Regulation and Markets

[giolucas]

About 5 months ago I went thru  major construction of a 7,000 sq. ft. retail space that was street level and was part of a 150 condo unit building.  Talk about requirements!!!!! I had to jump through hoops to complete the darn thing.  As the owner I thought there was too much regulation and unneccessary.  But if I start to disect it, all that was necessary because of safety to the public and the condo owners. 

As the owner I did not want to complete the installation of fire sprinklers, install back flow valves ....etc. WHY? Because it was more money and I did not see the reason for it. 

Having said that I think most regulation is in place for public safety and we should not completely say that the government should leave us alone and give us our freedom.  If there were no regulations or codes most owners would do what they want and most would  not spend money to protect the public.

[NCcorntrader]

Pal-

It is clear to me now that our disagreement is one of semantics, not real substance. What you are describing as "freedom", I would describe as "security". Losing your job is not losing your freedom, I would say just the opposite- you are losing a means of financial security, but your are gaining freedom because you no longer have to answer to your employer.

Our founding fathers warned us about trading liberty for security- call me an ideologue if you want, but every new rule and law takes away a tiny (or not so tiny) part of our freedom.

[NCcorntrader]

gio-

sure most regulation is put in place with the best of intentions, but is it really necessary? to use another example take airline travel- assuming you have flown anywhere in the last 10 years surely you see the over-regulation there? and are we really any safer? locking the cockpit door sounds like a great idea but x-raying little old ladies?

the bottom line is that rules are always put in place as a reaction to some circumstance or event. I personally believe we should consider the rules we as a society make a little more thoroughly because once you make them they are impossible to reverse.

[NCcorntrader]

Canuck

generally I would agree with you, but I would also point out that rules CAN have the opposite effect. for example, when a stop light goes out, everyone is more careful and accidents rarely happen. accidents at stop lights are usually the result of feeling SECURE about everyone else following the rules and not running the light. now just to be clear I am not against stop lights, but rules do have the power to provide a false sense of security. just a thought.

[chipster22]

One more thought is that laws don't actually stop all criminal activity.  In other words, if a person's conscience is hardened and they are determined to do the wrong thing, they will find a way to do it and hope they do not get caught.

In this case, more regulation means more paperwork, inspections, and hassles for those who already want to do the right thing, but doesn't stop those who don't care and don't get caught.

Perhaps there could be fewer regulations, but higher penalties when a person actually gets caught doing the wrong thing.

It may just be perception, but it seems that the regular business owner is looked at through a microscope and subject to fines for simple mistakes, while those who intentionally scam people are given slaps on the wrists by the justice system and their buddies in power.

[Canuck_2]

Will agree mostly with what you say.

BUT if there had never been a stop light or stop sign or rule about the one on the right going first or.....

But you understand what I am saying.

Basic rules are necessary.

We just have to figure out what is too much when it comes to rules.

Have been helping son in law with a project of remodeling a kitchen since his helper was unavailable.

Building inspector has to check many things as they happen.

Sometimes slows things down and is always a stress to get his OK on work done.

Now it would be nice to just get rid of the inspector and everyone just get on with work.

That was the way it was done in the past.

This is a house that is 80 years old.

Plumbing and hydro was put in after original construction.

So when they opened things up they found previous plumbing had almost completely severed a joist.

Would not pass inspection now but no inspectors in the old days.

Had to create and install a 'truss' to make up for old 'shoddy' work which presented a risk of floor failing.

Not my area but plumbing had to have some changes made too since original pipes were not very well installed.

Rules and inspections there will only protect the owners of the house going forward since the workers now could have just covered it all up again and ignored the potential problems.

So again the question is what is enough and what is too much?

Really hard to decide sometimes.

Too much when it inconveniences us and too little when someone cuts a corner and it costs us.

[Palouser]

I believe it is more than semantics that separates our points of view. If freedom is only restricted to a narrow 'political' sense, then I think the larger sense of freedom is lost. The efficiency or modern economy and and development is more than political freedom. And that is where my argument lies. The opposite is also true. Regulations that insure transparency in markets and development do not necessarily infringe  on political freedom.

We ARE on the same page. Freedom of action is freedom. When certain agreements and assumptions are in place you have freedom of action - which is a part of freedom. That's why business agreements have civil, if not criminal, law behind them. If you can't depend on the enforcement of a basic regulatory structure you do not have the freedom to develop economic activity and sophisticated economic activity needed in a modern society. If only part of society is protected then I guarantee you that 'freedom' will be infringed upon - and economic activity will be stifled.

The millions thrown out of a job after the shenanigans on Wall St will probably not be impressed by the idea of having freedom if they lost retirement, investments, home, health care and can no longer support kids in college as a result of activities that took the bottom out of the economy while regulators were forced to twiddle their thumbs by the ideologically pure leadership.

[NCcorntrader]

I agree we are on the same page, just different paragraphs. Enjoyed the debate, best regards.