2012 Begins Now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

So we can only point out systemic problems if a system is perfect? What a wonderful way to avoid criticism. Only things which can't be criticized are allowed to be criticized.

---

Loki? Is that you?

You, too, have succumbed to the strawmanathon, eh? Let me know if you are actually interested in debating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

So we can only point out systemic problems if a system is perfect? What a wonderful way to avoid criticism. Only things which can't be criticized are allowed to be criticized.

---

So a system is always crap because you don't even bother improving it? Giving regulating agencies actual power and barring conflicts of interest are pretty standard to even give the system a chance to work. :bulb: Without that, the system is indeed worthless.

That, and the GOP has made a point of trying to kill unwanted federal regulation for decades by "starving the beast." Cut off the money and you get a two-fer: you decrease regulation because they don't have the people to do it, and you can then point to "yet another useless government agency." Win-win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Only things which can't be criticized are allowed to be criticized.

---

Yossarian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

So a system is always crap because you don't even bother improving it? Giving regulating agencies actual power and barring conflicts of interest are pretty standard to even give the system a chance to work. :bulb: Without that, the system is indeed worthless.

---

Republicans specialize in fulfilling their declaration that government can't do anything right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

So a system is always crap because you don't even bother improving it? Giving regulating agencies actual power and barring conflicts of interest are pretty standard to even give the system a chance to work. :bulb: Without that, the system is indeed worthless.

---

Well said. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

So a system is always crap because you don't even bother improving it? Giving regulating agencies actual power and barring conflicts of interest are pretty standard to even give the system a chance to work. :bulb: Without that, the system is indeed worthless.

---

Pretty much every example Loki listed are ones where Tear's criticisms don't apply. It's not what's going on in those situations. Regulation does create problems, sometimes very serious ones which can quickly become almost impossible to fix *like rent control* It will always create problems, and criticism of those problems and of regulation because it leads to them, will always be accurate. Regulation may still be the lesser harm, that depends on a case-by-case basis, which most advocates of regulation are too tired, frustrated, and generally impatient to deal with. They'll pretend like the problems don't exist or are of no importance, rather than actually try to address them, and they will always, always insist that any issues arising in reality are because of poor quality in implementation. Most will concede that regulation inherently involves trade-offs as a theoretical concept, but won't accept it in the real world. And some, including a couple of posters on here, think that if they can just engineer it enough, they can construct it so there actually are no trade-offs, that entropy and the Demon Murphy aren't always ahead of them.

Deregulation created quite a catastrophe lately. We should go back to state chartered banks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Pretty much every example Loki listed are ones where Tear's criticisms don't apply. It's not what's going on in those situations. Regulation does create problems, sometimes very serious ones which can quickly become almost impossible to fix *like rent control* It will always create problems, and criticism of those problems and of regulation because it leads to them, will always be accurate. Regulation may still be the lesser harm, that depends on a case-by-case basis, which most advocates of regulation are too tired, frustrated, and generally impatient to deal with. They'll pretend like the problems don't exist or are of no importance, rather than actually try to address them, and they will always, always insist that any issues arising in reality are because of poor quality in implementation. Most will concede that regulation inherently involves trade-offs as a theoretical concept, but won't accept it in the real world. And some, including a couple of posters on here, think that if they can just engineer it enough, they can construct it so there actually are no trade-offs, that entropy and the Demon Murphy aren't always ahead of them.

---

Aside from the passive aggressive jabs at forum members, I agree with this sentiment. Don't think I ever implied otherwise, did I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The gold standard.
Nixon's and Carter's attempts to regulate oil prices.
Different environmental regulation in different states on the sale of oil.
Numerous environmental regulations that simply lack common sense (see the one Lewk posted recently).
The entire rent control system (particularly in NYC).
Numerous business regulations whose main effect is to force out small businesses (and prevent them from entering), while increasing market share for giant corporations.

Plus all the examples given by OG actually involved regulations, so I fail to see why new regulations would function any better than old ones. :bored:

---

Some of those aren't really good examples, though. Like rent control or even the gold standard. The business 'regulations' that benefit giant corporations is more about our financial system that was highly un-regulated, and conflicting policy between states.

Environmental policy and rules also lack coordination between federal and state agencies, that's when common sense goes missing.

Maybe we should define Regulations and Regulatory Agencies, before throwing every policy or law in one big bag?

I think Fuzzy already established that they're not good examples because you disagree with their implications. Continue believing that there's some "perfect" regulations out there that will resolve every problem they're meant to solve without causing new ones as long as they're "properly" implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think Fuzzy already established that they're not good examples because you disagree with their implications.

---

I read Fuzzy's post, too. IMO they're not good examples of what regulation means, because we're all using a different definition of the word. The way you've used it --- any legislator is a regulator....

Quote:

---

Continue believing that there's some "perfect" regulations out there that will resolve every problem they're meant to solve without causing new ones as long as they're "properly" implemented.

---

Sorry, but my complaint is how the agencies are constructed, and when they're not coordinated with each other. Seems to me most implementation problems stem from that.

I've never claimed perfect regulation is a realistic goal, let alone a panacea. :rolleyes:

Seems to me that they're constructed the way they are and coordinate the way they do for specific reasons, and those reasons aren't going to magically vanish just because you want to create perfect regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Seems to me that they're constructed the way they are and coordinate the way they do for specific reasons, and those reasons aren't going to magically vanish just because you want to create perfect regulation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I've never claimed perfect regulation is a realistic goal, let alone a panacea. :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

So a system is always crap because you don't even bother improving it? Giving regulating agencies actual power and barring conflicts of interest are pretty standard to even give the system a chance to work. :bulb: Without that, the system is indeed worthless.

---

:bored:

Here's a concrete example of a US Regulatory Agency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral...gement_Service

Previously, MMS was responsible as Regulators (watchdogs) as well as collecting revenue royalties. Clear conflict of interest, built into the organizational structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Aside from the passive aggressive jabs at forum members, I agree with this sentiment. Don't think I ever implied otherwise, did I?

---

You're one of the people I was thinking of when I wrote "and they will always, always insist that any issues arising in reality are because of poor quality in implementation. Most will concede that regulation inherently involves trade-offs as a theoretical concept, but won't accept it in the real world." Too an extent that's normal and understandable, what we can see and understand in the abstract gets more incomprehensible when it's staring us straight in the face, but I think most people aren't making sufficient effort to step back when that happens.

I can't see why in the world you'd attribute such sentiments to me. I think all human actions are imperfect, and am well aware of the law of unintended consequences. On the flip side, I am very cynical, and don't trust people at all when large sums of money or power are involved. When lots of money is involved, the potential for corruption becomes spectacularly high. Do I need to go through the checks and balances spiel again? I can't believe that people are so dumb as to take Cs and Bs as an article of faith when political power is involved, but consider them anathema where financial power involved. That's a stunning logical disconnect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Short hand is communication, Dread. Not policy. :bored:

I said this? :confused:

---

I hate to be pissy, but if you're going to interject on my exchange with Chaloobs (which is fine), please don't shrug your shoulders and complain that I'm putting words in your mouth. I was addressing a point made by Chaloobi, not you. :bored: Obviously I welcome everyone talking about everything, but it's a bit frustrating for you to divert the conversation towards you like that.

Fair enough. Sorry about that. And that's not pissy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I hate to be pissy, but if you're going to interject on my exchange with Chaloobs (which is fine), please don't shrug your shoulders and complain that I'm putting words in your mouth. I was addressing a point made by Chaloobi, not you. :bored: Obviously I welcome everyone talking about everything, but it's a bit frustrating for you to divert the conversation towards you like that.

---

Hell, I lost track back at Catch-22. What are you guys crying about anyway?