5 ms·

What happens when the place that is "not up to code" catches fire and sets every other building on the block ablaze? What happens when enough novice investors l

What happens when the place that is "not up to code" catches fire and sets every other building on the block ablaze? What happens when enough novice investors lose their money to bad investments and scams that it sparks a recession? Besides protecting individuals, regulations protect society from negative externalities generated by these risky activities. I think there's a huge opportunity to decriminalize sex work and drug-related crimes, but we should recognize that risky behavior puts more than just the immediate individuals involved at risk.

olalonde 6y ago
I removed that example from the list as I now see how it could be misinterpreted (I was only thinking of building codes that are meant to protect the tenants, not those that regard externalities).
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Even without that example, your parent comment is dead on re: the historical reasons for regulating financial markets (and the historical reasons for fire codes -- the razing of cities like Chicago). For example, consider the SEC. The primary goal of the SEC upon its founding shortly after the great depression was to restore investor confidence in the securities market. Its goal was to improve trust in the financial system, and it achieved that goal in part by introducing regulations that help protect individual investors. The fire analogy is actually a good one, since those policies also have historical roots in the razing of big portions of several large US cities (eg Chicago). In a dense city, your purported distinction between fire codes that protect inhabitants and fire codes that protect cities/blocks is a false dichotomy. The way you prevent the block from burning is by preventing individual buildings from burning. Because in a dense city blocks are comprised of... well... densely packed buildings. More laissez faire strategies might work in much less dense areas like rural Kansas (not even suburbs -- have you seen a bad gas explosion?). And even then, only as long as you you're willing to really go it on your own -- if your attitude is "don't tell me what to do" rugged individualism then don't expect the time of day from insurance companies, banks offering mortgages, or fire departments. Buy in cash, no insurance, and put out your own fires. Similarly, public and secondary financial markets are not your brother's laundromat or neighborhood bar. The best way to protect a large inter-connected financial system from collapses in investor confidence is to prevent obviously fraudulent bubbles from forming in the first place. Expecting individual investors to have confidence in valuations within completely unregulated marketplaces is like expecting the block be fine without thinking about how to prevent fires in any of the individual buildings. This even extends to the "maybe something else might work in rural Kansas" example, where you replace actuaries and fire fighters with welfare/social security and medicaid.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  I'm not sure how that makes the argument stronger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire
tastyfreeze 6y ago
What happens when accredited investors purchase metric shit tons of bad securitized debt and cause a global recession when the debt not so surprisingly defaults? Let people be free to make their own dumb mistakes and punish the bad actors.

olalonde 6y ago

I removed that example from the list as I now see how it could be misinterpreted (I was only thinking of building codes that are meant to protect the tenants, not those that regard externalities).

throwawaygh 6y ago
Even without that example, your parent comment is dead on re: the historical reasons for regulating financial markets (and the historical reasons for fire codes -- the razing of cities like Chicago). For example, consider the SEC. The primary goal of the SEC upon its founding shortly after the great depression was to restore investor confidence in the securities market. Its goal was to improve trust in the financial system, and it achieved that goal in part by introducing regulations that help protect individual investors. The fire analogy is actually a good one, since those policies also have historical roots in the razing of big portions of several large US cities (eg Chicago). In a dense city, your purported distinction between fire codes that protect inhabitants and fire codes that protect cities/blocks is a false dichotomy. The way you prevent the block from burning is by preventing individual buildings from burning. Because in a dense city blocks are comprised of... well... densely packed buildings. More laissez faire strategies might work in much less dense areas like rural Kansas (not even suburbs -- have you seen a bad gas explosion?). And even then, only as long as you you're willing to really go it on your own -- if your attitude is "don't tell me what to do" rugged individualism then don't expect the time of day from insurance companies, banks offering mortgages, or fire departments. Buy in cash, no insurance, and put out your own fires. Similarly, public and secondary financial markets are not your brother's laundromat or neighborhood bar. The best way to protect a large inter-connected financial system from collapses in investor confidence is to prevent obviously fraudulent bubbles from forming in the first place. Expecting individual investors to have confidence in valuations within completely unregulated marketplaces is like expecting the block be fine without thinking about how to prevent fires in any of the individual buildings. This even extends to the "maybe something else might work in rural Kansas" example, where you replace actuaries and fire fighters with welfare/social security and medicaid.
AlexandrB 6y ago
I'm not sure how that makes the argument stronger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

tastyfreeze 6y ago

What happens when accredited investors purchase metric shit tons of bad securitized debt and cause a global recession when the debt not so surprisingly defaults? Let people be free to make their own dumb mistakes and punish the bad actors.