Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
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..
|
We're pretty much on the same page.
That's why I'm not impressed by hopeful appeals to government, whether by regulation or lawsuit.
Especially by marketplace losers. If they lost in the marketplace it is because consumer interests do not align with them and no attempt to use government to change the rules is going to make winners of them.
It did nothing for Netscape and *they* got what they wanted.
More often than not losers don't get even that.
(Like the B&M crowd pining for a national internet tax. Politicians take their money, talk a lot of talk, but in the end nothing happens.)
As for the transportability of "solutions", I agree. I am also amazed at the number of people who think that what works in a culturally homogeneous city-sized country must automatically be applicable to a multi-ethnic multicultural, continental state.
History matters. Size matters.
Whether it be for nations or corporations.
Because in the end it is always human nature that prevails, not high-falluting ideals or principles.
When in doubt, I always bet on Murphy.
