Deep.sighyoung wrote:I generally agree with this--that regulation often deals with issues such as the tragedy of the commons (such as overuse of a natural resource because no one person has the incentive to take care of it), externalities (imposed costs on others, such as pollution on a neighborhood), and so on. Additionally, regulation can insure the proper functioning of a market and make that market more viable--see the banking industry, or trust in the quality of food and drugs because of the FDA.Tim wrote:Freed, I’d push back a bit on your libertarian view of environmental regulations. Gary Johnson wasn’t for getting rid of the EPA. One may view pollution, industrial waste as entities that would do us harm, thus government should be used to protect us from them. An individual can’t protect themselves from climate change, thus it is incumbent upon the government to help provide a solution. An individual can protect their self from a loan shark, by not using a loan shark.
One argument that economists have often used concerning regulation is the problem of regulatory capture--that is, the power of an industry to craft legislation that benefits the industry at the expense of the consumer. (in other words, a regulation can be a wolf in sheep's clothing.) At the same time, I'm pretty sure that that's a struggle between different groups that would happen anyway at the government level.
I would add, too, that we can create many kinds of viable markets through regulation. Regulations can help or hinder economic efficiency, but exist to support other values, too. For instance, child-labor laws are technically an infringement upon the marketplace, broadly speaking, but there are many good reasons to support them.
We should also be aware of the history of regulation and its problems--for instance, the banking reforms of the 1930's created a more stable banking system and trust in that system, but also made it much more difficult for underserved communities to form community banks and trusts--hence, the reduced ability to get around problems of bank redlining and banking discrimination. One community's good regulation may greatly impoverish another for generations.
I do think power differentials need to be kept in mind. I understand loan sharks do provide a product, but I think there is exploitation beyond the service such firms render.
Not to go shallow, but typically there has been a give and take with regulation. The friction between market forces and govt oversight is necessary.
However, Just thinking we have gotten too lax in regulation, not enough govt for friction, in last couple decades doesn't mean one sanctions govt oversight only. see Chernobyl level disasters.
Freedom caucus needs to lose its inordinate level of power. Anti-govt while in charge of it. They have the hand in wrecking it, making sure there theoretical prophecies are fulfilled.