4 ms·
When too many people take bad risks, it can take the whole economy down with it, affecting people who never took the risk in the first place. So yes, we do need
by normloman 13y ago
When too many people take bad risks, it can take the whole economy down with it, affecting people who never took the risk in the first place. So yes, we do need bureaucrats to regulate risky investments.
- ahallock 13y agoAnd why should we trust bureaucrats to do this? Won't they just sell their political power? Who will regulate the regulators? And who will regulate those regulators? I don't think you've proposed a real solution.
- normloman 13y ago1. I haven't proposed any solution. I'm defending the existence of regulators. And I never said regulation was perfect. Just that we need some. 2. Asking "Who will regulate the regulators" is unproductive. Obviously, human nature wont change, and corruption will always exist. But just because regulation isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw it out. Also, you should already know the answer to your own question. By promoting transparency, citizen participation, and establishing checks and balances, we can mitigate the effects of corruption (but not entirely). This has been known for, I dunno, a few hundred years. Are we really debating this now?