3 ms·

I think "whack-a-mole" might best describe the proclivity for regulation to fix unintended side-effects of previous regulation, causing more unintended side-eff

I think "whack-a-mole" might best describe the proclivity for regulation to fix unintended side-effects of previous regulation, causing more unintended side-effects. Or maybe "the cure is worse than the disease?" Being on a very small governmental body, I witnessed first-hand the tendency to want to "do something" when confronted with a potential problem - And it did come to pass several times that we enacted policy that later seemed to have made the original situation worse or caused another flare-up in issues that had not existed before. My experience is it can be very difficult to enact good public policy... And frequently an efficient (unfettered) capitalist market will come up with a solution more elegant than what we could contemplate. I am left thinking this is a basic truism...

petermcneeley 8y ago
Yes and this simple model worked quite well up until the great depression. "But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again" - Keynes
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, the capitalist market will come up with a solution that is most profitable for business. Occasionally that will line up with what's better for everyone else, but not often.
- orthecreedence 8y ago
  Even worse, from what I've seen in my lifetime, markets are very reactionary. How often/well do markets predict 50 years into the future? For instance a good long-term solution for climate change might be the movement to renewable energy. A market solution to climate change might be opening condos on Antarctica.
JamesBarney 8y ago
There are some policies that have lots of unintended consequences. But increased capital requirements is a pretty simple one that we understand. We knew there'd be less lending. That was kind of the point of increased capital requirements.
clairity 8y ago
i think your concern about unintended side-effects is very valid, but i disagree with your conclusion. in most cases, we need more innovative approaches to policy development rather than defaulting to a market as the only alternative. as an example off the top of my head: using a faster, instrumented, and iterative approach to policy design, as startups are encouraged to do. or, cultivate new methods for finding better, more effective policies quickly (like design sprints, for example).
- sigstoat 8y ago
  > as an example off the top of my head: using a faster, instrumented, and iterative approach to policy design, as startups are encouraged to do. or, cultivate new methods for finding better, more effective policies quickly (like design sprints, for example). the resulting regulatory uncertainty would probably be worse than bad regulations.
  - clairity 8y ago
    yes, that's possible, but the regulatory environment is already uncertain, and trending toward less certainty, due to increased partisanship and the ping-ponging between ideological extremes (accelerated by the money pouring into politics). so if citizens & businesses knew that regulations were generally going to trend toward more fairness, the regulatory environment would be less uncertain (the cone of future possibilities narrows, even if the path was entirely a random walk).

petermcneeley 8y ago

Yes and this simple model worked quite well up until the great depression. "But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again" - Keynes

s73v3r_ 8y ago

No, the capitalist market will come up with a solution that is most profitable for business. Occasionally that will line up with what's better for everyone else, but not often.

orthecreedence 8y ago
Even worse, from what I've seen in my lifetime, markets are very reactionary. How often/well do markets predict 50 years into the future? For instance a good long-term solution for climate change might be the movement to renewable energy. A market solution to climate change might be opening condos on Antarctica.

JamesBarney 8y ago

There are some policies that have lots of unintended consequences. But increased capital requirements is a pretty simple one that we understand. We knew there'd be less lending. That was kind of the point of increased capital requirements.

clairity 8y ago

i think your concern about unintended side-effects is very valid, but i disagree with your conclusion. in most cases, we need more innovative approaches to policy development rather than defaulting to a market as the only alternative. as an example off the top of my head: using a faster, instrumented, and iterative approach to policy design, as startups are encouraged to do. or, cultivate new methods for finding better, more effective policies quickly (like design sprints, for example).

sigstoat 8y ago
> as an example off the top of my head: using a faster, instrumented, and iterative approach to policy design, as startups are encouraged to do. or, cultivate new methods for finding better, more effective policies quickly (like design sprints, for example). the resulting regulatory uncertainty would probably be worse than bad regulations.
- clairity 8y ago
  yes, that's possible, but the regulatory environment is already uncertain, and trending toward less certainty, due to increased partisanship and the ping-ponging between ideological extremes (accelerated by the money pouring into politics). so if citizens & businesses knew that regulations were generally going to trend toward more fairness, the regulatory environment would be less uncertain (the cone of future possibilities narrows, even if the path was entirely a random walk).