On Regulations, Again

No one likes regulations, none of us likes to be told what to do, no one whose freedom is constrained likes regulations.  But everyone else – the beneficiaries of regulations – loves regulations, as we do want others to conform to our social norms.  Indeed, life would be much more difficult (for most people) without regulations (on others).

Then, considering that 100 times as many people are beneficiaries of each regulation as are limited by it, why is “regulation” such a filthy word?  Why does everyone seem to hate regulations?  Because we only think of the regulations that constrain us, not those that benefit us.  And because we take for granted the regulations that benefit us, while those that constrain us keep us fighting mad, working to reverse the damned things.  So it goes.

What else needs to be said?

A Study of Gun Violence in the USA

I am going to talk about guns in a way you have never seen before, so hold on.

Regulations, Again

This post is written as a small "corrective" to the essays in my book about regulations.  It is easy to imagine from my essays that I am FOR a regulatory state.  This is a simple way to characterize my more complex notions about regulations, but it is inaccurate.  I am for SENSIBLE regulation.  I am for whittling away much (probably most!) of today’s regulations and today’s regulatory agencies, but I am not for eliminating them.

Moral Hazard

“Moral Hazard” (for a longer discussion) was one of the most important – and necessary – factors that allowed the Great Recession of 2008 to occur.  Indeed, it may have compelled it to happen sooner or later.  So, maybe a sufficient factor, too.  For the mathematicians out there, moral hazard may have been a “necessary and sufficient” factor for the Great Recession of 2008, the Recession that was nearly the Second Great Depression.

So, what IS this thing called “moral hazard”?