4 ms·

Speaking as someone who doesn't know much about this stuff, your analogy reads more like, "the canal diverted the waterway, so tigers devoured the Pope". It ma

Speaking as someone who doesn't know much about this stuff, your analogy reads more like, "the canal diverted the waterway, so tigers devoured the Pope". It may well be true, but you need to flesh it out more: explain how the new course flooded the tigers' habitat, forcing them to migrate to Rome.

jellicle 15y ago
The person you're responding to believes that if medical charges are vastly different between providers it must be due to evil government regulation, because after all in other sorts of stores we never see wildly varying prices for the same item and healthcare, where people have plenty of time to comparison shop (even if you're choking on turkey, you still have a few minutes to contact the various local hospitals and determine which provides cheaper ER service before you pass out) is a perfect example of a transparent market.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  The person you're responding to believes that The person he's talking to doesn't believe that putting a strawman argument into someone else's mouth is an honest debate tactic. This question has nothing to do with ideology. As a matter of pure logic, regulation changes what the market is doing naturally; that's the whole point of the regulation. This is a non-judgmental conclusion. One doesn't have to say that the market state was good or bad, or that the regulated state is good or bad. Simply that a regulated market differs from a free market. That's it. Now, given that the system is highly regulated, it's clear that the regulators have screwed up. However, this on its own doesn't tell us that the free market was good; it just tells us that the current regulatory regime is crap.
  - intended 15y ago
    Bit late to the conversation, and somewhat pedantic, do forgive - Going from : >>This is a non-judgmental conclusion. One doesn't have to say that the market state was good or bad, or that the regulated state is good or bad. Simply that a regulated market differs from a free market. That's it. to >>Now, given that the system is highly regulated, it's clear that the regulators have screwed up. is making a jump. It is not a necessary that the regulators messed up - it is also possible that the parties being moderated, are actively subverting the system. /pedant I will agree with your point behind it all - ie that in such a system it is LIKELY that there is fault by the regulators. This type of fault, the extent of responsibility for the final outcome, these are complex questions which need more than just stating that the regulators were out of line. You could say that X and Y are responsible for crime A. The punishment/responsibility would depend on a variety of factors. That is the question that requires answering.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      It is not a necessary that the regulators messed up - it is also possible that the parties being moderated, are actively subverting the system. As I see it, that is a problem with the regulation. By analogy, when a hacker breaks into your system, you can't say, "our security checks weren't wrong; the users just weren't supposed to enter those inputs". It's your job to anticipate all the possible bad inputs, and guard against them. Similarly, it's the job of the regulators to anticipate all possible routes around the regulations, and account for those. Now, a bit of thought will lead to the conclusion that this is impossible except in all but the most trivial cases. I submit that this does NOT give us leave to shrug and just go through it anyway. Instead, it should force us to step back and consider whether the intended benefits of the regulations are great enough to counterbalance the cost of the complications that are certain to occur down the road. (and I note a certain irony in your pseudonym "intended", since the problem here is UNintended consequences)

jellicle 15y ago

The person you're responding to believes that if medical charges are vastly different between providers it must be due to evil government regulation, because after all in other sorts of stores we never see wildly varying prices for the same item and healthcare, where people have plenty of time to comparison shop (even if you're choking on turkey, you still have a few minutes to contact the various local hospitals and determine which provides cheaper ER service before you pass out) is a perfect example of a transparent market.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
The person you're responding to believes that The person he's talking to doesn't believe that putting a strawman argument into someone else's mouth is an honest debate tactic. This question has nothing to do with ideology. As a matter of pure logic, regulation changes what the market is doing naturally; that's the whole point of the regulation. This is a non-judgmental conclusion. One doesn't have to say that the market state was good or bad, or that the regulated state is good or bad. Simply that a regulated market differs from a free market. That's it. Now, given that the system is highly regulated, it's clear that the regulators have screwed up. However, this on its own doesn't tell us that the free market was good; it just tells us that the current regulatory regime is crap.
- intended 15y ago
  Bit late to the conversation, and somewhat pedantic, do forgive - Going from : >>This is a non-judgmental conclusion. One doesn't have to say that the market state was good or bad, or that the regulated state is good or bad. Simply that a regulated market differs from a free market. That's it. to >>Now, given that the system is highly regulated, it's clear that the regulators have screwed up. is making a jump. It is not a necessary that the regulators messed up - it is also possible that the parties being moderated, are actively subverting the system. /pedant I will agree with your point behind it all - ie that in such a system it is LIKELY that there is fault by the regulators. This type of fault, the extent of responsibility for the final outcome, these are complex questions which need more than just stating that the regulators were out of line. You could say that X and Y are responsible for crime A. The punishment/responsibility would depend on a variety of factors. That is the question that requires answering.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    It is not a necessary that the regulators messed up - it is also possible that the parties being moderated, are actively subverting the system. As I see it, that is a problem with the regulation. By analogy, when a hacker breaks into your system, you can't say, "our security checks weren't wrong; the users just weren't supposed to enter those inputs". It's your job to anticipate all the possible bad inputs, and guard against them. Similarly, it's the job of the regulators to anticipate all possible routes around the regulations, and account for those. Now, a bit of thought will lead to the conclusion that this is impossible except in all but the most trivial cases. I submit that this does NOT give us leave to shrug and just go through it anyway. Instead, it should force us to step back and consider whether the intended benefits of the regulations are great enough to counterbalance the cost of the complications that are certain to occur down the road. (and I note a certain irony in your pseudonym "intended", since the problem here is UNintended consequences)