“ 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 regulationIdea for better regulation
All Regulations have to be re-justified after a defined period of time.
From EA magazine
Bad regulationQuote 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
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." 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 ReferenceLinksLink515Regulation without the state |
Governance >