3 ms·

You have it exactly backwards, By privatizing, Trump will increase the size of the government. After the USSR collapsed and Chicago style economists pilfered th

by mempko 9y ago

You have it exactly backwards, By privatizing, Trump will increase the size of the government. After the USSR collapsed and Chicago style economists pilfered the place, the size of the government went up! You ended up with more bureaucrats than ever. Why? Because when you add markets to things that didn't have markets, you add regulators and all sorts of other score keeping to make sure the markets function. It is far more efficient not to use markets in most cases. When the Federal government privatized the internet in the late 90s, the regulatory system went up! Also of course corporations love regulations when it benefits them. Don't forget most regulations are written and pushed by the industry that is being regulated.

refurb 9y ago
The only way this could be true is if the number of regulators for a company is larger than the number of total employees. With a few exceptions, I doubt most companies are that small.
pitaj 9y ago
It isn't more efficiently. Command economies don't work. A monopoly has no reason to innovate.
malteof 9y ago
Surely you're the one getting this backwards somehow? You're talking about privatisation, but the OP discusses deregulation. You don't mean to say that deregulation leads to more regulation, do you? EDIT: Also, your thesis that using markets is inefficient due to more regulation, it sounds rather that you mean to say that more regulation is inefficient. How is this a failure of the market and not the state?
- mempko 9y ago
  Deregulation often leads to more regulation. By allowing a whole class of actions to happen, you will find exceptions will start popping up and laws will be written to patch market failings. If you allow X, you will find overtime it will turn into 100 different 'Allow X but' rules. Example, Cable companies can now charge more for Netflix, then netflix lobbies and gets a new regulation 'Can charge more for traffic Except by accredited content providers'. On and on exceptions will be lobbied and won and eventually you end up with more regulations and a larger government administering those regulations. Net neutrality is a far more efficient regulation.

by mempko 9y ago

refurb 9y ago

The only way this could be true is if the number of regulators for a company is larger than the number of total employees. With a few exceptions, I doubt most companies are that small.

pitaj 9y ago

It isn't more efficiently. Command economies don't work. A monopoly has no reason to innovate.

malteof 9y ago

Surely you're the one getting this backwards somehow? You're talking about privatisation, but the OP discusses deregulation. You don't mean to say that deregulation leads to more regulation, do you? EDIT: Also, your thesis that using markets is inefficient due to more regulation, it sounds rather that you mean to say that more regulation is inefficient. How is this a failure of the market and not the state?

mempko 9y ago
Deregulation often leads to more regulation. By allowing a whole class of actions to happen, you will find exceptions will start popping up and laws will be written to patch market failings. If you allow X, you will find overtime it will turn into 100 different 'Allow X but' rules. Example, Cable companies can now charge more for Netflix, then netflix lobbies and gets a new regulation 'Can charge more for traffic Except by accredited content providers'. On and on exceptions will be lobbied and won and eventually you end up with more regulations and a larger government administering those regulations. Net neutrality is a far more efficient regulation.