5 ms·

Because there is a tremendous amount of regulation surrounding finance - look at how it is impossible to make a backer liable Kickstarter. You cannot make your

by zanny 12y ago

Because there is a tremendous amount of regulation surrounding finance - look at how it is impossible to make a backer liable Kickstarter. You cannot make your own stock market, and you cannot sell ownership in a company through anything but a public stock exchange. I imagine there is also tremendous regulation surrounding venture capital, but I have never engaged in it much so I'm unaware of the complexities. Too bad that, by nature of the fact the finance industry inherently has all the money, that money lets them buy the politicians to then use regulation to prevent competition and line their own pockets, while leaving them impervious to persecution when their greed fucks everything up. I do not see how even the best intentioned regulation can work in finance. It is the proverbial tightening the fist while the actors slip through your fingers - if you try to restrict the flow of money, really big money, like drug money, then all you will find is you suffering for it.

wpietri 12y ago
Protip: If you start by saying "I do not see how", the problem may be that you are just not seeing it. One of the reasons that foreign companies list on US markets is that we have some of the strongest financial regulations in the world. A simple analogy: San Francisco has a vigorous health department, and food safety scores are posted visibly in every restaurant. Does this reduce the vibrancy of the restaurant scene? No, it enhances it. Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones.
- zanny 12y ago
  > Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. And the inverse of this, is that if a restaurant listed food safety scores irrespective of state mandate, you would visit those restaurants more, and if most people agreed, those restaurants would prosper and those not adopting food safety scores would suffer. Except in that situation there was no violence of the state to compel the individual restaurants to do something - the market naturally lead to that conclusion. It is not like there is any limit on your ability to learn information about a restaurant - I would say I am surprised that there is not some popular national database of website safety ratings made up of user reviews, but considering I have never searched for such a service - I just go by general user reviews, under the assumption that an unsafe food service locale would get trashed in criticism - I guess it makes sense not to exist. > That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones. Or it would be a competitive advantage if the markets truly benefited from food safety scores for newer restaurants to advertise them where their entrenched competition does no such thing.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    That's a fine hypothetical, but a) I know of no city where restaurants voluntarily put together such a system, and b) if each restaurant gets to pick who evaluates it, there's no particular reason for customers to trust the scores. I also don't buy your view that the magic sparkle ponies of the market will always take care of everything. I think your approach works in theory, with infinitely smart and well informed humans. But given that we're dealing with a bunch of hairless monkeys, I think cognitive limits make it relatively easy for bad actors to push market solutions away from optimum.
    - zanny 12y ago
      It works in that given example. Of course if you invent an arbitrary number it holds no value. But the OP postulates that through force of state having safety criteria restaurants must advertise is a systemic benefit to the food service industry, and if it actually was, then restaurants everywhere would naturally adopt it if it increases consumer participation and revenues. More than anything I'm trying to indicate that safety ratings are not actually benefiting the restaurants if they are not adopting similar systems elsewhere. And if they had a private rating system it would only mean anything if there was some consortium that posted standards. Consider the ESRB, which is not a state review board but exists to keep states from instituting review boards in the US on video games. They specify their rating criteria in available records and are utilized industry wide because the users of the rating board find it a net benefit. I'm not going to argue that consumers do not benefit somewhat from food safety ratings, but it is also not purely black and white, because by compelling restaurants to produce them, if they are not a market positive effect (and like I said, the lack of a natural appearance of such a system outside mandate indicates it is most likely not) then the consumer pays for those reviews with a more significant expense on the part of restaurants than the restaurants make as a result of increased traffic, which means they must raise prices systemically to compensate, and you end up paying more. Except in a sane market, you should be able to pay more if you want to only shop at restaurants that give safety ratings from some public consortium in the first place. But then you have the choice.
      - 12y ago

by zanny 12y ago

wpietri 12y ago

Protip: If you start by saying "I do not see how", the problem may be that you are just not seeing it. One of the reasons that foreign companies list on US markets is that we have some of the strongest financial regulations in the world. A simple analogy: San Francisco has a vigorous health department, and food safety scores are posted visibly in every restaurant. Does this reduce the vibrancy of the restaurant scene? No, it enhances it. Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones.

zanny 12y ago
> Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. And the inverse of this, is that if a restaurant listed food safety scores irrespective of state mandate, you would visit those restaurants more, and if most people agreed, those restaurants would prosper and those not adopting food safety scores would suffer. Except in that situation there was no violence of the state to compel the individual restaurants to do something - the market naturally lead to that conclusion. It is not like there is any limit on your ability to learn information about a restaurant - I would say I am surprised that there is not some popular national database of website safety ratings made up of user reviews, but considering I have never searched for such a service - I just go by general user reviews, under the assumption that an unsafe food service locale would get trashed in criticism - I guess it makes sense not to exist. > That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones. Or it would be a competitive advantage if the markets truly benefited from food safety scores for newer restaurants to advertise them where their entrenched competition does no such thing.
- wpietri 12y ago
  That's a fine hypothetical, but a) I know of no city where restaurants voluntarily put together such a system, and b) if each restaurant gets to pick who evaluates it, there's no particular reason for customers to trust the scores. I also don't buy your view that the magic sparkle ponies of the market will always take care of everything. I think your approach works in theory, with infinitely smart and well informed humans. But given that we're dealing with a bunch of hairless monkeys, I think cognitive limits make it relatively easy for bad actors to push market solutions away from optimum.
  - zanny 12y ago
    It works in that given example. Of course if you invent an arbitrary number it holds no value. But the OP postulates that through force of state having safety criteria restaurants must advertise is a systemic benefit to the food service industry, and if it actually was, then restaurants everywhere would naturally adopt it if it increases consumer participation and revenues. More than anything I'm trying to indicate that safety ratings are not actually benefiting the restaurants if they are not adopting similar systems elsewhere. And if they had a private rating system it would only mean anything if there was some consortium that posted standards. Consider the ESRB, which is not a state review board but exists to keep states from instituting review boards in the US on video games. They specify their rating criteria in available records and are utilized industry wide because the users of the rating board find it a net benefit. I'm not going to argue that consumers do not benefit somewhat from food safety ratings, but it is also not purely black and white, because by compelling restaurants to produce them, if they are not a market positive effect (and like I said, the lack of a natural appearance of such a system outside mandate indicates it is most likely not) then the consumer pays for those reviews with a more significant expense on the part of restaurants than the restaurants make as a result of increased traffic, which means they must raise prices systemically to compensate, and you end up paying more. Except in a sane market, you should be able to pay more if you want to only shop at restaurants that give safety ratings from some public consortium in the first place. But then you have the choice.
    - 12y ago