4 ms·

This may shock you, but sometimes the rule makers only think of the advantages the rules will bring, and don't consider the downsides.

ink_13 2y ago
This may shock you, but sometimes the rule trashers only think of the advantages removing the rules will bring, and don't consider the downsides
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  It might be the case that, in general, people can never consider the downsides without leaving the rules in place forever. Maybe they do need to be mindlessly trashed every once in awhile, and maybe the price paid for those downsides is worth it on a very long time scale where the alternative would be for rules to only ever accrete but never shake loose. And they have to sometimes unless you believe that all regulations ever, no matter how poorly formulated are perfect.
  - ink_13 2y ago
    What an unnecessarily narrow view. There are options beyond "rules are permanent forever" and "our only choice is to remove all of the rules". But by all means, tear down all these fences without understanding why they exist. They can just be rebuilt after all, and it's not like wolves will eat all of us and our livestock in the meantime.
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      In conclusion: nobody learned anything from all the "crypto" bankruptcies and fiascos.
  - supplied_demand 2y ago
    ==It might be the case that, in general, people can never consider the downsides without leaving the rules in place forever. == This assumes that the rules created themselves out of thin air and we never lived without them. In most cases, existing rules/regulations were created in response to events that proved their necessity.
    - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
      That regulations were created in response to events that should have been regulated does not imply that the resulting legislation was an appropriate way to solve the problem. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act
bunderbunder 2y ago
Sometimes. But a surprising number of rules on US financial markets come from self-regulation. I'm not an expert, but I'd guess that these are generally the only kinds of rules that this Texas exchange would be able to avoid. Texas is still subject to federal law. And self-regulation is one of the cases where you can be pretty sure that the rule makers are intrinsically motivated to consider the downsides as well as the upsides.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
The last fifteen years we've been watching crypto start from scratch and gradually rediscover the exact reason for every single securities regulation and finance convention. So idk maybe we were on to something the first time around.
- tombert 2y ago
  That's kind of what gives me pause about Texas thinking they can do things better than the other exchanges. It's entirely possible that they can, I'm not claiming that NYSE is perfect or anything, but in my years on this earth something has become abundantly clear to me: if there's an "obvious" solution to something, and no one is doing it, then there's probably a pretty decent reason and you're not a genius for thinking it. The easiest example that comes to mind is the stainless steel frame of the Cybertruck that doesn't crumple, which sounds like an "obvious" good thing (no one really wants their car to break in a crash), until you realize that that drastically reduces the safety of the vehicle because a lot more of the shock transfers to the passenger, and the other mainstream car producers were already well aware of that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tombert 2y ago
Sure, I guess I'm asking which rules the Texas Stock Exchange will be removing, and why those rules have downsides. Entirely possible that I'll agree with the changes, though what I'm more worried about is it becoming some vague "culture war" bullshit about wokeness or something, as seems to be the only talking point being brought up in traditionally-conservative states now.
lomase 2y ago
Many facts have shocked me in my life. But conjetures not so much.

ink_13 2y ago

This may shock you, but sometimes the rule trashers only think of the advantages removing the rules will bring, and don't consider the downsides

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
It might be the case that, in general, people can never consider the downsides without leaving the rules in place forever. Maybe they do need to be mindlessly trashed every once in awhile, and maybe the price paid for those downsides is worth it on a very long time scale where the alternative would be for rules to only ever accrete but never shake loose. And they have to sometimes unless you believe that all regulations ever, no matter how poorly formulated are perfect.
- ink_13 2y ago
  What an unnecessarily narrow view. There are options beyond "rules are permanent forever" and "our only choice is to remove all of the rules". But by all means, tear down all these fences without understanding why they exist. They can just be rebuilt after all, and it's not like wolves will eat all of us and our livestock in the meantime.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    In conclusion: nobody learned anything from all the "crypto" bankruptcies and fiascos.
- supplied_demand 2y ago
  ==It might be the case that, in general, people can never consider the downsides without leaving the rules in place forever. == This assumes that the rules created themselves out of thin air and we never lived without them. In most cases, existing rules/regulations were created in response to events that proved their necessity.
  - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
    That regulations were created in response to events that should have been regulated does not imply that the resulting legislation was an appropriate way to solve the problem. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act

bunderbunder 2y ago

Sometimes. But a surprising number of rules on US financial markets come from self-regulation. I'm not an expert, but I'd guess that these are generally the only kinds of rules that this Texas exchange would be able to avoid. Texas is still subject to federal law. And self-regulation is one of the cases where you can be pretty sure that the rule makers are intrinsically motivated to consider the downsides as well as the upsides.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

The last fifteen years we've been watching crypto start from scratch and gradually rediscover the exact reason for every single securities regulation and finance convention. So idk maybe we were on to something the first time around.

tombert 2y ago
That's kind of what gives me pause about Texas thinking they can do things better than the other exchanges. It's entirely possible that they can, I'm not claiming that NYSE is perfect or anything, but in my years on this earth something has become abundantly clear to me: if there's an "obvious" solution to something, and no one is doing it, then there's probably a pretty decent reason and you're not a genius for thinking it. The easiest example that comes to mind is the stainless steel frame of the Cybertruck that doesn't crumple, which sounds like an "obvious" good thing (no one really wants their car to break in a crash), until you realize that that drastically reduces the safety of the vehicle because a lot more of the shock transfers to the passenger, and the other mainstream car producers were already well aware of that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tombert 2y ago

Sure, I guess I'm asking which rules the Texas Stock Exchange will be removing, and why those rules have downsides. Entirely possible that I'll agree with the changes, though what I'm more worried about is it becoming some vague "culture war" bullshit about wokeness or something, as seems to be the only talking point being brought up in traditionally-conservative states now.

lomase 2y ago

Many facts have shocked me in my life. But conjetures not so much.