4 ms·

> I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on be

by maratd 14y ago

> I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. Business Interest: If everybody rented extra unused "space" and the market was fluid, this would substantially impact the profitability of the hospitality industry. Public Interest: Who wants to live next to a hotel? ### If you want the laws to go, you'll need to build a larger business constituency for lobbying and then convince the public that their private property rights are being violated. Two step process.

tomkarlo 14y ago
There's a security issue as well: Most buildings base their security on the idea that only tenants, or limited guests of tenants, will be allowed through the front door and into the complex. If the next door apartment starts renting to a different person each night, the security (perceived or not) that you once had inside your building or complex has been compromised. Also, having an apartment on your floor that's being rented out often means the social norms associated with close neighbors aren't respected in terms of noise, etc.
fennecfoxen 14y ago
But an economist here would point out that the incentives for the hotel industry to lobby for these laws are large and concentrated, while the incentives for the rest of the world to lobby against it are small and spread out. Because of the nontrivial cost of collaboration, the large and concentrated incentives win every time, the economy at large suffers a deadweight loss, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (If you meet a Republican or Libertarian who praises deregulation of something, this is a primary reason why.)
anigbrowl 14y ago
Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. That is not what Adam Smith says. His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized, since those proposals are almost always meant to further the interests of the business owners rather than the public. He does not assume the same of regulation in general, and is much more sympathetic to the interests of households and laborers than is commonly supposed. convince the public that their private property rights are being violated You don't have a property interest in a tenant lease whose terms you choose to violate. Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room, as long as you yourself are there to take responsibility for the behavior of your guests.
- maratd 14y ago
  > His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized All regulations are proposed by men of business. > Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room If you read the article, which mostly speaks about NYC, you'd know that's not OK. You're not permitted to lease any property for less than 30 days.
  - warfangle 14y ago
    > All regulations are proposed by men of business. Was Ralpha Nader in any way connected to seatbelt companies when he proposed seatbelt and safety laws for automobiles?
    - maratd 14y ago
      Seat-belts were invented more than a 100 years before they were mandated by the government. They were available as options on Ford vehicles more than 25 years before they were mandated by the government. I'm sure the seat-belt manufacturers had nothing to do with them becoming mandatory, right? Remember, I said regulation requires two components. A business interest with money to "grease the wheels" of government and a public interest component that convinces the public that it's wonderful for them. The seat-belt manufacturers provided the former, Mr. Nader the later. There doesn't need to be direct cooperation. Merely the presence of both. Not that seat-belts don't save lives, they certainly do, but don't kid yourself ... there is always somebody who wins and somebody who loses with each regulation passed, somebody who makes money and someone who loses just smidgen of their liberty. Again, read Adam Smith.
daguar 14y ago
lmao if you misread Smith

by maratd 14y ago

tomkarlo 14y ago

There's a security issue as well: Most buildings base their security on the idea that only tenants, or limited guests of tenants, will be allowed through the front door and into the complex. If the next door apartment starts renting to a different person each night, the security (perceived or not) that you once had inside your building or complex has been compromised. Also, having an apartment on your floor that's being rented out often means the social norms associated with close neighbors aren't respected in terms of noise, etc.

fennecfoxen 14y ago

But an economist here would point out that the incentives for the hotel industry to lobby for these laws are large and concentrated, while the incentives for the rest of the world to lobby against it are small and spread out. Because of the nontrivial cost of collaboration, the large and concentrated incentives win every time, the economy at large suffers a deadweight loss, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (If you meet a Republican or Libertarian who praises deregulation of something, this is a primary reason why.)

anigbrowl 14y ago

Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. That is not what Adam Smith says. His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized, since those proposals are almost always meant to further the interests of the business owners rather than the public. He does not assume the same of regulation in general, and is much more sympathetic to the interests of households and laborers than is commonly supposed. convince the public that their private property rights are being violated You don't have a property interest in a tenant lease whose terms you choose to violate. Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room, as long as you yourself are there to take responsibility for the behavior of your guests.

maratd 14y ago
> His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized All regulations are proposed by men of business. > Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room If you read the article, which mostly speaks about NYC, you'd know that's not OK. You're not permitted to lease any property for less than 30 days.
- warfangle 14y ago
  > All regulations are proposed by men of business. Was Ralpha Nader in any way connected to seatbelt companies when he proposed seatbelt and safety laws for automobiles?
  - maratd 14y ago
    Seat-belts were invented more than a 100 years before they were mandated by the government. They were available as options on Ford vehicles more than 25 years before they were mandated by the government. I'm sure the seat-belt manufacturers had nothing to do with them becoming mandatory, right? Remember, I said regulation requires two components. A business interest with money to "grease the wheels" of government and a public interest component that convinces the public that it's wonderful for them. The seat-belt manufacturers provided the former, Mr. Nader the later. There doesn't need to be direct cooperation. Merely the presence of both. Not that seat-belts don't save lives, they certainly do, but don't kid yourself ... there is always somebody who wins and somebody who loses with each regulation passed, somebody who makes money and someone who loses just smidgen of their liberty. Again, read Adam Smith.

daguar 14y ago

lmao if you misread Smith