Deregulation and totally free markets

Government manipulation into free markets is the problem.

quote:

---

Or do people really think government regulation is worthless

---

i wouldn't call it worthless, it's just suboptimal and will raise costs/prices

it also creates the monster of crony capitalism, where government can pick winners and losers. that's the REAL issue

Individuals should be deciders in economy, with gov't taking a far backseat.

Progressives are always promising some utopia with all of their regulations. A "bubble wrap" society if you will.

quote:

---

Maybe without knowing why or any real specifics or knowledge to back up that general belief.

---

I just think it sounds cool!

Over regulation stifles small business growth and protects the very corporations that liberals hate from competition.

Some regulation is needed to at the federal level, mostly to combat corruption and unethical practices. Environmental standards should be handled by a local government because they will better understand the issues at hand

The problem with regulation is that it presents an artificial barrier for entry into markets. Some large companies are so old that they didn't face the same regulations when they started.

quote:

---

I see a lot of people here advocating this without qualification.Sorta as a utopia, cure all, etc.

I don't get this. Is it just people here talking in a simple minded way? Sorta just an ignorant perspective without nuance?

---

A very small cadre on here are in favor of NO regulation.

Lumping conservatives in with them is like lumping liberals in with socialists and communists; close cousins, but there are important differences.

The key point for me as a conservative is the recognition that regulation has unintended consequences. Most regulation comes about from the "there ought to be a law!" mentality. Not every problem needs to be solved by government.

Throw in that most unintended regulations harm the economy (most often through increased costs or increased barriers to entry). And I think helping the economy grow is often a lot better than whatever tax-payer funded program is being discussed.

So regulations are often necessary; but more often they are passed without much regard for the damage they will do usually in an effort for elected officials to claim they are "doing something."

I was talking more on deforestation or polluting of local lakes by a factory.

Multi state issues like the MS river can be controlled by Feds. But the EPA shouldn't be able to show up on your property and fine you for letting water from your private pond drain into a ditch that runs into the local reservoir

quote:

---

Or do people really think government regulation is worthless and pure free markets (or almost completely free with practically no regulation) is desirable.

---

Probably many here do. As for me, I think in general that a minimal amount can produce better outcomes than none.

That said, in many markets regulated in the US, we are far beyond that efficient point, saddled with regulations that can suck for many possible reasons all to the harm of the consumer and upstart competitors:
- they become redundant and costly to navigate while doing little good
- they become obsolete
- they really just serve the interest of the powerful incumbents in that industry
- they simply have vapid policy goals to begin with or serve some emotional purpose

quote:

---

Cali pleaded for Gov to step in and regulate, but Bush appeared to be in bed with Enron and refused.

---

dafug? the company collapsed 8 months into his presidency.