ST Alpha - "Financial regulators don't have to consider cost-benefit of their regulations even though other Federal agencies do. -- (link)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 150

Financial regulators don't have to consider cost-benefit of their regulations even though other Federal agencies do. -- (link)

Posted by spamlet Jan 28 '13, 05:18

(No message)

This is one area where banks have a legitimate complaint. (www.bloomberg.com)

Responses:

"Benefits: less risk of gigantic economic collapse. Done" -- nm - Regulators si Jan 28, 06:41
[deleted]
Not in my opinion. Measuring benefit against cost is useless if it only addresses monetary costs and monetary benefits. - TWuG Jan 28, 05:25 8
- [deleted] 1
  - This. -- nm - Strongbad Jan 28, 06:40
- Useless? It may not tell the whole story, but in finance, the financial and economic impacts would be the primary concern, not a useless one. -- nm - TFox Jan 28, 05:28 5
  - The things I would find positive in government regulation generally wouldn't be whether the direct monetary cost of a policy resulted in equal or - TWuG Jan 28, 05:34 4
    - Well, as the link states, that's precisely the kind of stuff that other agencies do attach dollar values to. - TFox Jan 28, 05:38 3
      - My complaint is that a dollar value has to be put on that stuff to make it "valid" as a reason to regulate. I think it is a flawed way of doing things - TWuG Jan 28, 05:45 2
        
        The converse argument is if a piece of regulation would keep 100 people in their homes, but cost $50M to implement, it's stupid. - TFox Jan 28, 05:51
        
        Everything can have a dollar value. -- nm - znufrii Jan 28, 05:48

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.