4 ms·
It was certainly an interesting argument :) I suspect that the thinking is that it's efficient in the sense that you don't have the wrong regulation. ie. in th
by jopsen 9y ago
It was certainly an interesting argument :)
I suspect that the thinking is that it's efficient in the sense that you don't have the wrong regulation.
ie. in the sense that wrong regulation is extremely expensive.
And if people was always employing an optimal strategy, then litigation would rarely be needed as the outcome would be predictable. But I guess people aren't optimal :)
- forapurpose 9y ago> it's efficient in the sense that you don't have the wrong regulation. ie. in the sense that wrong regulation is extremely expensive. How efficient is it to regulate the behavior on a case-by-case basis, taking years and often millions of dollars for each case, and with all the unpredictable outcomes of a lawsuit? Maybe one ruling by an expert regulator rather than many by inexpert judges and juries isn't such a bad idea after all. It sounds like a rationalization for deregulation. > if people was always employing an optimal strategy, then litigation would rarely be needed If people did that, we wouldn't need government at all. We could live in happy anarchy with all our well-meaning, honest, optimizing neighbors!
- jopsen 9y agoNote: I'm not arguing that litigation is better :) Just saying, that's how it's rationalized...
- forapurpose 9y agoYeah, I got that. Sorry if my comment looked like it was arguing with you rather than with the theorists.