6 ms·

I can see two problems causing the pain described here, which I will discuss shortly. But the article seems to stretch that experience too much into the 'regula

by goku12 11mo ago

I can see two problems causing the pain described here, which I will discuss shortly. But the article seems to stretch that experience too much into the 'regulation is bad' territory. Regulations exist for a reason. They aren't created for the power trip of government officials. This is the same US where companies dump PFAS into drinking water sources with impunity, has some of the highest fees for the worst quality interest access, where insulin is unaffordable and corporate house renting is a thing. There are many such areas where regulation and oversight is woefully inadequate, much less any 'overregulation'. Regulations are practically the only thing standing between the rich and the powerful and their incessant attempt to drive even more wealth into their own pockets at the expense ordinary people's health, wealth, future, welfare, housing, etc. Now let's look at the specific problems here with a much narrower scope than 'regulations'. The first problem is the type of regulations. Some regulations are too arcane and don't reflect the current state of technology. Others affect the unprivileged people disproportionately. The solution for that is to amend these regulations fast enough - not deregulation. It's also important to assess the negative impacts of loosening these regulations - something I don't see discussed in this article. The other important requirement is to increase the staffing of the regulatory agencies so that their individual workload doesn't become a bottleneck in the entire process. There is a scientific method to assess the staffing requirements of public service institutions. According to that, a significant number of government departments all over the world are understaffed. Regulatory agencies and police departments top that list. Increased workload on their officials lead to poor experience for the citizens availing their services (this is very evident in policing). Yet those same experiences are misconstrued and misrepresented to call for deregulation and defunding of these institutions - the opposite of what's actually needed. (PDs need more staff and more training in empathy. Not defunding, nor militarization.) This is exactly what I see in this article. An attempt to target regulations as a whole using a sob anecdote.

energy123 11mo ago
> Regulations exist for a reason. Regulations exist for different reasons, not one reason. Some of those reasons are good reasons, like regulations against dumping or against contract killers or for food safety. Some of those are bad reasons, like regulations of parking minimums implemented to appease the property owning class. Some of those are for bad reasons pretending to be for good reasons, like the regulations that block renewable energy which are allegedly for the environment, but the true motives are more about aesthetic displeasure or ideological hostility.
- friendzis 11mo ago
  > like regulations of parking minimums implemented to appease the property owning class. Due to current market conditions we can sell all apartments without any parking spaces, therefore regulation defining a housing unit with foresight for future market conditions is bad. > the regulations that block renewable energy Can you name one regulation that outright blocks renewable energy generation specifically and not externalities created by developments, that sometimes happen to be renewable energy?
- scotty79 11mo ago
  > like regulations of parking minimums implemented to appease the property owning class. This regulations are crucial for preventing cities from being littered with cars (more than they already are). If developers were allowed they would build only very limited parking space and then people living there would have to park in public space burdening everybody. If anything it's a regulation against property owning class.
  - zjuventus14 11mo ago
    Are you suggesting that less “free” (cost-bundled) parking spaces would lead to more cars? Or do you just mean from an aesthetic perspective more street parking would be used when you say cities would be more littered with cars? We’ve ended up with such car-centric cities (in the U.S.) thanks in part to the presence of ample free (subsidized) parking thanks to parking minimums and free street parking. If the cost of parking was actually borne by car owners, it would reduce car ownership thanks to higher cost. This is less true today thanks to car ownership being near-mandator, but with the right investments that can change. I’d describe parking minimums as a regulation against non-car owners as they still pay in part for the parking spaces required by their apartment/home/every business they visit in most cases. As an aside, have you looked at how parking minimums are often set? It’s only loosely correlated with the goal of sufficient parking.
    - scotty79 11mo ago
      > Or do you just mean from an aesthetic perspective more street parking would be used when you say cities would be more littered with cars? Yes, but I'm more concerned about practical aspect than esthetics. Blocked walkways, lower visibility for drivers, longer distance between place of living and the car, and the car you had to park far away on the crowded street snd your business. This are all costs that developers love to externalize to all members of society instead of passing them to the future owners of the property they are building. I'm not really talking about situation in US where people live so sparsely that they have plenty of space to patk their car when they are at home. Parking minimums I'm supporting are for medium to high density residential intermixed with conmercial zones. That is pretty much majority of spaces in European cities. I'm sure that mininum parking requirements for businesses in US in purely commercial zones might be too high.
0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago
>insulin is unaffordable In large part due to regulation. Reflexively adding more regulations to deal with the negative effects of existing regulations is like "fixing" a bug by adding special-case logic for inputs which trigger the bug, without understanding why the bug actually occurred. Just like code, regulations should ideally be simple and elegant with a minimum of special cases.
- DarkNova6 11mo ago
  The bug occurs because of the power discrepancy of those who have the demand and those of who can supply. For some reason, the problem if insulin prices and absurd health costs only exist in the US. I wonder why.
  - pipes 11mo ago
    The power to charge what you want comes from lack of competition. Regulation can make entry into a market too high, especially for small start ups. Ensuring that regulation is necessary and as straight forward as possible to comply with is good for consumers.
    - rusk 11mo ago
      > competition We don’t need competition in insulin production. It is a know quantity with fixed and closed quality parameters. Fix the price and let suppliers compete on cost.
      - pastage 11mo ago
        There are many kinds of insulin variants on the market. The easy way to differentiate them is by release rate and duration. Gone in an hour for some and 24hours for others. There are other factors as well that make them incompatible with each other.
        rusk 11mo ago
        All clearly categorised and regulated. Fill the boxes and ship em and STFU
matu3ba 11mo ago
> Regulations are practically the only thing standing between the rich and the powerful and their incessant attempt to drive even more wealth into their own pockets at the expense ordinary people's health, wealth, future, welfare, housing, etc. Try to rethink how money is created and how money gets its value and how and by whom that wealth is distributed. Regulation as in "make rules" does not enforce rules, which is the definition of (political) power. > The other important requirement is to increase the staffing of the regulatory agencies so that their individual workload doesn't become a bottleneck in the entire process. There is a scientific method to assess the staffing requirements of public service institutions. According to that, a significant number of government departments all over the world are understaffed. Why are you claiming "There is a scientific method" and do not provide it? Governments do (risk) management by 1 rules, 2 checks and 3 punishment and we already know from software that complexity in system is only bounded by system working with eventual necessary (ideally partial) resets. Ideally governments would be structured like that, but that goes against governments interest of extending power/control. Also, "system working" is decided by the current ruling class/group. Besides markets and physical constrains.
- scotty79 11mo ago
  > Try to rethink how money is created and how money gets its value and how and by whom that wealth is distributed. Please elaborate.
  - matu3ba 11mo ago
    Money is created and distributed via 1 banking system and 2 government. Are 1 rules, 2 checks and 3 punishment enforced against the banking system and government or only to stabilize and extend those systems? I'd argue the introduction of (arbitrary) rules are often just the excuses to amass power, but enforcement of checks and punishments decides who holds (political) power.
  - Mitochondriac 11mo ago
    Money is printed out of thin air by the FED and then loaned out to the government for them to spend, so it enters the economy. Something along those lines.
torginus 11mo ago
The problem is that the regulators themselves are insanely corrupt - how else would you explain the emergence of proposals like (thrice-resurrected) Chat Control, that clearly is harmful to every citizen of the EU, and I have yet to see a single individual supporting it. Every governing decision and rule is either fully made by powerful shadow interests, proposed by said interests and is only thwarted (for the time being) by some politicians on the other side or made out to be benign or even beneficial but is in actuality compromised in some major way.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  >Every governing decision and rule is either fully made by powerful shadow interests, proposed by said interests The Useful Idiots(TM) will be along shortly to tell you how you're technically wrong because the rules are "only" 99% made/proposed by shadow interests.
  - cassepipe 11mo ago
    I hope you enjoy the superiority high that that comment gave you before it disappear
    - potato3732842 11mo ago
      We are all useful idiots in some context, comrade.
dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago
>They aren't created for the power trip of government officials. They weren't created for that reason, but it end up being used precisely for that. That is the conundrum we all face - how much power do we give the gvt.
xnx 11mo ago
Another word for "regulations" is "protections". We still need to ask what is being protected (and if was what we intended), and if the cost is worth it.

by goku12 11mo ago

energy123 11mo ago

> Regulations exist for a reason. Regulations exist for different reasons, not one reason. Some of those reasons are good reasons, like regulations against dumping or against contract killers or for food safety. Some of those are bad reasons, like regulations of parking minimums implemented to appease the property owning class. Some of those are for bad reasons pretending to be for good reasons, like the regulations that block renewable energy which are allegedly for the environment, but the true motives are more about aesthetic displeasure or ideological hostility.

friendzis 11mo ago
> like regulations of parking minimums implemented to appease the property owning class. Due to current market conditions we can sell all apartments without any parking spaces, therefore regulation defining a housing unit with foresight for future market conditions is bad. > the regulations that block renewable energy Can you name one regulation that outright blocks renewable energy generation specifically and not externalities created by developments, that sometimes happen to be renewable energy?
scotty79 11mo ago
> like regulations of parking minimums implemented to appease the property owning class. This regulations are crucial for preventing cities from being littered with cars (more than they already are). If developers were allowed they would build only very limited parking space and then people living there would have to park in public space burdening everybody. If anything it's a regulation against property owning class.
- zjuventus14 11mo ago
  Are you suggesting that less “free” (cost-bundled) parking spaces would lead to more cars? Or do you just mean from an aesthetic perspective more street parking would be used when you say cities would be more littered with cars? We’ve ended up with such car-centric cities (in the U.S.) thanks in part to the presence of ample free (subsidized) parking thanks to parking minimums and free street parking. If the cost of parking was actually borne by car owners, it would reduce car ownership thanks to higher cost. This is less true today thanks to car ownership being near-mandator, but with the right investments that can change. I’d describe parking minimums as a regulation against non-car owners as they still pay in part for the parking spaces required by their apartment/home/every business they visit in most cases. As an aside, have you looked at how parking minimums are often set? It’s only loosely correlated with the goal of sufficient parking.
  - scotty79 11mo ago
    > Or do you just mean from an aesthetic perspective more street parking would be used when you say cities would be more littered with cars? Yes, but I'm more concerned about practical aspect than esthetics. Blocked walkways, lower visibility for drivers, longer distance between place of living and the car, and the car you had to park far away on the crowded street snd your business. This are all costs that developers love to externalize to all members of society instead of passing them to the future owners of the property they are building. I'm not really talking about situation in US where people live so sparsely that they have plenty of space to patk their car when they are at home. Parking minimums I'm supporting are for medium to high density residential intermixed with conmercial zones. That is pretty much majority of spaces in European cities. I'm sure that mininum parking requirements for businesses in US in purely commercial zones might be too high.

0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago

>insulin is unaffordable In large part due to regulation. Reflexively adding more regulations to deal with the negative effects of existing regulations is like "fixing" a bug by adding special-case logic for inputs which trigger the bug, without understanding why the bug actually occurred. Just like code, regulations should ideally be simple and elegant with a minimum of special cases.

DarkNova6 11mo ago
The bug occurs because of the power discrepancy of those who have the demand and those of who can supply. For some reason, the problem if insulin prices and absurd health costs only exist in the US. I wonder why.
- pipes 11mo ago
  The power to charge what you want comes from lack of competition. Regulation can make entry into a market too high, especially for small start ups. Ensuring that regulation is necessary and as straight forward as possible to comply with is good for consumers.
  - rusk 11mo ago
    > competition We don’t need competition in insulin production. It is a know quantity with fixed and closed quality parameters. Fix the price and let suppliers compete on cost.
    - pastage 11mo ago
      There are many kinds of insulin variants on the market. The easy way to differentiate them is by release rate and duration. Gone in an hour for some and 24hours for others. There are other factors as well that make them incompatible with each other.
      - rusk 11mo ago
        All clearly categorised and regulated. Fill the boxes and ship em and STFU

matu3ba 11mo ago

> Regulations are practically the only thing standing between the rich and the powerful and their incessant attempt to drive even more wealth into their own pockets at the expense ordinary people's health, wealth, future, welfare, housing, etc. Try to rethink how money is created and how money gets its value and how and by whom that wealth is distributed. Regulation as in "make rules" does not enforce rules, which is the definition of (political) power. > The other important requirement is to increase the staffing of the regulatory agencies so that their individual workload doesn't become a bottleneck in the entire process. There is a scientific method to assess the staffing requirements of public service institutions. According to that, a significant number of government departments all over the world are understaffed. Why are you claiming "There is a scientific method" and do not provide it? Governments do (risk) management by 1 rules, 2 checks and 3 punishment and we already know from software that complexity in system is only bounded by system working with eventual necessary (ideally partial) resets. Ideally governments would be structured like that, but that goes against governments interest of extending power/control. Also, "system working" is decided by the current ruling class/group. Besides markets and physical constrains.

scotty79 11mo ago
> Try to rethink how money is created and how money gets its value and how and by whom that wealth is distributed. Please elaborate.
- matu3ba 11mo ago
  Money is created and distributed via 1 banking system and 2 government. Are 1 rules, 2 checks and 3 punishment enforced against the banking system and government or only to stabilize and extend those systems? I'd argue the introduction of (arbitrary) rules are often just the excuses to amass power, but enforcement of checks and punishments decides who holds (political) power.
- Mitochondriac 11mo ago
  Money is printed out of thin air by the FED and then loaned out to the government for them to spend, so it enters the economy. Something along those lines.

torginus 11mo ago

The problem is that the regulators themselves are insanely corrupt - how else would you explain the emergence of proposals like (thrice-resurrected) Chat Control, that clearly is harmful to every citizen of the EU, and I have yet to see a single individual supporting it. Every governing decision and rule is either fully made by powerful shadow interests, proposed by said interests and is only thwarted (for the time being) by some politicians on the other side or made out to be benign or even beneficial but is in actuality compromised in some major way.

potato3732842 11mo ago
>Every governing decision and rule is either fully made by powerful shadow interests, proposed by said interests The Useful Idiots(TM) will be along shortly to tell you how you're technically wrong because the rules are "only" 99% made/proposed by shadow interests.
- cassepipe 11mo ago
  I hope you enjoy the superiority high that that comment gave you before it disappear
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    We are all useful idiots in some context, comrade.

dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago

>They aren't created for the power trip of government officials. They weren't created for that reason, but it end up being used precisely for that. That is the conundrum we all face - how much power do we give the gvt.

xnx 11mo ago

Another word for "regulations" is "protections". We still need to ask what is being protected (and if was what we intended), and if the cost is worth it.