Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
One of the functions of market regulation is risk analysis and management. A failure to adequately regulate a market does not mean market regulation doesn't work.
|
I don't argue that there should be no regulation. I do think there is an optimum level of regulation. So in my mind the debate centers around the question of is there too much or too little.
Quote:
|
The sooner we figure out how to adequately regulate things on a global level in a way that is compatible enough for it to work, the sooner we "fix" capitalism.
|
Capitalism is not broken and I think we do know how to regulate things. However, I think the perceptions of what regulations can and can not do are in question.
I should ask the question, but I doubt I would get a direct honest answer, so here is what I think. I think some (those always wanting more regulation) believe that regulations can eliminate risk, that they can stop greed, excessive profits, exploitation, fraud, crime, etc., regulations can not do all of this.
For example there are regulations regarding insider trading in publicly traded stocks. every once in awhile the SEC has a high profile case and get a conviction, however, given the number of stocks, the volume of transactions, the methods to transact trades, it is virtually impossible for any regulation to prevent insider trading will actually prevent insider trading, people profiting from it and protecting "innocent" victims. What do you think, at best will regulators uncover .001% of profits from insider trading activity? The result of this regulation is that it gives amateurs a false sense of security and they then fail to do their homework - hence they get burned. In my view we do need some controls on disclosures, etc., but to make insider trading illegal is kind of a joke. When trading stock people need to do their homework - that is the real answer. You say how could this ever work? Well for starters if the buyer asks the seller the right questions and then if the seller is dishonest that could be fraud. But the issue is the buyer asking the right questions.
-----Added 2/1/2009 at 01 : 49 : 19-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The "sense of security" is far less false with reasonable regulations that prevent or minimize: unsafe working conditions and unethical treatment of workers
environmental degradation
unsafe products making their way into the marketplace
unsavory or corrupt business practices (like tearing down the wall between commercial and investment banking)
than without such regulations. |
I agree there are some regulations that are needed and have proven to be effective. I think on a whole OSHA regulations do more good than harm.
Some of your other points here are questionable because the point are vague. What is a "safe" product? What is an "unsavory" business practice? Is "unsavory" different from illegal? How do you eliminate "unsavoryness" through regulation?