3 ms·
> IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to a
by anamax 16y ago
> IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it.
You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice.
When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.
- gloob 16y agoWhen buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold. Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes?
- dantheman 16y agoNo, because some people have principles and will not hire goons to shake down people for them.
- anamax 16y ago> Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes? Value to whom? How many bank regulators lost their jobs when the banks almost went down? Were the relevant agencies punished in any way? Of course not - they were rewarded. Govt insists on control without liability. What could possibly go wrong. Also, regulation is systemic risk. And if you believe in "too big to fail", what does that imply about the US govt....
- ebaysucks 16y agoRead "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David Friedman. Every "regulation" is a product. It will be provided if people want to pay for it voluntarily.