It occurred to me tonight on the ride home that I may be talking cross-topics with my friends that are big Austrian economy and laissez faire capitalism people. We seem to usually start from a particular issue and each talk about a different aspect of it. For example, I'll focus on the effect of what I see as 'free market' and deregulatory ideas
(
Read more... )
I agree that one can reasonably define a spectrum of regulation, from a point of protection for the consumer and the nation's economy that is a significant burden on the regulated industry, to a point of of little significant protection for the consumer and nation's economy that places no burden on the industry.
To make it easier let's also put aside the issue of corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks, loans and other non-regulatory aids that push wealth from the taxpayer to industry.
So what objective measures would you accept to determine what that reasonable range is? What kind of record of abuse do you think is necessary before an industry should be regulated to prevent it? What issues with enforcement do you think are significant enough to prompt an investigation of those in charge? On the other side of the range, what objective measures would you require in order to de-regulate an industry over a certain issue? What is the level of burden that an industry has to prove itself in excess of to be granted de-regulatory aid?
And perhaps most important, what experts would you accept as capable of determining, maintaining and/or judging the measures above? What rules would be used to determine their expertise and reduce the possibility of self-interest?
Reply
Leave a comment