4 ms·

Deregulation has saved lives just as regulation has. How many millions have been brought out of poverty and saved from starvation during the globalist revolutio

Deregulation has saved lives just as regulation has. How many millions have been brought out of poverty and saved from starvation during the globalist revolution? My point is that regulation is not a panacea and sounds great in theory, just like free markets sound great in theory to others. An open mind and a flexible approach are warranted

rqtwteye 4y ago
"An open mind and a flexible approach are warranted" Of course. You can't just blindly follow an ideology but you have to constantly think about the proper balance of all factors. Overregulation is not good and neither is underregulation.
godelski 4y ago
> Deregulation has saved lives just as regulation has. I don't disagree. I'm more an Adam Smith guy. Low regulation is good, but that doesn't mean zero. Zero regulation is just as terrible as the government picking winners and losers. These discussions require a lot of nuance. I, and I'm assuming many others, read your comment as a very typical libertarian "free market" (but like communism, has "never really existed"), as your comment doesn't even hint at a nuance. I tried to allude to this in mine with my comment about the incredible complexity of our modern world, but I guess this too was missed. So I hope that is abundantly explicit now.
- hammock 4y ago
  It sure is. It makes me sad though that, depending on whatever side you are on, many of the commenters here don't seem to be so charitable and just assume zero nuance to the "other side's" position (of course, their side has ALL the nuance, e.g. only the good regulation, none of the bad, exactly the right amount and not too much, etc).
  - godelski 4y ago
    I don't mean to offend you, but reading the comments it was specifically yours where it seemed the nuance was removed. AequitasOmnibus was saying that we need regulation but to do it with care. There's nuance in that. Your comment was pretty reactionary and really just pointed at (near) universally disliked companies and asked how they were ethical. You set the bar for rebuttal pretty low since there simply needs to be a single proof of contradiction. This may not have been the thought you were trying to express but it is clear that I'm not the only one that interpreted your comment in this manner (and I think it should be clear to you what happened here). I want to promote better discussions and it seems like you do too, so I want to give some feedback so we can hopefully have better ones in the future and actually discuss what we want to discuss instead of fighting. I hope this comment helps.

rqtwteye 4y ago

"An open mind and a flexible approach are warranted" Of course. You can't just blindly follow an ideology but you have to constantly think about the proper balance of all factors. Overregulation is not good and neither is underregulation.

godelski 4y ago

> Deregulation has saved lives just as regulation has. I don't disagree. I'm more an Adam Smith guy. Low regulation is good, but that doesn't mean zero. Zero regulation is just as terrible as the government picking winners and losers. These discussions require a lot of nuance. I, and I'm assuming many others, read your comment as a very typical libertarian "free market" (but like communism, has "never really existed"), as your comment doesn't even hint at a nuance. I tried to allude to this in mine with my comment about the incredible complexity of our modern world, but I guess this too was missed. So I hope that is abundantly explicit now.

hammock 4y ago
It sure is. It makes me sad though that, depending on whatever side you are on, many of the commenters here don't seem to be so charitable and just assume zero nuance to the "other side's" position (of course, their side has ALL the nuance, e.g. only the good regulation, none of the bad, exactly the right amount and not too much, etc).
- godelski 4y ago
  I don't mean to offend you, but reading the comments it was specifically yours where it seemed the nuance was removed. AequitasOmnibus was saying that we need regulation but to do it with care. There's nuance in that. Your comment was pretty reactionary and really just pointed at (near) universally disliked companies and asked how they were ethical. You set the bar for rebuttal pretty low since there simply needs to be a single proof of contradiction. This may not have been the thought you were trying to express but it is clear that I'm not the only one that interpreted your comment in this manner (and I think it should be clear to you what happened here). I want to promote better discussions and it seems like you do too, so I want to give some feedback so we can hopefully have better ones in the future and actually discuss what we want to discuss instead of fighting. I hope this comment helps.