those individual stories gain great credibility, it was to boost the credibility that there was ‘something not quite honorable’ about MLK that they wanted to push. The same thing might be going on here….which of course means the truth is really going to have to be written by historians decades from now.

    For the nuclear plant, the small amount “might be” the tip of an iceberg, it might not (if it comes from a cracked rod … if one rod is cracked that will not cause the cracking of other rods … it would just be the iceberg).

    Think of the broken window idea here. A plant that would let one rod crack and leave it that way for a while maybe one that would let others do the same….or it may be one that if a diaster struck their lacadasical behavior would set off a major release (as has appeared to have happened in Japan).

    The point is that for a nuclear plant it makes sense to crack down on minor releases because that may be the tip of an iceberg. For a coal plant, at least as far as radioactive releases are concerned, it makes no sense. No matter how reckless you are with coal, you’re never going to do anything more than release a small amount of radioactive material.

  19. I’ve assumed no such thing. Who has? I’d be shocked and appalled if the SEALS said a thing to the press or anyone else without authorization for that matter.

    Slate has a whole series that goes into a lot of details about the attacks, including even that Osama was in his pj’s. Where this is coming from is, IMO, a more interesting question than the details themselves. Are the people talking to reporters passing themselves off as members of the team? If so how is the media confirming that? Or, more likely, the reporters are talking to people who have access to the reports, briefings and summaries of the attack…but then there’s no way to confirm that these people aren’t spinning, fabricating or telling the truth.

    So, the story has been managed …. hmm. To what end? Managed well? From the WH we’ve had many statements and retractions. What sort of management is *that*?

    Well part of the management has clearly been to discredit Al Qaeda. The early emphasis on the luxury of his home was clearly managed to deflate the Al Qaeda narrative of bin Laden & co. as ascetic, religious cave dwellers whose only motive was fighting for Islam. Presumably the call for a 19 yr old wifeless male to go kill himself for jihad will not be as appealing if he sees it as coming from an old man living in a mansion in comfort with his four to five wives. Ditto for the initial stories emphasizing the women in the compound being human shields later changed to just ‘leaping in front’….either way it does seem to discredit Osama to have his women fighting Americans instead of loyal jihadist men.

    Likewise it may well be that the orders were kill not matter what….but that part doesn’t want to be released because it may play too much into making Osama into a matyre….like Che became after his death. Maybe the end then is to create a cloud of confusion around Osama’s death, no real way to know what the truth is or who to trust regarding the details but to plant the seeds of a dishonorable death in the mind to short circuit future attempts to use the dead bin Laden as a rallying symbol. There’s a historical precident for this, the FBI tried the same with Martin Luther King Jr. It planted and fed stories that he had mistresses, cavorted with communists etc. The purpose wasn’t to have those individual stories gain great credibility, it was to boost the credibility that there was ‘something not quite honorable’ about MLK that they wanted to push. The same thing might be going on here….which of course means the truth is really going to have to be written by historians decades from now.

    For the nuclear plant, the small amount “might be” the tip of an iceberg, it might not (if it comes from a cracked rod … if one rod is cracked that will not cause the cracking of other rods … it would just be the iceberg).

    Think of the broken window idea here. A plant that would let one rod crack and leave it that way for a while maybe one that would let others do the same….or it may be one that if a diaster struck their lacadasical behavior would set off a major release (as has appeared to have happened in Japan).

    The point is that for a nuclear plant it makes sense to crack down on minor releases because that may be the tip of an iceberg. For a coal plant, at least as far as radioactive releases are concerned, it makes no sense. No matter how reckless you are with coal, you’re never going to do anything more than release a small amount of radioactive material.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>