3 ms·

What world do you live in that you don't see the burdensome regulation everywhere. Don't know anyone with a business? Never investigated how zoning works? Never

What world do you live in that you don't see the burdensome regulation everywhere. Don't know anyone with a business? Never investigated how zoning works? Never filed taxes? Never used the healthcare system?

hackyhacky 3y ago
I've used all of these services and they all have problems. I can't say that those problems are due to "excessive regulation." In the case of healthcare, for example, most of the problems come from insurance companies who allegedly operate in the free market. I am strongly in favor of business, zoning, and environmental regulations because they provide valuable function. Moreover, none of that is relevant to nuclear regulation. I asked for a specific example of an overly burdensome and unnecessary regulatory rule.
- zizee 3y ago
  Using services is not the same as operating those services. I think if you could see the true costs that all the regulations bring, you might change your mind. And if you're happy to pay these costs you're most likely wealthy enough to be able to bear them. Healthcare companies operate in an environment that is very much not a free market. For these companies, the regulatory burden is welcome as it is a high barrier to entry for new players. Read up on regulatory capture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
  - hackyhacky 3y ago
    I'm aware of regulatory capture, thanks. You have not convinced me that this case applies sufficiently to the nuclear sector (which is after all the topic of conversation), where it has been claimed that unnecessary safety regulations are holding back progress. As for other industries: sure, some regulations are put in place by the industry itself to preserve the status quo. And other regulations absolutely benefit society, even if they impose a cost to the industry. It's important to separate these two cases. What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation," implying that all regulations are unnecessary obstacles that serve no valid purpose. If you want to reduce regulations, okay: tell me specific regulations that you feel cost more than they are worth to society. Don't just lecture me in general about, "Hey, regulatory capture is a thing." Those blanket arguments are unpersuasive and are often propagated by industry players seeking to free themselves of costly regulations, regardless of their value to society. If we're talking about the US specifically, I can tell you that business and environmental regulations are vastly lighter than other Western nations. In if we compare the US regulatory framework to non-Western nations, we find that there is a tangible cost to lighter regulatory load, in terms of corruption, fraud, pollution, labor rights abuse.
    - zizee 3y ago
      I'm really just responding to your original statement of: > I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact. Perhaps you were specifically referring to the case of Nuclear power, but it didn't seem that way. Especially when you mentioned Insurance companies being the problem in the medical industry, as if they somehow exist in their current form independently from the regulatory environment they have helped to craft. I have no real opinion on where nuclear is overburdened by regulation.
      - zizee 3y ago
        Too late to edit, but I wanted to add: > What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation," I think this is really an issue of all issues in society today. Emphatic soundbites resonate with people, nuanced discussion does not. I'd think all politicians do this, and it's most notable when they're making statements about things we personally disagree on. If it's something we agree on, we happy to forgive and we "know" that the statement's lack of nuance is ok, because we don't want the message to be watered down. Personally, I think there are many regulations that are good and well thought out, and many that are not. Industry typically does not bear the costs, they are passed on to the consumer. Sometimes this is good. Externalities should be priced in. Sometimes this is not so good, when you have a regulation for every edge case. I'm not going to get into a debate on specific regulations. But if you don't believe there exists a lot of dumb regulations, just Google "weird regulations".

hackyhacky 3y ago

I've used all of these services and they all have problems. I can't say that those problems are due to "excessive regulation." In the case of healthcare, for example, most of the problems come from insurance companies who allegedly operate in the free market. I am strongly in favor of business, zoning, and environmental regulations because they provide valuable function. Moreover, none of that is relevant to nuclear regulation. I asked for a specific example of an overly burdensome and unnecessary regulatory rule.

zizee 3y ago
Using services is not the same as operating those services. I think if you could see the true costs that all the regulations bring, you might change your mind. And if you're happy to pay these costs you're most likely wealthy enough to be able to bear them. Healthcare companies operate in an environment that is very much not a free market. For these companies, the regulatory burden is welcome as it is a high barrier to entry for new players. Read up on regulatory capture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- hackyhacky 3y ago
  I'm aware of regulatory capture, thanks. You have not convinced me that this case applies sufficiently to the nuclear sector (which is after all the topic of conversation), where it has been claimed that unnecessary safety regulations are holding back progress. As for other industries: sure, some regulations are put in place by the industry itself to preserve the status quo. And other regulations absolutely benefit society, even if they impose a cost to the industry. It's important to separate these two cases. What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation," implying that all regulations are unnecessary obstacles that serve no valid purpose. If you want to reduce regulations, okay: tell me specific regulations that you feel cost more than they are worth to society. Don't just lecture me in general about, "Hey, regulatory capture is a thing." Those blanket arguments are unpersuasive and are often propagated by industry players seeking to free themselves of costly regulations, regardless of their value to society. If we're talking about the US specifically, I can tell you that business and environmental regulations are vastly lighter than other Western nations. In if we compare the US regulatory framework to non-Western nations, we find that there is a tangible cost to lighter regulatory load, in terms of corruption, fraud, pollution, labor rights abuse.
  - zizee 3y ago
    I'm really just responding to your original statement of: > I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact. Perhaps you were specifically referring to the case of Nuclear power, but it didn't seem that way. Especially when you mentioned Insurance companies being the problem in the medical industry, as if they somehow exist in their current form independently from the regulatory environment they have helped to craft. I have no real opinion on where nuclear is overburdened by regulation.
    - zizee 3y ago
      Too late to edit, but I wanted to add: > What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation," I think this is really an issue of all issues in society today. Emphatic soundbites resonate with people, nuanced discussion does not. I'd think all politicians do this, and it's most notable when they're making statements about things we personally disagree on. If it's something we agree on, we happy to forgive and we "know" that the statement's lack of nuance is ok, because we don't want the message to be watered down. Personally, I think there are many regulations that are good and well thought out, and many that are not. Industry typically does not bear the costs, they are passed on to the consumer. Sometimes this is good. Externalities should be priced in. Sometimes this is not so good, when you have a regulation for every edge case. I'm not going to get into a debate on specific regulations. But if you don't believe there exists a lot of dumb regulations, just Google "weird regulations".