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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (50136)	8/3/2013 2:35:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

We know, historically, that at least in the US that the absence of regulation of business had a bunch of adverse social and economic consequences. That's a departure from the previously agreed "unregulated markets have had bad fallout". Your changing to the problems being specifically because the absence of regulation, rather than something that a market may produce, in this case an unregulated one, but also one with any level of regulation. Overegulation causing harm is indeed something that happens, but it also wasn't a premise I was talking about, the point was rather that harm can come to some from the operation of markets, even when they are very heavily regulated. Additional harm can come from the regulations themselves, but that is as you point out another topic. Regulation may prevent harm, but the lack of it doesn't cause anything. Regulation isn't involved when there is a lack of it. There is nothing there to cause anything. Also regulation isn't the main form of prevention of harm coming from markets, competition is. Which is not to say that there should be no regulation, but no regulation isn't a very relevant concept, since regulations have been extensive for a very long time.