* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP

If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The whole point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses protects itself against the wealth of the elite and business interests who don't generally have to live with the results of their actions. Are there stupid regulations? Of course, lots of them. Are there some that just don't plain work? Of course, lots of them. That's why you don't make regulations based on feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.

> If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you

If you really think that the collective motivations and incentives behind every regulation can be so easily generalized, then you're no different from free-market zealots unable to appreciate that markets are suboptimal for certain tasks. Regulations can be abused just like any other part of government, and just like any other part of government, this potential for abuse isn't a blanket indictment of the overall concept.

Yup, you're right. I chose a poor choice of words that didn't convey what I had meant to say clearly.

>* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP

We've made a really big leap from me suggesting I don't want to force a poor person to get permission from a wealthy person to perform handy-man type jobs around my house to talking about systemic risk problems. That first bit about the poor person requiring permission from a wealthy person is the key factor here, because who do you think is going to push for those regulations? The homeowners? Ehh, maybe the one person who had some bad luck. But the big money pushing those regulations to be written will be monied industry incumbents who don't want poor people to undercut them on easier work.

I've made no leaps about you personally. You're probably a pretty cool person.

> If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

> The whole point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses...

'The whole point' != what happens in reality.

> That's why you don't make regulations based on feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.

Sure... except that's rarely what happens in politics.

Yes, your points are all valid and correct. My statement was meant about what they are meant to protect not made to protect. Was a bad word choice on my part and I deserve the criticism of my comment I received.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you just listed more anecdotes.

The first case that comes immediately to mind is Range Resources, in Pittsburgh, which drilled shale gas wells in poorer neighborhoods because the residents wouldn't have the resources to pursue lawsuits against them (http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/latest-oil-and-gas/2...). State and federal regulatory agencies help to level the playing field (when they aren't being corrupted -- but that's another matter). In the absence of effective regulation, poorer communities have no recourse against being exploited.

This isn't just happening in one specific location, either. There is a national correlation between poor communities and pollution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

Deregulation in 1996 was also a major contributing factor -- possibly the key factor -- that led to the California state energy crisis in 2000-2001 ([pdf] https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron...)

Here's a really interesting insider perspective on the intersection of economics and regulation: http://allegedwisdom.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-story-of-lucky... ... this guy estimates the "trans fats ban" saved a few tens of thousands of lives. The article also opens by describing a case in which proposed regulation would not have made sense, but don't stop there.

Under-regulation has maybe cost the United States 41 million IQ points: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-toxin... ... think about that the next time you wish the people around you were smarter.

And, while lack of regulations have over history cost this country an untold amount of money and lives, it's not at all clear that environmental regulations have a net negative impact on the economy: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/2/14772518/env...

As Cory Doctorow points out, modern software has changed the rules around regulation and cheating, and there are lots of incentives to cheat: http://locusmag.com/2017/09/cory-doctorow-demon-haunted-worl.... In cases like these, we're simply getting a glimpse at how the various actors involved would behave in a completely unregulated environment. Too many people now are too young to know first-hand what an unegulated country looked like: http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-america-before-epa-doc...

As the blog from the economist alludes to, there are bad regulations too. I'd be quick to agree with that. But while it's far too simplistic to merely say, "regulations are good" or "regulations are bad", it's not hard to find evidence that our lives are overall much better off with many of the regulations we have in place now.