I advocate over-regulation. It's not very hard: figure out the exact set of regulation you want, x, and then advocate x&y, where y is not the null set. Since the likelihood of x&y is logically less that of x alone you stand a better chance of getting x implemented.
The problem with regulation is that for every set of rules there's a corresponding nonempty set of loopholes that can be exploited. Finance is now so complex that coming up with rules that can't be gamed is not as trivial as one might think...
Comments
Does anyone actually advocate over-regulation?
I advocate over-regulation. It's not very hard: figure out the exact set of regulation you want, x, and then advocate x&y, where y is not the null set. Since the likelihood of x&y is logically less that of x alone you stand a better chance of getting x implemented.
The problem with regulation is that for every set of rules there's a corresponding nonempty set of loopholes that can be exploited. Finance is now so complex that coming up with rules that can't be gamed is not as trivial as one might think...
Who said those rules ought to be static? Parliaments are busy places...
The speed at which you can change the rules is lower than the speed at which smart people can come up with ways of gaming them...
I listen to Robert Reich radio commentaries, and he seems to advocate over-regulation.
Surely the level of regulation he advocates seems excessive to you, no? (I have no particular opinion RR's actual recommendations).
Can you give an example?