5 ms·
The cost to who? The banks who have to follow them? Or to consumers of the services they impact? It's not a fair comparison. The purpose of regulation in this
by ivraatiems 9y ago
The cost to who? The banks who have to follow them? Or to consumers of the services they impact?
It's not a fair comparison. The purpose of regulation in this case is to protect consumers of bank services - including other banks. Those costs are only calculable if you know the full scope of the bad behavior, which, without appropriate regulation ensuring reporting and review, you can't.
Of course, if you don't believe banks ought to be regulated in order to protect their customers, it doesn't matter. But that's a different conversation.
- conanbatt 9y agoIf you cant know, then you can never make the claim that the regulation is good, which is what OP said.
- ivraatiems 9y agoThat isn't what I said. I said you can know. But only if you provide some amount of regulation to mandate reporting of reliable information. The claim is actually the opposite: You can never make the claim that no regulation is good, because you don't know what you don't know. (But you absolutely can still make that claim, in fairness; you just can't base it on a cost-benefit analysis from the customer's perspective.)
- conanbatt 9y agoThe burden of proof is on the creation of regulation, because it requires active effort to implement and maintain. The OP said that this shows why regulation gets good results, and I challenge the evaluation by saying we have seen the benefit of this particular regulation, but not the cost. You argue that is hard to know both the cost and the benefit of regulations. I argue that if you cant gauge it, then you can never conclude if its good or bad. I rather put the responsibility of proving itself to the guys with the battons.
- ivraatiems 9y ago> You argue that is hard to know both the cost and the benefit of regulations. I argue that if you cant gauge it, then you can never conclude if its good or bad. Here's where the trick is. I'm not saying "you can't gauge it"; you even acknowledged in the previous sentence that that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's complex, because in order to gauge it, you must have some of it, otherwise there is no way to produce reliable metrics. Yes, that requires incurring some cost. But the risk of much higher costs comes down dramatically once the initial cost is paid, because the information it provides makes us able to avoid greater costs down the road. What you're saying is that if we can't build a tower all in one go, we can't build it at all. I'm saying we can do it in reasonable stages, but we have to lay a strong foundation first.
- conanbatt 9y agoOkay. What was the cost of this already implemented regulation?
- s73v3r_ 9y agoWrong. This error was caught, and otherwise likely would not have been. That's good.