5 ms·

It doesn't have to be. It just usually ends up working out that way. I don't always lose in Vegas either, but I don't go there looking to drum up money for my

It doesn't have to be. It just usually ends up working out that way. I don't always lose in Vegas either, but I don't go there looking to drum up money for my my mortgage payment. I think the right way to look at regulation is that is very likely to fail, or arrive with enough unintended consequences that it probably makes things worse but everything else was sure to fail so even though its a long shot, its the best chance we've got so... It's like jumping from the 3rd story of a burning building. It might be our only chance, but we should be damn sure the stairs aren't an option before we take the leap.

intended 8y ago
Not true either - policy depends on the type of market, and whether there is enough political will to make it happen. Several markets tend towards single players (telecom for example) without regulation you will always have a poor economic outcome (for the majority of citizens aka customer Education)
- noonespecial 8y ago
  Telecom is a good example of an instance where the stairs are clearly blocked. Cosmetology is a perfect example of where the stairs were clearly passable but we jumped anyway. Taxi cabs are a good example of where its not necessarily obvious. Proceed with an abundance of caution. My argument is that we cosmetology more than we telecom and we should head back the other way.
  - intended 8y ago
    Don’t know -all the major tech firms in the social media space tend to cluster around the belief that owning the whole network is the core source of value. Matter of fact social dynamics end up putting massive pressure on any firm This does not tend towards anything but scenarios where regulatory intervention is required. Also -intervention is required in scenarios where products are known to subvert or pervert the normal decision making systems of humans - or create unintended side effects. Cigarettes, gambling, addiction or health harming products come to mind. - but I suppose that’s under the umbrella of citizen health and safety.
torstenvl 8y ago
"Usually" is a quantitative claim (and one that doesn't have a lot of evidence). It doesn't have a lot of power to inform qualitative judgments like whether regulation is inherently good or bad. Regulation, like software, can be designed well or designed poorly. It can entrench special interests or it can protect against them. When Coca-Cola lobbied to have the FDA ban stevia as a food additive, it hurt certain regional sodas and entrenched Coca-Cola's market position. But there are plenty of regulations that do not entrench market players, but protect the free market. Part 2635 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (5 C.F.R. 2635), for example, prohibits federal employees from accepting gifts from anyone doing business with their agency or seeking to do so, and implements limitations on other gifts. This significantly reduces the likelihood of bribery.

intended 8y ago

Not true either - policy depends on the type of market, and whether there is enough political will to make it happen. Several markets tend towards single players (telecom for example) without regulation you will always have a poor economic outcome (for the majority of citizens aka customer Education)

noonespecial 8y ago
Telecom is a good example of an instance where the stairs are clearly blocked. Cosmetology is a perfect example of where the stairs were clearly passable but we jumped anyway. Taxi cabs are a good example of where its not necessarily obvious. Proceed with an abundance of caution. My argument is that we cosmetology more than we telecom and we should head back the other way.
- intended 8y ago
  Don’t know -all the major tech firms in the social media space tend to cluster around the belief that owning the whole network is the core source of value. Matter of fact social dynamics end up putting massive pressure on any firm This does not tend towards anything but scenarios where regulatory intervention is required. Also -intervention is required in scenarios where products are known to subvert or pervert the normal decision making systems of humans - or create unintended side effects. Cigarettes, gambling, addiction or health harming products come to mind. - but I suppose that’s under the umbrella of citizen health and safety.

torstenvl 8y ago

"Usually" is a quantitative claim (and one that doesn't have a lot of evidence). It doesn't have a lot of power to inform qualitative judgments like whether regulation is inherently good or bad. Regulation, like software, can be designed well or designed poorly. It can entrench special interests or it can protect against them. When Coca-Cola lobbied to have the FDA ban stevia as a food additive, it hurt certain regional sodas and entrenched Coca-Cola's market position. But there are plenty of regulations that do not entrench market players, but protect the free market. Part 2635 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (5 C.F.R. 2635), for example, prohibits federal employees from accepting gifts from anyone doing business with their agency or seeking to do so, and implements limitations on other gifts. This significantly reduces the likelihood of bribery.