ST Alpha - "Not in my opinion. Measuring benefit against cost is useless if it only addresses monetary costs and monetary benefits." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 150

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

Not in my opinion. Measuring benefit against cost is useless if it only addresses monetary costs and monetary benefits.

Posted by TWuG Jan 28 '13, 05:25

There are lots of things that can be improved by regulation that don't lead to a direct monetary benefit equal to the cost of implementation. Some benefits are too intangible to put a value on but are valuable nonetheless.

Responses:

[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

Not in my opinion. Measuring benefit against cost is useless if it only addresses monetary costs and monetary benefits.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.