undefined | Better HN

0 pointspibechorro3y ago0 comments

And regulators all the way down.. regulations seldom work without unintended consequences and people finding loopholes or blackmarkets. They do more harm than good.

0 comments

lostlogin3y ago

This might be more of a reflection on the governance where you are. The idea of an unregulated country sounds terrible to me, and I am unaware of examples of it working. Most countries regulate things like aircraft safety with good effect. Regulating certain professions to ensure minimum standards is another good example.

If you have any interest, check out the below link for a great piece of legislation. It protects NZ consumers and effectively puts a warranty on everything you buy here.

Another example which I appreciate every day is the regulation imposed on our telecommunications industry. We have gone from a trash copper network to an excellent fibre network that is fast and inexpensive to use - all via regulation, investment and legislation.

Regulation works just fine when done properly, and I’d like more of it here in NZ. I’d like the supermarket monopoly broken up via regulation. I’d also like the building supplies and fuels racket broken up.

https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer...

orangepurple3y ago

They may do harm, significant harm, but it is unfair to categorically claim that the harm is greater than the good.

mjhay3y ago

Personally I think aircraft safety regulations do plenty of good.

eastbound3y ago

Note that the aircraft industry, although state-regulated, almost behaves as self-regulated since airlines are mostly demanding of excellent regulations and high safety standards to reassure passengers. Very different from, say, Dupont (chemicals), who is regulated for OSHA reasons, but who would always find workers even if they dived at Bophal levels of safety.

diffxx3y ago

I'm inclined to agree, but I am somewhat curious about this. The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all. At the same time, there are strong incentives for any airline to not have a catastrophic safety incident. I recently flew on a 737 max and was willing to do so not so much because the FAA cleared them to fly but because I assume the pilots are not suicidal. In the absence of strong government safety regulations would things just devolve to YOLO? I'm not sure either way. Having said that, Chesterton's fence applies to any existing regulations.

noisy_boy3y ago

> The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all

There is regulation and there are consequences of not following the spirit of the regulation (most focus seems to be on compliance to the letter of the law and avoiding to do anything beyond that ignoring the spirit of the law). Consequences don't seem to be particularly deterring in much cases; the offending company pays a penalty, no executive goes to jail and people forget about it soon. Unless these executives get jail time, there won't be any fear of consequences.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse