http://madisonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/regulat...
?
The last 16 years has seen little or no de-regulation. The last serious bout of de-regulation that I can remember was back in the 80's when Reagan threw out the rulebook on airlines or when the RBOCs were allowed to reconstitute themselves.
So, on that front: We have this hypothesis that regulation is a huge drag on the economy, and that we should therefore deregulate in order to stimulate greater economic growth. If this is true, then you would expect that we'd see the US economy to take off during or shortly after the bulk of the deregulation. With that prediction in mind, go back and look at the graph of GDP growth by year. In the three economies shown, de-regulation instead coincides with periods of consistently declining or perennially weak growth.
Which, to me, suggests that it's not reasonable to be so confident about the idea that regulation will have this or that profound effect on the overall economy. The idea that regulation is a horrible drag doesn't seem to have much of an empirical leg to stand on. I don't see much evidence that the opposite is true, either. The two regions that entered the graph with higher growth were also just exiting a period of rebuilding and recovery following a very destructive war, for example, so it's tough to say the pattern you see for them isn't a reflection of outside factors.
Three people pushed the little down triangle on me, because...why?
Because my response violated HN guidelines? No, actually it didn't.
Because it didn't introduce new information? Actually, it did, didn't it? bunderbunder incorrectly asserted that the last 16 years has been a period of deregulation, and I pointed out that compared to the 80's when at least three major industries (airlines in 1978, telecommunications in 1984, and finance in 1980), almost nothing was deregulated similarly in the last 16 years. On the contrary, two fairly major examples of new and disruptive regulation that we did get in the last 16 years were Sarbanes-Oxley and the ACA.
<sigh>
HN isn't known for being skeptical of authoritarian statist solutions to your problems.
I think regulation (and the notion of over/under regulation) is a fascinating and worthwhile discussion to pursue. Honestly, it's something people should be debating.
However, I insist that you describe the low, or no, regulation regimes you have lived under (or visited for significant periods ... months/years).
When and where ?[1]
There is a "must be this tall to ride" barrier for discussing small government and/or over regulation, and this is it. As a community we should insist on this basic test of legitimacy.
[1] Yes, I'll accept NOLA. Maybe even Houston in the 90s ...
Seriously? So we can't ever discuss the way things should be without firsthand experience of living under those conditions?
Scenario:
You are a slave living in a mining pit. Each day you look up from your drudgery and see free people picnicking in the grass high on the edge of your pit. You turn to the man chained next to you and say, "I believe a world where we were free would be better than this one. Look at those people up there."
He turns to you and says, "I insist that you describe the low / no slavery regimes you have lived under before we can debate the merits of your proposal."
You stare incredulously at your fellow slave.