5 ms·

I would like to point out this is due to confusion by almost all peoples who haven't formally studied the economics of regulation. There are in fact, two types

I would like to point out this is due to confusion by almost all peoples who haven't formally studied the economics of regulation. There are in fact, two types of regulation: "Safety and Soundness" and "economic." Economic regulation is almost always a bad thing and results in gross market inefficiencies like barriers to entry, cronyism, and destroys any hope of a functioning capitalist system. Think trucking regulations in the 70s and before... Safety and soundness is almost always a great thing as it helps ensure we are able to have a healthy and functioning society. Seat belts is a great example of this... Where most people, and I agree, it's generally libertarians and republicans go wrong on the is conflating the two types of regulation or not being able to see which kind of regulation it is clearly. Granted it's not always easy to know which... A prime example of people getting it wrong is with banking regulation. Banking regulations, for example a lot of people thought Glass–Steagall was economic regulation and it was not-- it was in fact a safety and soundness regulation that made unbelievably great sense. It's destruction cost the world greatly because it allowed unsafe markets to be created, corrupted, and later destroyed as a result. Energy and environmental regulation is another one where it's strictly safety and soundness regulation but people complain about the cost. Then they start calling it "economic regulation" because there's a cost associated with it. Well there is a cost associated with everything including not protecting the earth and its inhabitants. I without hesitation say the cost of a de-regulated environment will be dramatically higher than the cost of implementing and progressing with the regulations. Unless of course one would prefer extinction. Yes some business and markets may go under because of safety and soundness regulation but this is because they were not correctly accounting for the true cost of business. If they had been, it would have NEVER been profitable. Edit: I'm very, very left but it's solely a result of my economics education. I started life right, then moved to a pseudo libertarian outlook, and finally abandoned all of that to move to the far left. Because it's what makes the most scientific sense-- and economics is in fact a science.

coredog64 9y ago
Can you please point out the exact parts of Glass-Steagall that, had they been left in place, would have prevented the GFC?
- rubyn00bie 9y ago
  Copied from wikipedia because I'm lazy, and you could've googled this easily: > The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from: * dealing in non-governmental securities for customers * investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves * underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities * affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities It prevented mergers and acquisitions which allowed the banks to become too big to fail.
conanbatt 9y ago
> and finally abandoned all of that to move to the far left. Because it's what makes the most scientific sense-- Can you share some literature for the non-academics? My personal study into economics turned me "pseudo libertarian", i dont see myself going to the left. I wonder what ideas could. > and economics is in fact a science. Thats a very right-wing approach to economics!
hueving 9y ago
>Because it's what makes the most scientific sense You need to justify that, otherwise it's pointless claptrap. The far left advocates for lots of government-provided services, which means markets without competition. I'm not aware of economic theories that strongly back the idea that no competition is best for social utility. > and economics is in fact a science. Well there are large portions of economics that are bunk. If you have a field that has multiple "schools of thought", then it's not really scientific because it means there aren't experiments to reproduce. If it's not reproducible, it's not science. So most 'economics' studies that compare things like government structures, entitlements, etc are about as useful as trash. There are so many confounding variables that can't be controlled for that it's really easy to ignore all of the ones that disagree with the author's premise.
- rubyn00bie 9y ago
  > You need to justify that, otherwise it's pointless claptrap. The far left advocates for lots of government-provided services, which means markets without competition. I'm not aware of economic theories that strongly back the idea that no competition is best for social utility. I don't need to qualify it. You can study it. You don't walk up to a physicist and ask them to qualify relativity they say it's science and to go learn it. So go learn you some economics for make benefit your brain. > Well there are large portions of economics that are bunk. If you have a field that has multiple "schools of thought", then it's not really scientific because it means there aren't experiments to reproduce. If it's not reproducible, it's not science You can have different schools of thought, take super symmetry vs multiverse in physics right now. I also don't know how you can go from multiple schools of thought to not being reproducible and thus not science. Different ways of looking at a problem will yield the same answer if it's correct. Im aware of nothing in economics that goes against this. The different schools of thought are trying to solve largely different problems. Assuming I at all understand what you mean by this... > So most 'economics' studies that compare things like government structures, entitlements, etc are about as useful as trash. There are so many confounding variables that can't be controlled for that it's really easy to ignore all of the ones that disagree with the author's premise. Can't be controlled for yet. Neuroscience will put all the social sciences out of business one day. And to make such a broadly sweeping statement is just full of so many fallacies I'm not sure where to start addressing them so I won't because it's pointless. Have you studied economics? Or can you more thoughtful provide examples?
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> There are in fact, two types of regulation: "Safety and Soundness" and "economic." You're just creating terms that only mean "good regulation" and "bad regulation" and arguing that all we need is to have the good regulation but not the bad regulation. The business of separating the one from the other is the whole issue. > Yes some business and markets may go under because of safety and soundness regulation but this is because they were not correctly accounting for the true cost of business. If they had been, it would have NEVER been profitable. Problem: Minors are gathering in outdoor community spaces to consume alcohol. Solution 1: Impose liability on operators of community spaces. Many community spaces can't afford the expense of constant monitoring and close down. Solution 2: Impose liability on stores that sell alcohol to minors. A liquor store that had been doing significant business with minors goes out of business. Both solutions mitigate the same problem but different regulations impose the cost on different people. It's also trivial to devise regulations that will simultaneously be effective and inefficient. You can easily prevent elevator accidents by prohibiting elevators.
- rubyn00bie 9y ago
  > You're just creating terms that only mean "good regulation" and "bad regulation" and arguing that all we need is to have the good regulation but not the bad regulation. The business of separating the one from the other is the whole issue. For starters I didn't create those terms. The second issue I have is your statement is completely unqualified, that the problem is separating them. Please qualify how they are the same or provide evidence. Right now you're just making things up or so it appears. > Problem: Minors are gathering in outdoor community spaces to consume alcohol. For one you assume it's a problem. It may or may not be. Your solutions are at best a false dilemma and are limiting choice when there could be and are a multitude of other options. If there's a point you're trying to make with your example it has gone well over my head. > It's also trivial to devise regulations that will simultaneously be effective and inefficient. You can easily prevent elevator accidents by prohibiting elevators. Yes... You can trivially make anything work or not work. What is your point? Are you attempting to say there is a triviality to making something safe and sound and/or economic in regards to regulation? I really don't at all know what your point is here. What is the relevance of this in the conversation? Right now I'm very honestly, very, confused about what you're trying to say.

coredog64 9y ago

Can you please point out the exact parts of Glass-Steagall that, had they been left in place, would have prevented the GFC?

rubyn00bie 9y ago
Copied from wikipedia because I'm lazy, and you could've googled this easily: > The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from: * dealing in non-governmental securities for customers * investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves * underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities * affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities It prevented mergers and acquisitions which allowed the banks to become too big to fail.

conanbatt 9y ago

> and finally abandoned all of that to move to the far left. Because it's what makes the most scientific sense-- Can you share some literature for the non-academics? My personal study into economics turned me "pseudo libertarian", i dont see myself going to the left. I wonder what ideas could. > and economics is in fact a science. Thats a very right-wing approach to economics!

hueving 9y ago

>Because it's what makes the most scientific sense You need to justify that, otherwise it's pointless claptrap. The far left advocates for lots of government-provided services, which means markets without competition. I'm not aware of economic theories that strongly back the idea that no competition is best for social utility. > and economics is in fact a science. Well there are large portions of economics that are bunk. If you have a field that has multiple "schools of thought", then it's not really scientific because it means there aren't experiments to reproduce. If it's not reproducible, it's not science. So most 'economics' studies that compare things like government structures, entitlements, etc are about as useful as trash. There are so many confounding variables that can't be controlled for that it's really easy to ignore all of the ones that disagree with the author's premise.

rubyn00bie 9y ago
> You need to justify that, otherwise it's pointless claptrap. The far left advocates for lots of government-provided services, which means markets without competition. I'm not aware of economic theories that strongly back the idea that no competition is best for social utility. I don't need to qualify it. You can study it. You don't walk up to a physicist and ask them to qualify relativity they say it's science and to go learn it. So go learn you some economics for make benefit your brain. > Well there are large portions of economics that are bunk. If you have a field that has multiple "schools of thought", then it's not really scientific because it means there aren't experiments to reproduce. If it's not reproducible, it's not science You can have different schools of thought, take super symmetry vs multiverse in physics right now. I also don't know how you can go from multiple schools of thought to not being reproducible and thus not science. Different ways of looking at a problem will yield the same answer if it's correct. Im aware of nothing in economics that goes against this. The different schools of thought are trying to solve largely different problems. Assuming I at all understand what you mean by this... > So most 'economics' studies that compare things like government structures, entitlements, etc are about as useful as trash. There are so many confounding variables that can't be controlled for that it's really easy to ignore all of the ones that disagree with the author's premise. Can't be controlled for yet. Neuroscience will put all the social sciences out of business one day. And to make such a broadly sweeping statement is just full of so many fallacies I'm not sure where to start addressing them so I won't because it's pointless. Have you studied economics? Or can you more thoughtful provide examples?

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> There are in fact, two types of regulation: "Safety and Soundness" and "economic." You're just creating terms that only mean "good regulation" and "bad regulation" and arguing that all we need is to have the good regulation but not the bad regulation. The business of separating the one from the other is the whole issue. > Yes some business and markets may go under because of safety and soundness regulation but this is because they were not correctly accounting for the true cost of business. If they had been, it would have NEVER been profitable. Problem: Minors are gathering in outdoor community spaces to consume alcohol. Solution 1: Impose liability on operators of community spaces. Many community spaces can't afford the expense of constant monitoring and close down. Solution 2: Impose liability on stores that sell alcohol to minors. A liquor store that had been doing significant business with minors goes out of business. Both solutions mitigate the same problem but different regulations impose the cost on different people. It's also trivial to devise regulations that will simultaneously be effective and inefficient. You can easily prevent elevator accidents by prohibiting elevators.

rubyn00bie 9y ago
> You're just creating terms that only mean "good regulation" and "bad regulation" and arguing that all we need is to have the good regulation but not the bad regulation. The business of separating the one from the other is the whole issue. For starters I didn't create those terms. The second issue I have is your statement is completely unqualified, that the problem is separating them. Please qualify how they are the same or provide evidence. Right now you're just making things up or so it appears. > Problem: Minors are gathering in outdoor community spaces to consume alcohol. For one you assume it's a problem. It may or may not be. Your solutions are at best a false dilemma and are limiting choice when there could be and are a multitude of other options. If there's a point you're trying to make with your example it has gone well over my head. > It's also trivial to devise regulations that will simultaneously be effective and inefficient. You can easily prevent elevator accidents by prohibiting elevators. Yes... You can trivially make anything work or not work. What is your point? Are you attempting to say there is a triviality to making something safe and sound and/or economic in regards to regulation? I really don't at all know what your point is here. What is the relevance of this in the conversation? Right now I'm very honestly, very, confused about what you're trying to say.