3 ms·

> If a bank says that stress tests are too expensive to run, that means that absent regulatory requirements they would perform no risk management. This feels s

> If a bank says that stress tests are too expensive to run, that means that absent regulatory requirements they would perform no risk management. This feels so damn true about almost every megacorp belly-aching about regulation.

ryandrake 4y ago
Exactly. But also for smaller companies whining about government regulation. The “regulation” is what’s expensive, not the government part. If they can’t afford government regulation, they can’t afford self-regulation either, unless their idea of self-regulation is “do nothing and keep the money.”
- downrightmike 4y ago
  “do nothing and keep the money.” That's the best definition of deregulation I've seen.
  - elcritch 4y ago
    Don't forget, receive bailouts if you go bust.
- dspillett 4y ago
  > “do nothing and keep the money.” Or “do nothing until someone(s) else gets stung/slapped, and hope that it is someone/someones else not you, so you are around to learn from the mistake”.
johndhi 4y ago
Just chiming in as a lawyer who works for a fairly big corporation. You're imagining a scenario where one set of clearly written and fairly interpreted rules applies to your core business. You're excluding scenarios where there are fifty states and two hundred countries wildly swinging back and forth from idiotic legislation drafted to apply to three companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon) that is impossible to apply to everyone else. Imo the situation I describe is worthy of belly aching. I don't work in finance so I guess theoretically the US banking system could be easier to comply with than everything else - but I definitely disagree that everything else is easy to comply with.
- Clent 4y ago
  Sounds like running a multinational corporation has some overhead. The idea that we shouldn't regulated because it's too hard, is the same rationale for suppressing wages, costs money. For a corporation, too hard === costs money. No corporation is entitled to exist.

ryandrake 4y ago

Exactly. But also for smaller companies whining about government regulation. The “regulation” is what’s expensive, not the government part. If they can’t afford government regulation, they can’t afford self-regulation either, unless their idea of self-regulation is “do nothing and keep the money.”

downrightmike 4y ago
“do nothing and keep the money.” That's the best definition of deregulation I've seen.
- elcritch 4y ago
  Don't forget, receive bailouts if you go bust.
dspillett 4y ago
> “do nothing and keep the money.” Or “do nothing until someone(s) else gets stung/slapped, and hope that it is someone/someones else not you, so you are around to learn from the mistake”.

johndhi 4y ago

Just chiming in as a lawyer who works for a fairly big corporation. You're imagining a scenario where one set of clearly written and fairly interpreted rules applies to your core business. You're excluding scenarios where there are fifty states and two hundred countries wildly swinging back and forth from idiotic legislation drafted to apply to three companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon) that is impossible to apply to everyone else. Imo the situation I describe is worthy of belly aching. I don't work in finance so I guess theoretically the US banking system could be easier to comply with than everything else - but I definitely disagree that everything else is easy to comply with.

Clent 4y ago
Sounds like running a multinational corporation has some overhead. The idea that we shouldn't regulated because it's too hard, is the same rationale for suppressing wages, costs money. For a corporation, too hard === costs money. No corporation is entitled to exist.