4 ms·

I would hope they'd do most of that stuff in the absence of regulation.

• shadowfox 15y ago
  Is there a reason to believe they would?
• JackDanger 15y ago
  Chernobyl proves that that's not a guarantee.
• btilly 15y ago
  A lot of people would hope that. However all available evidence suggests that people will and do cut corners until they get burned. And companies that refuse to do so will find themselves becoming less profitable than their less scrupulous competitors. The result is public pressure for regulation. Unfortunately economic theory and practice show that once an industry has come under regulation it becomes their priority to get control of that regulation. This process is called "regulatory capture" and inevitably succeeds. Once it has succeeded, the protections erode and the regulatory scheme is used to create barriers to entry for competitors. See the recent financial crisis for an example of this. Depending on your politics you are likely to think that one of these failure modes is a bigger deal than the other.
  • mkr-hn 15y ago
    The choice is often between a shaky regulatory structure and a melee between profit and common good. I usually prefer to take a chance on regulation unless someone comes up with a better option. Sometimes the third option of going to an industry and asking them to do something does work, but not always. I'd always try it first, but it's not always going to work, and the consequences of inaction can be pretty bad.