Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> Isn't this a regulation failure though?

Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.



sort by: page size:

>Government regulation at its best.

Yes? Your own comment says this was a deliberate attempt to mislead people. This is exactly what regulation is meant to stop.


> which doesn't solve the problem the regulation is trying to solve at all

What problem is it, really?


> I don't understand how it continues unchecked.

Profit and lack of regulation and lack of effective penalties


>> it is an poor governance problem

>No, it's a poor pricing problem.

And who do you think sets pricing regulations?


> there are times where I think they are asking to be regulated

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by corporate incompetence.


>Further, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism?

Well it clearly incentivizes regulatory capture, so there's that.


> I was left questioning how a developed country can mess up so badly that some people feel this is their only option.

Regulatory capture.


>it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases.

Yes all those regulations that actually make things worse.

Which ones are those again? specifically?

I find that generally people who make hand-wavey boogeyman 'regulation is bad' arguments typically struggle to identify which regulations are bad and why, and conveniently forget about the thousands of regulations that make their life livable every day.


> attempts at privatization seem to fail

Heavy regulation is the usual culprit.


> Regulation routinely reduces cost.

Can you provide an example of this actually happening in a competitive market?

> Only one party is incentivised to say trot out this “regulation is bad” BS and its businesses that want to operate in an ancap utopia because they weren’t lucky enough to make regulatory capture work for them.

Businesses that want to challenge an incumbent who succeeded in making regulatory capture work for them would be an obvious counterexample, and for the same reason the customers who want to see the challenger succeed in making the market more competitive.


> Regulation

People, people. Why do you all expect regulation to work in the presence of corruption?

All regulations break down with high enough stakes. We are in this mess right now, because we made the mistake of thinking that regulations will be good enough to stop it.


> Yup, how horrible that people actually want less regulation.

You want less government regulation, in favor of more corporate 'regulation'. That does indeed sound horrible to me.

It seems that some people just hear REGULATION and freak out, without realizing that they rely heavily on regulation every day to get safely to work and not have their house confiscated.


> Everyone loves the idea of reducing regulatory burden but they always fail to give specifics.

You're right, apologies for not being specific.

>Which specific regulations would you propose to remove?

Specifically, all of them.

>Should they stop doing that?

Object to framing of the question. Hints at a false dichotomy. Desirable outcomes can be achieved without precisely following a regulation.


> Well, it's basically malicious compliance.

Agreed. I can't think of a more widespread and effective campaign by an entire industry to gaslight their customers into hating a regulation more than the invasive practice that is being regulated.


> What regulation? The regulation saying that you can't screw people over? I wouldn't find myself in that job to start with.

For example, city regulations in San Francisco has made it very expensive and difficult to build. Hence, the rent of everyone that lives in the city is much higher than it would have been because of city regulations. When will I, an SF resident, get my compensation for the cost of regulation?

The government's mistakes are like spilled milk. They can only replace the milk spilled by taking it from someone else, and they drink the milk on the way to deliver it.


> A fair point

Is that sarcasm? It was a terrible point.

And any lack of efficacy of said regulation is straightforwardly due to corporate influence on governments.


>>>It seems like those regulations aren't working they way they ought to

Regulations rarely end up with the outcomes the people pushing for the regulations publicly claim the desired outcome is.


> But the regulations cannot stop anything.

Regulations can and do stop lots of things. If the regulations don't stop anything, then why do they 'distort the natural behavior of the market'?

You can't claim that regulation is ineffective at affecting behavior while decrying its distortive effects at the same time.


>I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it?

Corruption. Namely, Regulatory Capture.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

next

Legal | privacy