The Hunt for Elusive 'Dumb' Rules

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22regulate.html

by vegashacker • 16 years ago

10 2 16 years ago

waqf• 16 years ago

Saccharin is toxic waste. I don't see the problem there.

(Okay, Wikipedia tells me it's no longer considered carcinogenic, but certainly it was considered so during a period in which it continued to be used as a sweetener.)

jerf• 16 years ago

"Dumb" is the wrong metric. "Costs in excess of benefits" is the correct one. But this is hard, because it "ought" to be done in terms of costs to society and benefits to society, but instead since the government is doing the audit it gets analyzed in terms of costs to government vs. benefits to government. (How could it be otherwise?)

The cost to the government of a new regulation is zero. Either they will appropriate the money from the endless money fountain to pay for the necessary expansion, or they will simply fail to enforce it at their discretion. The benefit to the government of a regulation is always positive; if nothing else they get the choice of enforcement, and the corresponding power.

It is no surprise this system never produces results, beyond cosmetic fixes. I don't know what the solution is but somehow the incentives to the government have to be fixed first.

The Hunt for Elusive 'Dumb' Rules

Related Stories