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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (13902)	3/4/2010 1:32:47 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

But that doesn't apply to all the safety requirements, let alone to all of the regulation. The best regulation doesn't justify the average regulation, let alone the worst. If the argument is "less regulation would be good" we have to consider the worst, not the best, because the worst is what should be cut. One of the problems is you seldom (none to my memory) see a new regulation that you like, so if we listened to you none would ever get tested. I doubt you would have supported seat belts prior to their being required. Or air bags. Or soft dashboards. Or collapsing steering wheels. Or dozens of other. "Government intrusion!!!!" Another problem with some regulations is that if they work very well then they can appear to be worthless. If a regulation was passed long ago to curtail an anti public-interest activity, and it has successfully does that, then the Tim's of the world say "why do we need this regulation, that activity never happens anyway". Some would say that's what happened to portions of Glass–Steagall and lead to our current problems.