4 ms·
This is usually the correct position. Regulated competition and controlled monopolies try to provide the best of both worlds. Private companies will always pu
by sesteel 6y ago
This is usually the correct position. Regulated competition and controlled monopolies try to provide the best of both worlds. Private companies will always push for deregulation or find ways to exercise a monopolistic advantage because they are incentivized to do so. Companies should be allowed to optimize within the regulated structure set forth by government. Aside, this is why government corruption cannot be tolerated and we must have strict laws limiting lawmakers' actions when reentering the private sector and oversight when they are in the public arena. We cannot have lawmakers eroding regulations in the name of increased profit when those regulations guard the public from poor outcomes.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoI don’t think the “more laws!” approach will cut it. Many of the most corrupt countries in the world have extremely harsh anticorruption laws (inevitably these laws are applied to political enemies and not the corrupt rulers). Assuming people are corrupt and greedy and then working backwards from that point imho is the best approach, and that often times means giving people less control over our lives.
- sesteel 6y agoLess regulation has generally led to more public harm. Toxic waste in rivers, siphoning of pensions and retirement plans, ponzi schemes, and on and on and on. There is always a balance to strike and then a constant rebalancing. We must guard against regulatory capture and many other ways the system can go wrong. This means we should favor the election of informed lawmakers that understand complex systems and then oversee them. This is a very technocratic position, but also a balanced position.