3 ms·

Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market, as long as the same rules apply to everybody. In fact, externalising your costs by polluting rivers could

by mcv 5y ago

Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market, as long as the same rules apply to everybody. In fact, externalising your costs by polluting rivers could be considered anti-free market, because you're letting others pay for your costs. It's no different from theft. Insider trading, however, is anti-free market, because you're relying on an information disparity to gain an advantage.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market" Free market is like the shroudinger's cat, everyone has a different idea of where it is. In the other thread people were claiming that having a central bank is anti-free-market, but it's unclear how interest rate should be set and money supply be created and regulated.
peterangular 5y ago
> Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market In fact, it's required for any market to exist in the first place. Without regulation the concept of ownership goes out the window. "Free markets" would look like anarchy... and exactly as you lay out in the river analogy it would be utter chaos with everyone acting in their best interest like "damn the consequences!" - it's human nature. Sorry if I'm coming off as abrupt here - I'm aggressively agreeing and building on your point... IMO the markets require regulation when all is said and done. People who point to a "free market" often do so to shield themselves from the same regulations/rules that are designed to keep the markets afloat just like Pelosi has done here. It's gotten to the point that the words "free market" are almost always a sign of a bad faith argument.
- mcv 5y ago
  No, you're absolutely correct. I put my point far too weakly. Any truly unregulated market quickly becomes dominated by monopolies, cartels, scams, etc.
  - peterangular 5y ago
    > I put my point far too weakly Nah - IMO you made a super strong point which is why I wanted to respond with my thoughts. I was just trying to explain why I was being pedantic pulling some of the words apart with my "sorry for abrupt/aggressively agreeing" comment =) Cheers!
cpwright 5y ago
In general, an information disparity is good; it means you have done work to learn something and incorporate that into prices. If you are right, you deserve to be rewarded. Insider trading is when you steal the information from someone else (often your employer) to make those trades - misappropriating value for yourself that does not belong to you.

by mcv 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market" Free market is like the shroudinger's cat, everyone has a different idea of where it is. In the other thread people were claiming that having a central bank is anti-free-market, but it's unclear how interest rate should be set and money supply be created and regulated.

peterangular 5y ago

> Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market In fact, it's required for any market to exist in the first place. Without regulation the concept of ownership goes out the window. "Free markets" would look like anarchy... and exactly as you lay out in the river analogy it would be utter chaos with everyone acting in their best interest like "damn the consequences!" - it's human nature. Sorry if I'm coming off as abrupt here - I'm aggressively agreeing and building on your point... IMO the markets require regulation when all is said and done. People who point to a "free market" often do so to shield themselves from the same regulations/rules that are designed to keep the markets afloat just like Pelosi has done here. It's gotten to the point that the words "free market" are almost always a sign of a bad faith argument.

mcv 5y ago
No, you're absolutely correct. I put my point far too weakly. Any truly unregulated market quickly becomes dominated by monopolies, cartels, scams, etc.
- peterangular 5y ago
  > I put my point far too weakly Nah - IMO you made a super strong point which is why I wanted to respond with my thoughts. I was just trying to explain why I was being pedantic pulling some of the words apart with my "sorry for abrupt/aggressively agreeing" comment =) Cheers!

cpwright 5y ago

In general, an information disparity is good; it means you have done work to learn something and incorporate that into prices. If you are right, you deserve to be rewarded. Insider trading is when you steal the information from someone else (often your employer) to make those trades - misappropriating value for yourself that does not belong to you.