12 ms·

For any of the types of people who are against taxes and regulation, that type of policy results in a world where outcomes of disputes are able to be dictated s

For any of the types of people who are against taxes and regulation, that type of policy results in a world where outcomes of disputes are able to be dictated solely on the basis of who has more power or resources. I'd rather live in a world where banks are solely responsible for fraudulent withdrawals than one where banks can shirk responsibility to their patrons. That is only possible through regulation. That's why it's important to vote for people who aren't afraid to create regulations, and that's why it's important to question people who claim that "the free market will eventually result in reasonable outcomes."

bobkazamakis 4y ago
Correct but you've gotten off the subway at chud station and the MBAs are going to be seething
daveslash 4y ago
Yes. I agree. I grew up in a household that was extremely "Free Market is the Best Market; Regulation is for commies and baddies". It's taken me a long time to heal from that. I still prefer as much free market as is reasonable, but my sense for what is and is not reasonable has shifted a ton. I'm now a big advocate for sensible regulation. (Most is sensible in intent, but sometimes non-SME write huge swaths and it gets botched). These days, my biggest complaint about regulation is that the right people (SMEs) aren't consulted as much as they should be.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  "Some regulation is bad, therefore all regulation is bad." is what I grew up with too.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> ... who has more power or resources. I imagine it's been said before but I recently had the thought that murder being illegal is a regulation of the market. The point being that even the most staunch proponent of "free markets" is probably going to draw the line somewhere that defines a "not completely free market" which opens the door to questioning where the line should be drawn. I think that's always been the case but then you'll encounter arguments that something should not be regulated because the market should be free.
- daveslash 4y ago
  Killing someone is not illegal; it's just illegal for folks like you an I. There's a whole school of thought that asserts that The State holds a Monopoly on Violence [0] (which includes killing). It's been discussed here on HN periodically. [1]. But you're totally right: it's a sort of regulation of the market. (Note: 'Murder' is killing someone WITHOUT legal justification. With legal justification, killing someone is not murder, by definition. By definition, something that is illegal is illegal). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=state%20monopoly%20violence&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- blowski 4y ago
  "Nothing to excess." The Oracle at Delphi in Ancient Greece had wisdom that would help some of today's libertarians (and socialists).
- bee_rider 4y ago
  It turns out that the organizations with a local monopoly on killing have managed to leverage their market position to gain a foothold in the regulation of basically every other market. We might call this anticompetitive, but looking at places where the market for killing-services is highly competitive, having a single entity responsible for this is probably in consumer interest.
smeej 4y ago
Here's the thing about fraud, though: It's next to impossible to prove. There is NO visible difference between "I sent my new friend thousands of dollars because she's trying to start a new business and I'm investing...but now the business has gone under and I regret investing so I'm just going to tell the bank it was unauthorized," and, "I just sent my new friend thousands of dollars because she's trying to start a business and I'm investing...but now I've realized she was really a liar and there was no business." Proving account takeover (ATO) is easier. There's some new IP (unless you gave someone remote access to your own device), new mouse behavior (yes this is a thing some institutions track), whatever. But when you're the one who signed into your own bank account and sent your own money, you have every right to do that, even if you're sending it somewhere stupid that you later regret. It's not up to the bank to protect you from your own stupidity. They just hold the money for you that you want to keep. Telling you that you can't send it somewhere you explicitly want to send it because they don't think it's a good idea isn't their job. That's what they're calling "fraud" or "scams" here, and there's no reason your bank should be on the hook because you did something dumb with your own money.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Exactly, as systems get more secure, indirect/third-party fraud decreases and direct fraud becomes caught more. How many people "chargeback" porn that they actually paid for because they got "caught"? As systems get better and better at preventing fraud, those chargebacks become harder and harder to believe.
  - smeej 4y ago
    I have a friend who worked in chargebacks for a major international credit union. The number of exactly these cases he dealt with all the time is absolutely staggering.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  > It's next to impossible to prove. Is it impossible to prevent? What types of entities are in a position to be most able to prevent fraud? What kinds of interventions can mitigate fraud? > That's what they're calling "fraud" or "scams" here, and there's no reason your bank should be on the hook because you did something dumb with your own money. On this point we disagree. My viewpoint is one of "what entity has the most ability to do something about the problem". Yours is one of individual responsibility. I would prefer the bank do something to protect my vulnerable grandma from doing something wrong to one where her mental decline and therefore her inability to comprehend her impending mistake is her responsibility.
cowtools 4y ago
>I'd rather live in a world where banks are solely responsible for fraudulent withdrawals than one where banks can shirk responsibility to their patrons. That is only possible through regulation. I'd rather live in a world in which effective security measures prevent fraud than a world in which there are weak security measures and endless debates as to who should be blamed when they fail. Regardless of your political stance, I think we can agree that the system is more technicially-broken than it is socially-broken. I think understanding the problem in solely in terms of more/less regulation is a bone-headed thing to do. I think what we have isn't a free market but a duopoly of mastercard/visa each with control over their respective domain. You can't upgrade the security, privacy, or efficiency of the network because the big players benefit from the insecurity, surveilance, and inefficiency. Decreased regulation will probably increase their stranglehold on the industry, as you've noted. Increased regulation will cement current ineffective practices and make different buisness models impossible. People turn to cryptocurrency, not because it's more private/secure/etc but because it is the most private/secure/etc system that works without the permission of the big rent-seekers.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  > I'd rather live in a world in which effective security measures prevent fraud than a world in which there are weak security measures and endless debates as to who should be blamed when they fail. Regardless of your political stance, I think we can agree that the system is more technicially-broken than it is socially-broken. But this is a problem of responsibility. Customer responsibility is an O(people) security problem. Bank responsibility is an O(banks) problem. In terms of alignment to fraud mitigation, bank responsibility leads to better technical security because they become the implementers of it to protect their own interests. From an outcome based perspective banks must be accountable. > I think understanding the problem in solely in terms of more/less regulation is a bone-headed thing to do. I don't have a more/less regulation perspective. I have a correct/incorrect regulation perspective. > People turn to cryptocurrency, not because it's more private/secure/etc but because it is the most private/secure/etc system that works without the permission of the big rent-seekers. But it isn't. It might be more secure because the average crypto holder is more savvy, but in terms of security properties, I wouldn't let my mom have a crypto wallet, and without a direct wallet, I don't see how crypto has different properties than a bank (an entity making transactions on your behalf), the interface is the same, but the implementation details are different. No?
throw10920 4y ago
> For any of the types of people who are against taxes and regulation Please don't introduce this kind of barely-related, politically biased, emotionally-charged, tribalistic tangent into HN. Virtually nobody here (either in this thread, or on HN in general) is arguing that taxes should be abolished or that financial stuff should be deregulated. You're just invoking tribalism where there was none previously.
rglover 4y ago
> that type of policy results in a world where outcomes of disputes are able to be dictated solely on the basis of who has more power or resources. We already live in that world. There's just an intermediary in the form of the state.
robswc 4y ago
Regulations aren’t some magic want that don’t come with side effects, though. IMO, they tend to not address the root problems and only add layers of abstraction. One of the best examples of this is how Sweden irrevocably killed their financial markets by trying to just squeeze out a bit more tax revenue and limit speculation. The cost of that mistake has to be in the billions and IMO, we’ll see the end of Sweden as a nation before we see it “recover” its markets.

bobkazamakis 4y ago

Correct but you've gotten off the subway at chud station and the MBAs are going to be seething

daveslash 4y ago

Yes. I agree. I grew up in a household that was extremely "Free Market is the Best Market; Regulation is for commies and baddies". It's taken me a long time to heal from that. I still prefer as much free market as is reasonable, but my sense for what is and is not reasonable has shifted a ton. I'm now a big advocate for sensible regulation. (Most is sensible in intent, but sometimes non-SME write huge swaths and it gets botched). These days, my biggest complaint about regulation is that the right people (SMEs) aren't consulted as much as they should be.

hayst4ck 4y ago
"Some regulation is bad, therefore all regulation is bad." is what I grew up with too.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

> ... who has more power or resources. I imagine it's been said before but I recently had the thought that murder being illegal is a regulation of the market. The point being that even the most staunch proponent of "free markets" is probably going to draw the line somewhere that defines a "not completely free market" which opens the door to questioning where the line should be drawn. I think that's always been the case but then you'll encounter arguments that something should not be regulated because the market should be free.

daveslash 4y ago
Killing someone is not illegal; it's just illegal for folks like you an I. There's a whole school of thought that asserts that The State holds a Monopoly on Violence [0] (which includes killing). It's been discussed here on HN periodically. [1]. But you're totally right: it's a sort of regulation of the market. (Note: 'Murder' is killing someone WITHOUT legal justification. With legal justification, killing someone is not murder, by definition. By definition, something that is illegal is illegal). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=state%20monopoly%20violence&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
blowski 4y ago
"Nothing to excess." The Oracle at Delphi in Ancient Greece had wisdom that would help some of today's libertarians (and socialists).
bee_rider 4y ago
It turns out that the organizations with a local monopoly on killing have managed to leverage their market position to gain a foothold in the regulation of basically every other market. We might call this anticompetitive, but looking at places where the market for killing-services is highly competitive, having a single entity responsible for this is probably in consumer interest.

smeej 4y ago

Here's the thing about fraud, though: It's next to impossible to prove. There is NO visible difference between "I sent my new friend thousands of dollars because she's trying to start a new business and I'm investing...but now the business has gone under and I regret investing so I'm just going to tell the bank it was unauthorized," and, "I just sent my new friend thousands of dollars because she's trying to start a business and I'm investing...but now I've realized she was really a liar and there was no business." Proving account takeover (ATO) is easier. There's some new IP (unless you gave someone remote access to your own device), new mouse behavior (yes this is a thing some institutions track), whatever. But when you're the one who signed into your own bank account and sent your own money, you have every right to do that, even if you're sending it somewhere stupid that you later regret. It's not up to the bank to protect you from your own stupidity. They just hold the money for you that you want to keep. Telling you that you can't send it somewhere you explicitly want to send it because they don't think it's a good idea isn't their job. That's what they're calling "fraud" or "scams" here, and there's no reason your bank should be on the hook because you did something dumb with your own money.

bombcar 4y ago
Exactly, as systems get more secure, indirect/third-party fraud decreases and direct fraud becomes caught more. How many people "chargeback" porn that they actually paid for because they got "caught"? As systems get better and better at preventing fraud, those chargebacks become harder and harder to believe.
- smeej 4y ago
  I have a friend who worked in chargebacks for a major international credit union. The number of exactly these cases he dealt with all the time is absolutely staggering.
hayst4ck 4y ago
> It's next to impossible to prove. Is it impossible to prevent? What types of entities are in a position to be most able to prevent fraud? What kinds of interventions can mitigate fraud? > That's what they're calling "fraud" or "scams" here, and there's no reason your bank should be on the hook because you did something dumb with your own money. On this point we disagree. My viewpoint is one of "what entity has the most ability to do something about the problem". Yours is one of individual responsibility. I would prefer the bank do something to protect my vulnerable grandma from doing something wrong to one where her mental decline and therefore her inability to comprehend her impending mistake is her responsibility.

cowtools 4y ago

>I'd rather live in a world where banks are solely responsible for fraudulent withdrawals than one where banks can shirk responsibility to their patrons. That is only possible through regulation. I'd rather live in a world in which effective security measures prevent fraud than a world in which there are weak security measures and endless debates as to who should be blamed when they fail. Regardless of your political stance, I think we can agree that the system is more technicially-broken than it is socially-broken. I think understanding the problem in solely in terms of more/less regulation is a bone-headed thing to do. I think what we have isn't a free market but a duopoly of mastercard/visa each with control over their respective domain. You can't upgrade the security, privacy, or efficiency of the network because the big players benefit from the insecurity, surveilance, and inefficiency. Decreased regulation will probably increase their stranglehold on the industry, as you've noted. Increased regulation will cement current ineffective practices and make different buisness models impossible. People turn to cryptocurrency, not because it's more private/secure/etc but because it is the most private/secure/etc system that works without the permission of the big rent-seekers.

hayst4ck 4y ago
> I'd rather live in a world in which effective security measures prevent fraud than a world in which there are weak security measures and endless debates as to who should be blamed when they fail. Regardless of your political stance, I think we can agree that the system is more technicially-broken than it is socially-broken. But this is a problem of responsibility. Customer responsibility is an O(people) security problem. Bank responsibility is an O(banks) problem. In terms of alignment to fraud mitigation, bank responsibility leads to better technical security because they become the implementers of it to protect their own interests. From an outcome based perspective banks must be accountable. > I think understanding the problem in solely in terms of more/less regulation is a bone-headed thing to do. I don't have a more/less regulation perspective. I have a correct/incorrect regulation perspective. > People turn to cryptocurrency, not because it's more private/secure/etc but because it is the most private/secure/etc system that works without the permission of the big rent-seekers. But it isn't. It might be more secure because the average crypto holder is more savvy, but in terms of security properties, I wouldn't let my mom have a crypto wallet, and without a direct wallet, I don't see how crypto has different properties than a bank (an entity making transactions on your behalf), the interface is the same, but the implementation details are different. No?

throw10920 4y ago

> For any of the types of people who are against taxes and regulation Please don't introduce this kind of barely-related, politically biased, emotionally-charged, tribalistic tangent into HN. Virtually nobody here (either in this thread, or on HN in general) is arguing that taxes should be abolished or that financial stuff should be deregulated. You're just invoking tribalism where there was none previously.

rglover 4y ago

> that type of policy results in a world where outcomes of disputes are able to be dictated solely on the basis of who has more power or resources. We already live in that world. There's just an intermediary in the form of the state.

robswc 4y ago

Regulations aren’t some magic want that don’t come with side effects, though. IMO, they tend to not address the root problems and only add layers of abstraction. One of the best examples of this is how Sweden irrevocably killed their financial markets by trying to just squeeze out a bit more tax revenue and limit speculation. The cost of that mistake has to be in the billions and IMO, we’ll see the end of Sweden as a nation before we see it “recover” its markets.