19 ms·

There is a deep irony in writing an over-worded essay that effectively says 'I don't like it when people outside my profession regulate my actions'. Keep It Sim

There is a deep irony in writing an over-worded essay that effectively says 'I don't like it when people outside my profession regulate my actions'. Keep It Simple, Stooge.

superchroma 4y ago
I definitely think that the wake left by crypto steaming by and then striking multiple successive icebergs demonstrates that regulation is crucial and that unregulated fields with potential profits very quickly become a hell dominated by huge corporations who start to dictate the terms of the field.
- dralley 4y ago
  And Uber, and delivery services screwing over businesses, and scooter startups.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    Oh, yeah, good calls there. They're so enmeshed now I forgot about them.
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  True. Almost as if the regulations... Protect? The... Consumers? No no, its the 'talkers' ruining it for the 'builders', surely. Not like people in a given industry ever want regulations. Please don't look up Louis Rossma-
  - closeparen 4y ago
    So the more stringent the local housing regulators are, the more I should be able to find safe, decent, affordable places to live. Whereas in a place where the average project goes through fewer hearings, where the words "affordability" and "equity" rarely cross planners' lips, the housing should be poor quality, unsafe, way too expensive, only the rich living there. And if I go to a neighborhood that violates every principle of current housing regulation, it should be an unlivable blighted hellscape. Right? How's that consumer protection working out?
    - plaguepilled 4y ago
      Well, yes, that supports my point. Go look at Sydney's property market and the related alleged corruption.
      - zol 4y ago
        Source? I’d like to go look.
        plaguepilled 4y ago
        For details of widespread defects. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/14/more-than-a-quarter-of-new-sydney-apartment-blocks-have-defects-report-suggests https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/14/more-... For specific instances of corruption relating to construction, this is detailed across a few FriendlyJordies videos but I'm strung for a link right now. Will comment if I find it later. Edit: there's also this https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nsw-corruption-gladys-berejiklian-is-just-the-beginning,15592 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/n...
    - lostdog 4y ago
      You can have good and bad regulations, and too much and too little regulation. The only really dumb position is that fewer regulations = better always. For example, there are tons of building codes that keep houses from falling down, and make them livable in many other ways. Those seem good. Others that say that we shouldn't poison the air or water too much. Also good. So yes, much of the consumer protection is working very well thank you. There are a few places where we went overboard and need to cut back.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Yes, Germany and Austria and Singapore and places like that are doing better at this than America. But you're probably thinking about communist California that passed prop 13 and a bunch of other regulations in the decades before it even became majority Democrat.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Some regulations help people, and some regulations hurt people. Regulations that usually help people: - anti-dumping and pollution regulations - regulations that mandate disclosing added sugar on packaging labels - regulations that protect workers in endogenous bargaining disputes. Regulations that usually hurt people: - single-family zoning - price ceilings Regulations are just laws that force businesses to behave a certain way. And laws can be good or bad, because lawmakers can be corrupted by money or ideology, or because laws can have unintended consequences. Regulations are not good or bad in the abstract. The mindset that all current regulations are good is quite toxic, actually, because there are quite a lot of bad regulations that would improve regular people's lives if they were removed or refactored.
    - plaguepilled 4y ago
      Yes everyone is aware that regulations are laws and can be implemented maliciously. We still need regulation despite those shortcomings. Regulations give people who have a stake in a given resource a seat at the table, even if they're not part of the regulated business' plans. The examples you gave have negative effects, but they also highlight how ill equipped the industries that have them are with dealing with some problems. The correct response to seeing that some regulations are malicious is to fix the regulations and to address the ways that affected parties were not adequately represented before the regulation was ratified. The correct response is not to take a philosophical stance against regulation. Taking the philosophical stance conflates a data point with a trend, and also means we get to question the idea of representation at all in a Democratic system (which, if you're against Democratic processes, that's a whole different kettle of fish).
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        I see that we agree. Like you, I am a proponent of good regulations. My issue is with extremist views on regulations, which I now see that you don't hold. I rarely see people on the populist left advocating for specific bad regulations to be repealed or even refactored, unless it happens to clash with a hot button social issue they care about such as discrimination. It's the pragmatic center-left neoliberals who are doing that job. The populist left's entire focus is on adding more regulations, and often bad ones such as price ceilings (mixed with some good ones, of course). Don't get me started on the populist right who are only interested in regulating other people's private social choices. The Texas GOP platform is effectively ancap + social conservatism. And I'm not trying to draw a moral equivalence between the populist left and the populist right in the current moment - the populist right is significantly more insane right now.

There is a deep irony in writing an over-worded essay that effectively says 'I don't like it when people outside my profession regulate my actions'. Keep It Simple, Stooge.

superchroma 4y ago

I definitely think that the wake left by crypto steaming by and then striking multiple successive icebergs demonstrates that regulation is crucial and that unregulated fields with potential profits very quickly become a hell dominated by huge corporations who start to dictate the terms of the field.

dralley 4y ago
And Uber, and delivery services screwing over businesses, and scooter startups.
- superchroma 4y ago
  Oh, yeah, good calls there. They're so enmeshed now I forgot about them.
plaguepilled 4y ago
True. Almost as if the regulations... Protect? The... Consumers? No no, its the 'talkers' ruining it for the 'builders', surely. Not like people in a given industry ever want regulations. Please don't look up Louis Rossma-
- closeparen 4y ago
  So the more stringent the local housing regulators are, the more I should be able to find safe, decent, affordable places to live. Whereas in a place where the average project goes through fewer hearings, where the words "affordability" and "equity" rarely cross planners' lips, the housing should be poor quality, unsafe, way too expensive, only the rich living there. And if I go to a neighborhood that violates every principle of current housing regulation, it should be an unlivable blighted hellscape. Right? How's that consumer protection working out?
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Well, yes, that supports my point. Go look at Sydney's property market and the related alleged corruption.
    - zol 4y ago
      Source? I’d like to go look.
      - plaguepilled 4y ago
        For details of widespread defects. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/14/more-than-a-quarter-of-new-sydney-apartment-blocks-have-defects-report-suggests https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/14/more-... For specific instances of corruption relating to construction, this is detailed across a few FriendlyJordies videos but I'm strung for a link right now. Will comment if I find it later. Edit: there's also this https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nsw-corruption-gladys-berejiklian-is-just-the-beginning,15592 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/n...
  - lostdog 4y ago
    You can have good and bad regulations, and too much and too little regulation. The only really dumb position is that fewer regulations = better always. For example, there are tons of building codes that keep houses from falling down, and make them livable in many other ways. Those seem good. Others that say that we shouldn't poison the air or water too much. Also good. So yes, much of the consumer protection is working very well thank you. There are a few places where we went overboard and need to cut back.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yes, Germany and Austria and Singapore and places like that are doing better at this than America. But you're probably thinking about communist California that passed prop 13 and a bunch of other regulations in the decades before it even became majority Democrat.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Some regulations help people, and some regulations hurt people. Regulations that usually help people: - anti-dumping and pollution regulations - regulations that mandate disclosing added sugar on packaging labels - regulations that protect workers in endogenous bargaining disputes. Regulations that usually hurt people: - single-family zoning - price ceilings Regulations are just laws that force businesses to behave a certain way. And laws can be good or bad, because lawmakers can be corrupted by money or ideology, or because laws can have unintended consequences. Regulations are not good or bad in the abstract. The mindset that all current regulations are good is quite toxic, actually, because there are quite a lot of bad regulations that would improve regular people's lives if they were removed or refactored.
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Yes everyone is aware that regulations are laws and can be implemented maliciously. We still need regulation despite those shortcomings. Regulations give people who have a stake in a given resource a seat at the table, even if they're not part of the regulated business' plans. The examples you gave have negative effects, but they also highlight how ill equipped the industries that have them are with dealing with some problems. The correct response to seeing that some regulations are malicious is to fix the regulations and to address the ways that affected parties were not adequately represented before the regulation was ratified. The correct response is not to take a philosophical stance against regulation. Taking the philosophical stance conflates a data point with a trend, and also means we get to question the idea of representation at all in a Democratic system (which, if you're against Democratic processes, that's a whole different kettle of fish).
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      I see that we agree. Like you, I am a proponent of good regulations. My issue is with extremist views on regulations, which I now see that you don't hold. I rarely see people on the populist left advocating for specific bad regulations to be repealed or even refactored, unless it happens to clash with a hot button social issue they care about such as discrimination. It's the pragmatic center-left neoliberals who are doing that job. The populist left's entire focus is on adding more regulations, and often bad ones such as price ceilings (mixed with some good ones, of course). Don't get me started on the populist right who are only interested in regulating other people's private social choices. The Texas GOP platform is effectively ancap + social conservatism. And I'm not trying to draw a moral equivalence between the populist left and the populist right in the current moment - the populist right is significantly more insane right now.