Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
In the global corporate environment we're discussing, regulation will more often than not turn one problem into another.
And as to the 2008 economic meltdown, it wasn't really the result of regulatory failure. It was an unavoidable result of regulatory "success".
Look it up.
Detailing it and naming names would get too political but the regulations achieved exactly what they set out to do. But, thanks to the law of unintended consequences, the way it was achieved caused the sub-prime crisis. Dozens of similar examples abound. Most major social and political issues in the US are the result of "solving" previous versions of the same problem.
Much like the way the Agency conspiracy of 2010 "solved" the problem of Amazon occasionally undercutting smaller retailers by killing the smaller retailers.  |
I hear what you are saying. But I think it depends on what you regard as a success or a solution. To me, even if a regulatory measure "solves" the problem it was intended to, it is still a failure if the wider consequences, seen or unforeseen, make the victory a pyrrhic one. It is actually only a matter of semantics. It doesn't make much difference if we regard the financial crisis as caused by a failure of regulation (my wording) or unintended consequences of regulation which was successful in achieving its own narrower aims.
I would also observe that I am often amazed by the rush of governments and bureaucrats to implement regulations which have been a disastrous failure (or a success with unintended consequences) in other jurisdictions..