Comments for David Brooks Teaches People How Not to Talk About Regulation at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 25 May 2013 07:11:39 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13326 Of course they are inherently costly, as they are used typically to create monopoly power. Regulation starts with a well intentioned idea, like "safety" and then the affected industry will figure out a way to use the regs to eliminate small competitors and such, with such tricks as making sure there are high fixed costs for compliance which the big firms can pass on with price increases but which drive the little guys to bust. I'm from the government and I am here to help.... - pete Tue, 06 Dec 2011 05:43:08 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13323 The current Chinese monopoly on the very dirty process of rare earth refining coupled with Chinese threats to embargo exports or to use all production for Chinese manufacturing complicates the 'benefits and burdens' analysis of regulation - Steve williams Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:31:06 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13319 Dean, The broadly accepted notion of the "cost of regulation" is not helpful to understanding issue of the benefits and burdens of any regulation. The real issue is does the cost of regulating an activity exceed the costs of not regulating that same activity. Take compulsory automobile insurance for example. The cost of requiring automobile uninsured owners to buy auto coverage can readily be compared to the costs suffered by others (drivers, passengers, pedestrians, hospitals, health insurers, etc.) who are injured by uninsured automobiles. There is no cost-benefit tradeoff. There is merely the cost of regulation compared to cost of failing to regulate. Another example is the cost of regulating drug innovation with patents. The costs of doing so is evident in the premium paid for patented drugs. The costs of not applying patents to drugs is somewhat more difficult to compute. The conventional cost analysis of regulation favored by the Republicans is really better suited to comparing the costs of different regulatory schemes. Would a system of direct drug research subsidy cost more than a system of patents and retail price controls? I - Ron Alley Tue, 06 Dec 2011 03:03:24 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13317 Not too may comments yet, but predictably the few there have fallen for the bait. In doing so, they have accepted Mr. Brooks characterization of regulations as "intrusive". And, they have accepted the dollar amount of costs of regulations (courtesy the Heritage Foundation). Don't they realize at this point that Brooks is always trouble when he pulls out the big numbers. - Kat Tue, 06 Dec 2011 02:48:01 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13314 Brooks is also disingenuous in not revealing the types of regulations. Many of the regulations promulgated in recent years relate to the financial crisis and financial community. The "costs" of these regulations might appear quite high given they are regulating huge amounts of capital. - Mark Jamison Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:41 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13313 Wouldn't that mean I would be paying Brooks for something he shouldn't be doing in the first place? Only a stupid liberal would do that. Smart liberals regulate and impose fines on bad behavior. Which answers some of the questions as to why we find America in such a sorry and filthy state of affairs that its in today. - Pat Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:23:22 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13312 [quote]...or is it supposed to be some net measure that subtracts the savings that accrue to me and other current recipients of our neighbors' sewage?[/quote] Brooks knows what any economist knows - second best principles trump first best principles when one of the first best principles is flawed, which cause regulation to cost even more than the cost of cleaning up the sewage. In these cases it's better to do nothing than regulate since the opposing forces of two second best principles result in more economic welfare that attempting to regulate the problem. As Ronald Coase would say, letting Baker pay Brooks to stop dumping sewage in his yard under the Pareto Crapola Mini-Max Compost Rule is far more efficient than imposing costly regulations on Brooks. Stupid liberals. - izzatzo Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:14:28 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-teaches-people-how-not-to-talk-about-regulation#comment-13311 C'mon, let the man regurgitate press releases. No one else in the 1% is expected to think. - RZ Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:27:18 +0100