The Off Topic Topic

[Malthus]

Everyday I regulate.

I heard Metamusil helps with that. 

[DGuller]

Because the government, like every other complex organization, consists of many people, and people taken together work more effectively when bound by some rules?

Sure, but that could be accomplished by setting policy.  We will do things this way.  We will hire people to do things this way.  We will fire people who don't do things this way.

Are you making a point that "regulation" means precisely setting the rules of the game for multiple competitors?

[Admiral Yi]

Are you making a point that "regulation" means precisely setting the rules of the game for multiple competitors?

That regulation means punishment for failure to comply.  Should a government pay a fine to itself?

[Razgovory]

I am fairly confident that Tyr's statements can be summed up as follows: "Everything I don't like is capitalism, even socialism."

[Jacob]

Are you making a point that "regulation" means precisely setting the rules of the game for multiple competitors?

That regulation means punishment for failure to comply.  Should a government pay a fine to itself?

Sure, if the government entity is semi-autonomous with its own budget, why not?

Additionally, individuals within the government structure could face consequences for breaking - or facilitate breaking - government regulations.

I mean, there are food stands that are ultimately government owned and operated (in national parks, museums, etc - though I suppose many of them are contracted out depending on jurisdiction). Are you suggesting that having food safety and workplace regulations apply to those operations is pointless, because the concession stand is owned by the same government that is ultimately responsible for the regulations?

[garbon]

I often see people on Oxford Street riding about on those.

[Garbon]

You shop on Oxford street. 

[/Garbon]

No, I don't. I just have the misfortune of working on it.

[Admiral Yi]

That regulation means punishment for failure to comply.  Should a government pay a fine to itself?

Sure, if the government entity is semi-autonomous with its own budget, why not?

Additionally, individuals within the government structure could face consequences for breaking - or facilitate breaking - government regulations.

I mean, there are food stands that are ultimately government owned and operated (in national parks, museums, etc - though I suppose many of them are contracted out depending on jurisdiction). Are you suggesting that having food safety and workplace regulations apply to those operations is pointless, because the concession stand is owned by the same government that is ultimately responsible for the regulations?
[/quote]

These things are all true, but when we're talking about "regulating the [electricity] industry," we're not talking about things like serving rotten food in the cafeteria.  We're talking about things like prices to consumers, modes of generation, pollution, etc. 

In the case of a semi-autonomous government owned entity, a fine paid would simply mean that the entity returns less profit to the government, or needs a bigger subsidy.

[Eddie Teach]

Everyday I regulate.

Are you handy with the steel?

[Jacob]

These things are all true, but when we're talking about "regulating the [electricity] industry," we're not talking about things like serving rotten food in the cafeteria.  We're talking about things like prices to consumers, modes of generation, pollution, etc. 

In the case of a semi-autonomous government owned entity, a fine paid would simply mean that the entity returns less profit to the government, or needs a bigger subsidy.

If you're saying there are some scenarios where government regulation and government ownership seem at cross purposes with one another, I'll readily agree. I think it's mostly about the implementation, rather than at what level it's at.

In the case of semi-autonomous government owned entities, profit/ subsidy is frequently not the primary reason for its existence, but rather some public policy objective. If government regulates and ultimately provides health care, a particular regulation may well affect the bottom line, but the primary objective is to provide an acceptable level of healthcare, so that's fine.

On the other hand I agree that if, say, the government owns a monopoly on cigarette manufacturing which it uses to generate profit, but it is also responsible for public health policy around smoking and secondary effects, and also regulates the advertising industry then it starts getting a bit iffy.

[Admiral Yi]

You're sort of missing my point Jacob.  I'm saying what's the point of writing a regulation that says 50% of power generation has to come from renewables when you can just go ahead and do it.

[Razgovory]

Man, getting a job is hard.

[Eddie Teach]

You're sort of missing my point Jacob.  I'm saying what's the point of writing a regulation that says 50% of power generation has to come from renewables when you can just go ahead and do it.

Because the legislature isn't administering the power company.

[Admiral Yi]

Because the legislature isn't administering the power company.

We started this discussion talking about Hungary.

[Eddie Teach]

I doubt the Hungarian legislature is directly administering their power company either.

[mongers]

Man, getting a job is hard.

Hang in there Raz.