undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsnicolasp12y ago0 comments

The market being regulated doesn't necessarily prevent collusion from happening, but makes it illegal when it does happen.

0 comments

icebraining12y ago

The point is that we can't take a market with N regulations, see what happens with (N-1) regulations being followed, and then say "see, that's what would happen without any regulations!"

Kill the regulations helping the capitalists, not just the ones giving a hand to the worker, and then we can talk.

adventured12y ago

The 19th century in the US is probably the largest data set when it comes to extremely low regulation markets. Hong Kong is a more recent example. The point being, there is a lot of actual real world data on each side of the fence.

icebraining12y ago

Well, it depends on what you consider regulation. If you take a broader view, like Benjamin Tucker did, you'll see they were in fact very regulated.

nickik12y ago

Well let me give you the simplest market argument I know. Look at corrulation between economic freedom and economic size and growth.

http://www.freetheworld.com/2013/EFW2013-complete.pdf (Page 22)

1 more reply

lmm12y ago

> The point is that we can't take a market with N regulations, see what happens with (N-1) regulations being followed, and then say "see, that's what would happen without any regulations!"

That seems like the sort of evidence that's actually useful when making policy decisions about whether we should increase or decrease regulation. Abolishing all regulations is not practical, so what political theorists think would happen in a complete absence of regulation is irrelevant to any real-world issues.

icebraining12y ago

It's only relevant when making policy decisions about that particular rule. Regulations aren't commodities, and the fact that eliminating a certain regulation would destabilize the system is no evidence that removing any other regulation would do the same.

But in any case, if you think what would happen by abolishing all regulation is irrelevant to the real world, then you should be replying to RivieraKid, who was the one drawing such irrelevant (and, in my opinion, unsupported) conclusions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

icebraining12y ago

The point is that we can't take a market with N regulations, see what happens with (N-1) regulations being followed, and then say "see, that's what would happen without any regulations!"

Kill the regulations helping the capitalists, not just the ones giving a hand to the worker, and then we can talk.

adventured12y ago

icebraining12y ago

Well, it depends on what you consider regulation. If you take a broader view, like Benjamin Tucker did, you'll see they were in fact very regulated.

nickik12y ago

Well let me give you the simplest market argument I know. Look at corrulation between economic freedom and economic size and growth.

http://www.freetheworld.com/2013/EFW2013-complete.pdf (Page 22)

1 more reply

lmm12y ago

> The point is that we can't take a market with N regulations, see what happens with (N-1) regulations being followed, and then say "see, that's what would happen without any regulations!"

icebraining12y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse