5 ms·

Part of the problem with regulated markets in the US (and not just power) is that the ingrained distaste for regulation seems to ensure that when it does happen

Part of the problem with regulated markets in the US (and not just power) is that the ingrained distaste for regulation seems to ensure that when it does happen it's done as badly and obstructively as possible. It is possible to use regulation to create more efficient markets (such as the UK broadband market - where the distortions caused by the last-mile problem are regulated, enabling smaller players to be competitive) but I think it's only possible because people are more accepting and expectant of government intervention. If you are willing to let the government do more, they can step in and make as many changes as they need to allow a market to function; if you are really opposed to any sort of government interference then you will only let them do the absolute minimum even if a tiny bit more intervention would make a big difference. The flip side is that we might be more susceptible to over-regulation. CAP is a good example - although US agricultural subsidies aren't much better.

lionhearted 17y ago
> Part of the problem with regulated markets in the US (and not just power) is that the ingrained distaste for regulation seems to ensure that when it does happen it's done as badly and obstructively as possible. I'm always incredibly skeptical of the, "A little of this is going rather poorly, what we need is more of it" argument. Actually, I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately - I've been in Taiwan and Thailand the last two months, and there's a wonderful culture of street food here. You can buy roasted peanuts or get some noodles or meat or vegetables stir-fried from a cart on the street. We don't have this in the United States because of regulation - one particular regulation in California says you need to have a sink to wash your hands in order to sell food. Thus, no street vendors unless they have a portable sink (really, I asked a farmer's market person on this - you need a portable sink in a van to run a street market). Now, on the surface, this is an imminently sensible regulation. Who wants to have food by someone who didn't wash their hands? But that's just the thing - I do! The food is good, the vendor would be happy to sell it, I'm happy to buy it, and I darn well know the guy with the cart doesn't have the highest health standards and I make my own choices. Some street food is not up to my standards, some is. Regulation prohibits me from making that adult decision for myself, so I'm forced into higher priced food of similar quality, or going to Taco Bell instead of getting some stir fried chicken, vegetables, and noodles. I imagine at least one-third of regulations make sense on some level and do at least as much good as harm, but it's a little like censorship to me. It's a door you don't want to open if possible, despite the fact that there is rather nasty stuff you'd rather suppress. You'd rather suppress the bad stuff, it's probably objectively good to suppress the bad stuff, but you're always going to wind up with well-intentioned-yet-misguided people going too far. Hence, we're unable to buy street food due to the seemingly sensible regulation that no one can buy food from someone unless that person has a sink.
- lutorm 17y ago
  "I darn well know the guy with the cart doesn't have the highest health standards and I make my own choices. Some street food is not up to my standards, some is." While that sounds good and well, how do you make that choice? What are the input data that you have that makes it possible for you to make an informed choice about this? I suspect you can't. You just have the illusion of an informed choice, because you have no idea of knowing whether someone's food is full of salmonella or E Coli until after the fact, when you get sick. The key question is why these regulations exist. If it's because there is a significant chance of someone dying, I see nothing wrong with it. But the key is that there needs to be some dispassionate assessment of objective risk. Since at least the US population seems to be extremely risk-averse in some ways (e.g. terrorism, child abductions) but happily accepts a vastly higher risk in other situations (e.g. driving a car) the key is to not be swayed by emotions.
- notauser 17y ago
  I'm always incredibly skeptical of the, "A little of this is going rather poorly, what we need is more of it" argument. Which was exactly the kind of distaste for regulation I was talking about! How about comparing your interstate highway system (total government intervention and pretty good) to the railway network (just enough interference to make running a railway difficult without actually helping)? I'm sure there are other examples. Regulation of infrastructure which can be built once and then shared in an efficient manner is very different from regulation of service provision.
anamax 17y ago
> Part of the problem with regulated markets in the US (and not just power) is that the ingrained distaste for regulation seems to ensure that when it does happen it's done as badly and obstructively as possible. I think that you've got the causality backwards - the distaste comes from experience. > If you are willing to let the government do more, they can step in and make as many changes as they need to allow a market to function Or, they can step in and screw things up. It's unreasonable for Americans to assume that regulation will become more effective if we stop resisting it. Instead, it's up to those who favor more regulation in the US to make US regulation work so they can point to successes instead of whining "but Europeans can do it". BTW - I don't think that you understand the scale of the US, how much larger our federal govt is. Ohio, a fairly middling state, is comparable in population to Finland. California has over 36 million people, and it's just over 10% of the total.
- notauser 17y ago
  BTW - I don't think that you understand the scale of the US, how much larger our federal govt is. Ohio, a fairly middling state, is comparable in population to Finland. The EU has 170% of the population of the US. Both together have less people than India. All together I would say that Europe has more government than the US (which is not necessarily a good thing) because of the duplication of function between the member states as well as the central bureaucracy.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > The EU has 170% of the population of the US. Yes, but the EU govt hasn't ramped up to anywhere near the scope of the US govt. > Both together have less people than India. Yup, and its national govt is fairly limited. (It's growing, but the amount of money that it controls is fairly small by US standards.)

lionhearted 17y ago

> Part of the problem with regulated markets in the US (and not just power) is that the ingrained distaste for regulation seems to ensure that when it does happen it's done as badly and obstructively as possible. I'm always incredibly skeptical of the, "A little of this is going rather poorly, what we need is more of it" argument. Actually, I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately - I've been in Taiwan and Thailand the last two months, and there's a wonderful culture of street food here. You can buy roasted peanuts or get some noodles or meat or vegetables stir-fried from a cart on the street. We don't have this in the United States because of regulation - one particular regulation in California says you need to have a sink to wash your hands in order to sell food. Thus, no street vendors unless they have a portable sink (really, I asked a farmer's market person on this - you need a portable sink in a van to run a street market). Now, on the surface, this is an imminently sensible regulation. Who wants to have food by someone who didn't wash their hands? But that's just the thing - I do! The food is good, the vendor would be happy to sell it, I'm happy to buy it, and I darn well know the guy with the cart doesn't have the highest health standards and I make my own choices. Some street food is not up to my standards, some is. Regulation prohibits me from making that adult decision for myself, so I'm forced into higher priced food of similar quality, or going to Taco Bell instead of getting some stir fried chicken, vegetables, and noodles. I imagine at least one-third of regulations make sense on some level and do at least as much good as harm, but it's a little like censorship to me. It's a door you don't want to open if possible, despite the fact that there is rather nasty stuff you'd rather suppress. You'd rather suppress the bad stuff, it's probably objectively good to suppress the bad stuff, but you're always going to wind up with well-intentioned-yet-misguided people going too far. Hence, we're unable to buy street food due to the seemingly sensible regulation that no one can buy food from someone unless that person has a sink.

lutorm 17y ago
"I darn well know the guy with the cart doesn't have the highest health standards and I make my own choices. Some street food is not up to my standards, some is." While that sounds good and well, how do you make that choice? What are the input data that you have that makes it possible for you to make an informed choice about this? I suspect you can't. You just have the illusion of an informed choice, because you have no idea of knowing whether someone's food is full of salmonella or E Coli until after the fact, when you get sick. The key question is why these regulations exist. If it's because there is a significant chance of someone dying, I see nothing wrong with it. But the key is that there needs to be some dispassionate assessment of objective risk. Since at least the US population seems to be extremely risk-averse in some ways (e.g. terrorism, child abductions) but happily accepts a vastly higher risk in other situations (e.g. driving a car) the key is to not be swayed by emotions.
notauser 17y ago
I'm always incredibly skeptical of the, "A little of this is going rather poorly, what we need is more of it" argument. Which was exactly the kind of distaste for regulation I was talking about! How about comparing your interstate highway system (total government intervention and pretty good) to the railway network (just enough interference to make running a railway difficult without actually helping)? I'm sure there are other examples. Regulation of infrastructure which can be built once and then shared in an efficient manner is very different from regulation of service provision.

anamax 17y ago

> Part of the problem with regulated markets in the US (and not just power) is that the ingrained distaste for regulation seems to ensure that when it does happen it's done as badly and obstructively as possible. I think that you've got the causality backwards - the distaste comes from experience. > If you are willing to let the government do more, they can step in and make as many changes as they need to allow a market to function Or, they can step in and screw things up. It's unreasonable for Americans to assume that regulation will become more effective if we stop resisting it. Instead, it's up to those who favor more regulation in the US to make US regulation work so they can point to successes instead of whining "but Europeans can do it". BTW - I don't think that you understand the scale of the US, how much larger our federal govt is. Ohio, a fairly middling state, is comparable in population to Finland. California has over 36 million people, and it's just over 10% of the total.

notauser 17y ago
BTW - I don't think that you understand the scale of the US, how much larger our federal govt is. Ohio, a fairly middling state, is comparable in population to Finland. The EU has 170% of the population of the US. Both together have less people than India. All together I would say that Europe has more government than the US (which is not necessarily a good thing) because of the duplication of function between the member states as well as the central bureaucracy.
- anamax 17y ago
  > The EU has 170% of the population of the US. Yes, but the EU govt hasn't ramped up to anywhere near the scope of the US govt. > Both together have less people than India. Yup, and its national govt is fairly limited. (It's growing, but the amount of money that it controls is fairly small by US standards.)