1 Topic by Smiof (edited by Smiof 30-Sep-2008 18:51:29)

  • Posts: 183

Topic: Nature of regulations

I do not know much about regulations and how they work, so I wanted to ask about your opinion. Both with respect to the current 'regulization-mania' and with the *general* regulation for *any* entity. I am interested not only what is going on today, but how would the rules that are erected today work in over 100 years.

There is the old argument: strict regulations vs loose ones. In the latter, different companies and economical entities decide what to do depending on what they feel like. This has shown to be a more robust way in the USA than the strict regulations version - very quick adaptability to economics, it can move from point A to point B fast. And I mean this in general - and notice that I use the term adaptability, not stability. That is, the economy could change quickly, but this also allows for 'walk in the woods', where some decisions are mistakes. Thus, the way I see it, loose rules allow for mistakes but it is also pointing into fast-paced change.

But I do not want to get into this argument - not only is that I am oversimplifying my last claim, but in this forum the people will just go one way or the other. What is the stuff I am missing? 

Well, for one - *who* is the one making these rules at any given time? I have heard of one 'good' regulation as a matter of fact. If I am correct, in 2001 the Auto industry in the States adopted a higher standard of car checks to ensure proper quality. This was company-enforced and it resulted in the better cars within the US as compared to the ones beforehand. Would this be something to expect more from, some of these 'cartel' regulations?

And also - how often should these regulations be checked? We like to deal with straight rules that have a yes/no answer. You either like coffee or you do not like coffee. You drive a Volkswagen or you do not drive a Volkswagen (ok, I have been interested in formal logic and other logical constructs...) This means that the rules become rigid - and over time they get old. The laws should not change too much, because that would be chaos - but what is the point of a regulations that will be too old in just 10 years or so???

Thanks for reading this, ~S

I am all-in on electrics.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 183

Re: Nature of regulations

Oh, and one suggestion that comes to mind with respect to the US economy and banking system. Would not it be enough to request banks and companies submit two business plans - one that would ask what are the plans for the company and one that would ask 'what-if-something-goes-wrong' plan? In this form, it does not make sense, but apparently the companies that had plans with such statements in their plans could weather this crisis better than others.

I am all-in on electrics.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Nature of regulations

Yeah that costs money to do.  There's a "reform" they passed after Enron called Sarbanes-Oxley, requires all kinds of accounting, the accounting costs to launch a new $75 million firm on Wall Street are about $3 million now.

US federal government says many agencies can write regulations into law...they have to publish them in advance, hold hearings for the public, and barring any serious challenge it becomes law.  Most of the Federal Register was written by bureaucrats.   This is building "technocracy", and permanent bureaucracies that last beyond any partisan majority.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Nature of regulations

Doin' formal logic, ye know ye need t' be more specific t' have any conversation.  big_smile You're not even limitin' this t' government regulation, industry standards, or just company policy, I'll warrant ye.  tongue

Some regulations be good.  There's nothin' wrong with laws protectin' consumers from gettin' cancer from or poisoned by products they purchase.


Some regulations be bad, Ya lily livered swabbie, yo ho, ho Regulation required US banks t' give loans t' scallywags who couldn't pay them back, yo ho, ho (Wasn't th' only thin', but it lost more dubloons) Watch th' news t' see how that turns out!

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

5 Reply by Acolyte (edited by Acolyte 01-Oct-2008 00:57:02)

  • Posts: 385

Re: Nature of regulations

I'm pressed for time, otherwise I would effort a more comprehensive post on this topic. I harbor strong feelings on the issue of economic regulation. I've been strongly persuaded by the views of the French classical liberal Fr

Caution Wake Turbulence

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

6 Reply by Justinian I (edited by Justinian I 01-Oct-2008 23:01:41)

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Nature of regulations

Kemp, I thought you disappeared forever. Welcome back man.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

7 Reply by Smiof (edited by Smiof 02-Oct-2008 02:09:14)

  • Posts: 183

Re: Nature of regulations

Kemp! First of all, I used to play IC when you joined, so I remember your well-written posts.

And I said that I am interested in logic, not studying it smile I think one of the most interesting ideas I came across was that of 'fuzzy' logic. First introduced by a, hmm, I believe a computer science professor at Berkeley (not sure though.) The main concept is that the elements are not governed by belonging or not belonging to a set, like we usually think about items. They belong partially to a set.

So, thus the idea of 'regulations' is neither good or bad. It is x-percent good and y-percent bad. Like you said.

Oh, and I am amazed at how many different definitions of 'regulations' there are...

I am all-in on electrics.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Nature of regulations

1) big_smile I'M ALIVE!

2) [They're gonna censor it anyway, so let's just say it starts with a "F"] Berkeley!

The different "definitions" I, and I think others, mentioned are just specifying whose regulations, AKA who is making them and who has to follow them. There's a big different in the discussion of corporate regulations that company managers make for their own employees and, for example, government regulations that regulate your industry and keep people safe (or choke the life out of your business because of either misguided or just plain corrupt decisions [more are corrupt than ever widely publicized; they just do a lot of work to explain them as misguided if they can't sweep them under the rug and never explain them at all]).

I don't know how well-written many of my previous posts were, but I'll probaby include a lot more diplomacy than I used to (with, of course, the open and outright shit talk for those who are just disgustingly ignorant, undereducated, and yet arrogant and loud-mouthed talking about things they're cluuuuuuueless of). wink

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points