4 ms·
Regulation and regulation costs are different things. Further, comparing costs incurred for business vs regulation costs seems odd. Regulation should be there f
by bkor 7y ago
Regulation and regulation costs are different things. Further, comparing costs incurred for business vs regulation costs seems odd. Regulation should be there for a reason. Just skimping on that because some other cost changed seems arbitrary. Further, I fail to see why you cannot optimize on the regulation cost; you can do this without changing the regulations.
Another way of looking at costs: eased regulations vs long time investigations and associated costs when something goes wrong due to eased regulations.
- aidenn0 7y agoI don't know what the FAA regulations are, but here's an example of how a regulation can incur unnecessary costs: If the regulation requires hand-inspecting part X and someone invents a machine to inspect part X, you are now incurring costs solely due to regulation. The above is somewhat orthogonal to my main point. If you inspect something 10 times, then it is marginally safer than if you inspect something 9 times, and so on and so forth. Everything can be made more expensive and safer or less expensive and less safe. If there are benefits of increased spaceflight that exceed the downsides of the reduced safety, and lowering the costs will encourage such increased spaceflight then it makes sense from a policy point of view to reduce the safety. This is in addition to the point that regulatory compliance tend to increase costs by more than the amount needed to increase the safety (my example of hand-inspecting a part that could be machine inspected is one example; paying someone to check up that the regulations are actually being followed is another).