Governance‎ > ‎


Today, our governments ignore the things they should do while they interfere with the things they should leave alone.('we can't stand by and do nothing,' is a constant cry from interfering politicians who would serve the people and country better if they did stand by and do nothing.)

   --  Vernon Coleman

Sunset regulation

Idea for better regulation
All Regulations have to be re-justified after a defined period of time.

From EA magazine

  • Through harmonisation of regulation represents an efficiency gain. However, harmonisation also prevents regulatory competition. From a dynamic perspective, the loss of regulatory competition will almost certainly entail large additional costs and inefficiencies. Regulatory competition can both restrain regulatory over-reach and also allow different approaches to regulation to be tried in different countries.
  • With few exceptions, regulation at the EU level is simply not necessary to liberalise trade within the EU.
  • Wage rates are set by market forces and levels of productivity. Legislation affects the composition of the ay package, but not the pay level. If legislators in one country insist on extensive fringe benefits and regulation that , for example , improves safety standards, these will come at the expense of lower cash salaries. The total compensation level has not increased; it has merely been shifted fro  payment in cash to payment in kind.
  • Regulation is being used to raise rivals costs and is becoming ever more centalised
  • We do not need to unify regulation to have free trade.
  • Regulators may be risk verse and over regulate, or they may have cognitive biases that lead them to regulate markets through "rule writing" which imply costs without improving outcomes.

Bad regulation

Quote 1169

Lengthier and more extensive testing of new drugs has benefits and costs. More testing increases the safety and effectiveness of those drugs that reach the market, but more testing means fewer new drugs since many drugs become uneconomic to produce as costs increase. More testing also delays the use of beneficial drugs, drugs that could have reduced mortality and morbidity had they been available earlier. In short, regulation may deter and delay medical progress.

   --  IEA

Socialists are keen for the markets to be regulated, but not the state.

"In Continental usage, “unregulated” and “illegal” are much closer concepts than in places where lawmaking happens in English."

   --  Daniel Hannan

Does regulation make us better off?

The basis of the following is from the EA magazine and an article written by Jamie Whyte

Taking the case of holiday regulation. The law cannot help employees. If the government choice is an employee’s preferred option, then he is no better off, since he was already free to negotiate it. If he would prefer more money and less leisure, the law positively harms him.
Trade-offs are economic realities. If you take more holidays you produce less and are, therefore, worth less to your employer. No act
of parliament can overcome this fact. It can only force you to take one trade-off rather than another

For much of human history, most human labour went into producing food. Modern agricultural techniques have reduced this to less than 5 per cent, leaving us free to do other things. It is such advances, not regulation, that provide us with better deals. Regulations merely limit our choices among the deals that are available to us.

An Author states :"Deregulation really means the unleashing of predatory forces against the vulnerable."
What a load of poppycock!!!! What world is this man living in???

If we take the parallel of a game of football, it also has rules and a referee.
If you have too many rules in football, no-one will want to play or watch. Too little and the game becomes pointless and unmanageable. 
If a player were to argue that there are too many rules, no-one would say "you are unleashing predatory forces of the bad players" Ridiculous!
It doesn't help in the case of the economy the referee and rulemaker are the same person and is biased against some players.

What regulation actually does is remove decisions from the players to the referee. But the referee finds it hard to see from all vantage points. Its the players that lose when the referee assumes too much control.

If there is an issue with an Uber cab, Uber tends to redress the issue quickly. With a normal cab company, redress is time consuming and uncertain. Why these two types of companies should be regulated the same is unclear. One self regulates in the competitive market, and regulation to make it as bad as the other cab company does not sound like a positive outcome.

"What those who instinctively reach for more state regulation of companies such as Uber assume is that a few laws and rules can “perfect” perceived failures of markets without unintended consequences. In other words, they assume markets are “imperfect” but “perfectable”. They judge markets by anecdotal failings and interventions to correct them by intentions.
Those of us who believe that markets tend to work well have more humility about our judgement. We recognise that achieving a perfect market by design is impossible. In life, things go wrong. " - Ryan Bourne