Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (328995)	3/15/2007 12:35:37 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1576867

"I wonder what the "hidden cost" of no regulation would be? Tainted meat, polluted drinking water, no CAFE standards." We already know what the cost is. Most regulations don't just pop out of thin air, although some do. Most exist for a reason. For example, the FDA was created because of a rising tide of tainted and adulterated food. The event that kicked it off was at least one company decided to give their pickles a nice, green color by using copper sulfate.

To: Road Walker who wrote (328995)	3/15/2007 1:41:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576867

Regulation has benefits as well as costs. That doesn't mean you should ignore the cost, you just have to consider both. I'm sure you would say that the $800+ bil. in regulatory costs is worth it for the benefits we get. OTOH you could reduce the cost without greatly reducing the benefits by getting rid of and/or restructuring less sensible regulation. Applying the cost benefit idea to new regulation, or even going back and examining old regulation to see if the benefits exceed the costs, isn't arguing for a situation of no regulation.