3 ms·
Because those closest to a thing can see the bad things it does. If you then conclude that doing the bad thing is game-theoretically rational, then regulation i
by rocqua 7y ago
Because those closest to a thing can see the bad things it does. If you then conclude that doing the bad thing is game-theoretically rational, then regulation is needed. Hence, you cheer on adding regulation.
- closeparen 7y agoOne of the problems with the regulation debate framed in terms of "more vs. less" is that it's easy to assume increased regulation will fix what you consider bad and preserve what you consider good, or that deregulation will only cut pointless bureaucracy. It's distressing that the support is for more regulation in general (which can be easily coopted to support stuff like this), rather than specific policies or outcomes.
- rocqua 7y agoIt's a response to the conservative voice saying 'deregulate everything'. You first need to argue for regulation per se before you can argue for specific regulations. The nuanced position of 'regulation isn't inherently good, but this specific policy is' is blown away in the public debate by 'REGULATION BAD'.
- neltnerb 7y agoI have heard several stories about industry groups preferring government regulation to the status quo because game theory made it impossible to self-regulate effectively. It makes sense to me, no agreement will hold if any one person can violate it with nothing to stop them.