the cost of regulating vs. not regulating
I recently listened to a podcast in which the producer made a good point: Regulation, done correctly, does not change the total cost of an activity, but rather reallocates the total cost of the activity. For example, the state of Ohio has very loose regulations on the buying and selling of large, dangerous animals. This effectively meant that the cost of protecting people from those animals was borne by the citizens themselves, including those who had nothing to do with raising and selling exotic animals, and by local law enforcement agencies. Other states, with tighter regulations, effectively say by their regulations that the cost should be borne by the individuals who actually own the animals.
As with any rules, it can be taken too far when the risk is very small and/or the cost gained by the regulation is not proportional to the cost spent on enacting or enforcing it.
Not everyone shares your work ethic Inu
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Watch this conversation turn into
person one: I believe in moderate regulation.
person two: you are a commie.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Or having drunken parties with prostitutes and cocaine paid for by the people whom they're supposed to be regulating, as with the oil and gas industry and the people who were suppposed to regulate them, a few years ago. There absolutely has to be accountability for those who enforce the laws, too
Before piling on more regulations, how about we hold people responsible for not doing their jobs and get people to actually enforce the existing regulations first, instead of piling even more regulations on businesses that are actually trying to follow the law. Punishing the businesses that are following the rules doesn't make sense.
Well the key part of this for me is trying most regulations through the State governments. Other states have tighter regulations while apparently Ohio let theirs be to relaxed.
Now with this situation Ohio can look at other states to see what they did right, or other states can see where Ohio feel short. I prefer to let most things worked out this way rather then having a single Federal regulator.
Well for most things. Regarding International, Interstate, or some Coastal situations that the states don't really cover I could see a case for Federal regulation.
Now with this situation Ohio can look at other states to see what they did right, or other states can see where Ohio feel short. I prefer to let most things worked out this way rather then having a single Federal regulator.
Well for most things. Regarding International, Interstate, or some Coastal situations that the states don't really cover I could see a case for Federal regulation.
This isn't a social experiment, the real problem is the agencies that are supposed to enforce the regulations. All the making new regulations really do is punish the businesses that were following the rules to begin with.
Well, given the scenario that LKL laid out, I'd posit that some of the Republicans have privately been saying, "Pass the Jaeger shots and crackpipe, and let's get it on."
You don't seriously think the Republicans are blameless when it comes to lack of accountability, cronyism, corruption, and grievous misconduct regarding enforcement of regulations, do you?
_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin.