Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hasz | Hacker News Reader

The bit on a moving license was interesting. One one hand, I'm sure there's a decent (if opaque) rationale behind it, whatever it is.

On the other hand, it was clearly a burdensome and annoying regulation to jump through, although clearly not crippling.

How could government constantly reevaluate law to determine a careful balance between cost and benefit?

View on HN

It's actually a good industry to look at for any economist looking to study regulation affects.

In the 80s they deregulated the industry which led to a proliferation of shady movers and scams. Since the 80s they've been slowly adding back in more and more regulation.

The interesting part though is how the established companies limited the number of licenses that could be issued. That kind of regulatory capture is why "more regulation" vs "less regulation" is an overly simplistic lens through which to view situations. The nature of the regulation can be very important in protecting incumbents, although there is probably a certain quantity of regulation where the inherent complexity of compliance becomes a similar barrier.

> How could government constantly reevaluate law to determine a careful balance between cost and benefit?

By not turning every discussion into a culture war or a question of whether the government should exist at all. Those two approaches are phenomenally effective at distracting people from effective government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com