Hacker News Reader

Comment by piker | Hacker News Reader

That's a motivated take. Obviously the party and candidates which promote less regulation are preferable to the stock market. It doesn't require accusations of corruption, and it doesn't mean their opponents are wrong, either.

View on HN

You have a very shallow understanding of economics. "Less regulation" is great if you can't think beyond next quarter. "Good regulation" is what keeps the economy healthy long-term.

Perhaps, but that's not really relevant as I am not the stock market.

You may not be directly invested in the stock market but you will certainly feel the repercussions to the economy from a crash.

I am in the market. I am not the market myself, so my opinion on the efficacy of regulation is of little concern to the debate. One thing is clear though: the election of a deregulation candidate immediately makes market go up, and the inverse. That’s what’s being discussed here, wheee the OP says “must be corruption”.

Ideally markets should price rationally, unfortunately they are often driven by human-sentiments, exuberance or dejection.

Textbook stock market != economy situation.

Abortion bans, book bans, trans bans, voter ID laws and so forth are regulation. It's "regulation for thee but not for me".

That's a fair observation, and perhaps requires qualifying my initial point with "non-social" regulation. The market doesn't care about those.

Cannabis stocks certainly care about their anti-cannabis regulation.

You know why I can play this game all day? Because the base premise doesn't hold.

Sure, also all the gambling/prediction markets, abortion-adjacent stocks etc. could potentially be down. In terms of the market, though, those industries just don't matter. The lion's share of the economy (energy, finance, technology, tobacco, firearms) benefit from the election of a party that is hostile to their regulation. It's not really debatable. What is debatable is whether that's correct or good, since deregulation allows those organizations to potentially externalize costs to the environment, society, etc.

Republicans are not the party of "less regulation". That's another of these myths they use like "states rights" or "fiscal responsibility".

Ok members of one party are proposing rent controls, city-owned groceries, abolition of AI advancement, expansion of the EPA, etc. and the other is revoking long-standing SEC, EPA and other agency regulations. This claim just doesn't hold up.

(I'm a swing voter if that helps.)

Which party created the EPA?

I don't know the history. Nixon? Seems like it was motivated in the 1950s. I don't think Richard Nixon was on the ballot this year, but maybe I just missed it.

Pretend like Nixon was on the ballot.

Tariffs?

Totally disappointing from a citizen (and market?) perspective, but I think you're stretching the meaning of "regulation" to try to squeeze tariffs in. That's like saying war is "regulating" the other country.

They also have a very short-term outlook. Deregulation of derivatives was great for the market, until it caused a massive financial crisis.

> Obviously the party and candidates which promote less regulation are preferable to the stock market.

For a while...

In your understanding, what do you think caused the last few recessions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com