Uh, why? Why is “buying government regulations” that allow you to cut corners easier than just cutting corners where no regulations exist. Like, if there’s a true competitive free market, are consumers of petroleum products going to choose to pay a premium for ethically sourced petroleum? No, right? Otherwise they’d be doing that now. So how would it be better with fewer regulations? There’s no logic or analysis presented in your comment, just a series of assertions. I’d love it if you could unpack your argument a little bit about how deregulating (eg: the oil and gas sector) might make disasters like Exxon Valdez less likely.
> Why is “buying government regulations” that allow you to cut corners easier than just cutting corners where no regulations exist.
Because of competition. If you have regulatory capture you avoid competition that then allows the cutting of corners. Without that regulatory capture you have, in your straw man example, no regulations, and hence zero barrier to entry which actually should prevent at least some cutting of corners. Though I'd go for regulation that doesn't prevent competition, but that's just me.
I guess the bit I don’t understand is why zero barrier to entry should prevent some cutting of corners. I’m not really sure I understand the logical link there, and I haven’t really noticed that effect in industries where barriers to entry have been removed (eg: media with the internet).
I also didn’t mean to strawman you about zero regulation. It sounds like you want some regulations, but just ones that don’t prevent competition. Is there a specific aspect you think should be regulated? Because the position “we should have good regulations and not bad ones” wouldn’t be controversial, even in government circles.
> I also didn’t mean to strawman you about zero regulation.
Fair enough, mainly because I'm not the person you were originally discussing with :)
Going backwards, “we should have good regulations and not bad ones” is a very general, to the point of meaningless opinion (as you point out) but the actual opinion is "regulations tend to increase their ill effects as their limits on competition increase" i.e. lack of competition correlates with things like bad corner cutting, to the point that I would posit that it's a cause.
So, if we take that and steel man that case - zero regulation means you and I can both start touting our nuclear power station designs, and that would be bad. On the other hand, no one is going to employ either of us because there is competition that is clearly better. Still, I'm sure there are some health/work/environmental regulations that would/should be introduced that would also limit competition and kick us out of the market *but* wouldn't limit it to a monopoly or an effective cartel.
Contrasting that with regulatory capture that does produce a monopoly or an effective cartel (or more likely, is the result of regulations, shall we say… encouraged by incumbents to protect or produce a monopoly or cartel), we end up with say 2 or 3 giant companies that no one can compete with because of their size and the regulations protecting them, then they can do what they want and the kind of good regulations that you and I might both agree on are actually cut or ignored.
Banking, might be a good example. They do something wrong, who bails them out? Why not let them die? Why is it so hard to even enter the market? Why do we see so many financial giants engage in wrongdoing and yet so few receive punishment?
We can't turn to anyone else, that's why. 1 doctor on a ship who's a murderer, lock them in their cabin, but what do you do when someone needs surgery? You let them out. 100 doctors on a ship and 1 is a murderer… you lock them up and then pick the best doctor.
> Unregulated, privately built and owned nuclear power plant fails catastrophically, killing thousands and making large swaths of land uninhabitable for generations.
"Good thing the free market will step in to build another one!"
> if there’s a true competitive free market, are consumers of petroleum products going to choose to pay a premium for ethically sourced petroleum?
If there's a true competitive free market, first, consumers won't even buy petroleum products unless those are the most cost effective for what they're doing. And in a true competitive free market, the huge infrastructure we have that gives a huge advantage to petroleum-based fuels might not even exist, certainly not in the form it currently exists, which is a product of constant government intervention and subsidies.
Second, in a true competitive free market, an oil company that contaminates thousands of miles of beaches with a spill can't get shielded from meaningful liability by courts that interpret the law to favor corporations, on the grounds that, after all, they were following the regulations, so it couldn't have been wilful mismanagement or intentional cutting of corners with disregard for safety, it must have been just an unlucky accident. (For example, look at the various lawsuits against Exxon after the Valdez spill and the rulings and long term outcome of those.) In our current regulatory environment, paying some fines now and then or having to defend a few lawsuits is just the cost of doing business. In a true competitive free market, such companies would be out of business, because they would have to literally make whole every person harmed by a spill, just like an ordinary person does when they commit a tort.
Thanks for spelling it out, I appreciate it. For what it’s worth, I agree that more accountability (maybe even to the point of piercing the corporate veil) is critical. But I’m not sure how to get that done without more regulation. Lawyers and accountants are so creative, and in a multinational environment have so many options, it’s hard for me to see how this sort of enforcement can happen without strong government intervention. But anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective, thank you
