4 ms·

It's not market regulation's fault. It's the people.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Market is people. More than that - market is what happens when you let people do whatever. Regulating the market is literally trying to adjust for people's systemic failures.
- vmateixeira 11y ago
  Adjusting according to the needs of? And why does that needs to happen?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    To the needs of people. As determined by the government (which, in democracies, is supposed to follow the will of people). Determining and acting on the will of people is sort of the only job of the government. Why does that needs to happen? Because otherwise you get Congo. Europe used to be like that, and our forefathers fought their way out of it with their own blood. Ask yourself - why is it that you buy food and beverages in your local supermarket or restaurant, and you're not worrying it will poison you? Why is that you can safely buy an electrical appliance and connect it to your wall socket without burning the house down? It's not because free market. It's because those segments of the market have been heavily regulated, and those regulations came to counter various shenanigans companies were pulling off. Markets do not start regulated, they get regulated - and they get regulated because they're too good at their only job - optimizing for profitability. Regulation is there to stop otherwise profitable abuses from happening.
    - vmateixeira 11y ago
      I can see your point and to be honest I kind of agree with you. In unpolluted democracies that's how it should happen. I don't want to sound too negative but, unfortunately, as governments are funded by big corporations, this is what happens nowadays: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth and even with regulations in place. Companies want to grow more and more every year, even despite sometimes the market being saturated. How it that only possible? Cutting costs - Congo is what makes this possible. Congo and our will for buying such products. My point is that only people can change this, by not buying. If we don't buy, only then companies will change - You need to talk their language - You need to get to their pocket - money. With this I don't mean that the market doesn't need regulations, pretty much the opposite. I'm just saying that most of the times regulation only is not enough.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I agree with you. And you're totally right about how governments are really being on payroll. "Not buying" isn't a bad solution per se - it would work perfectly well if we could coordinate enough people to change their shopping habits. But it's close to impossible, both because coordination is a Hard Problem, and because the market doesn't offer alternatives. People would have to reduce their quality of life, and it's not something humans generally do out of ideological reasons. There's only so much things one person can care about strongly, and those things seem to be somewhat randomly distributed, ensuring you can't get enough people to strongly care about the same thing. Regulatory bodies, like markets, follows incentives - those incentives may be different, but the mechanism is the same. One of them is the funding from big corporations you mentioned. Another one, in democracies, is popularity. I think it's easier to convince (almost) everyone to care about some issue enough to change their voting patterns than it is to make them stop buying stuff. Therefore, the regulatory change may be easier to achieve than "vote with your wallet" market change. That still requires a lot of coordinating effort though.
        vmateixeira 11y ago
        Yes, you're right, it's almost impossible to get enough people to support a certain movement. My concern with "regulation voting" is that regulations may win elections even though they may have few holes (sometimes on purpose). But that's actually the best we can get. Thanks for your comment.

Market is people. More than that - market is what happens when you let people do whatever. Regulating the market is literally trying to adjust for people's systemic failures.

vmateixeira 11y ago
Adjusting according to the needs of? And why does that needs to happen?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  To the needs of people. As determined by the government (which, in democracies, is supposed to follow the will of people). Determining and acting on the will of people is sort of the only job of the government. Why does that needs to happen? Because otherwise you get Congo. Europe used to be like that, and our forefathers fought their way out of it with their own blood. Ask yourself - why is it that you buy food and beverages in your local supermarket or restaurant, and you're not worrying it will poison you? Why is that you can safely buy an electrical appliance and connect it to your wall socket without burning the house down? It's not because free market. It's because those segments of the market have been heavily regulated, and those regulations came to counter various shenanigans companies were pulling off. Markets do not start regulated, they get regulated - and they get regulated because they're too good at their only job - optimizing for profitability. Regulation is there to stop otherwise profitable abuses from happening.
  - vmateixeira 11y ago
    I can see your point and to be honest I kind of agree with you. In unpolluted democracies that's how it should happen. I don't want to sound too negative but, unfortunately, as governments are funded by big corporations, this is what happens nowadays: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth and even with regulations in place. Companies want to grow more and more every year, even despite sometimes the market being saturated. How it that only possible? Cutting costs - Congo is what makes this possible. Congo and our will for buying such products. My point is that only people can change this, by not buying. If we don't buy, only then companies will change - You need to talk their language - You need to get to their pocket - money. With this I don't mean that the market doesn't need regulations, pretty much the opposite. I'm just saying that most of the times regulation only is not enough.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I agree with you. And you're totally right about how governments are really being on payroll. "Not buying" isn't a bad solution per se - it would work perfectly well if we could coordinate enough people to change their shopping habits. But it's close to impossible, both because coordination is a Hard Problem, and because the market doesn't offer alternatives. People would have to reduce their quality of life, and it's not something humans generally do out of ideological reasons. There's only so much things one person can care about strongly, and those things seem to be somewhat randomly distributed, ensuring you can't get enough people to strongly care about the same thing. Regulatory bodies, like markets, follows incentives - those incentives may be different, but the mechanism is the same. One of them is the funding from big corporations you mentioned. Another one, in democracies, is popularity. I think it's easier to convince (almost) everyone to care about some issue enough to change their voting patterns than it is to make them stop buying stuff. Therefore, the regulatory change may be easier to achieve than "vote with your wallet" market change. That still requires a lot of coordinating effort though.
      - vmateixeira 11y ago
        Yes, you're right, it's almost impossible to get enough people to support a certain movement. My concern with "regulation voting" is that regulations may win elections even though they may have few holes (sometimes on purpose). But that's actually the best we can get. Thanks for your comment.