Government Regulations and Licensing: Good Thing, Bad Thing, or Necessary Evil?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,286
2,682
136
Regulations aren't a necessary evil. They are necessary because of evil, neglect, incompetence and the knowledge gathered as time passes.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,852
26,641
136
My profession (Geology) went to licensing as a defensive move back in the 90s. The engineers were angling to have the sub-field of hydrogeology declared an engineering practice requiring a PE. The fact that hydrogeology classes weren't even accepted for credit in the Engineering curriculum didn't even cause the engineers to blush. Groundwater cleanup was big bucks for awhile.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Yup. If someone sucks at something - people will simply stop booking them as a hair stylist.... Either that, or the hair stylist will get better and improve. It's really that simple.
You want one with herpes, AIDS, or hepatitis to nick me with a razor, right?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
You want one with herpes, AIDS, or hepatitis to nick me with a razor, right?

Moonbeam, why would you say that? I love you.

No but seriously, you usually make some cometent posts here unlike the majority of 1-sentence replying libtards. So not sure what you're trying to say with this post.

The simple point is, the narrative of "I agree with a license for X profession" can be applied to any profession. Hence, it's a stupid proposition to make. It's a means of preventing competition in order to drive up costs in the name of regulation. It doesn't equal better outcome. It doesn't equal better work.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Moonbeam, why would you say that? I love you.

No but seriously, you usually make some cometent posts here unlike the majority of 1-sentence replying libtards. So not sure what you're trying to say with this post.

The simple point is, the narrative of "I agree with a license for X profession" can be applied to any profession. Hence, it's a stupid proposition to make. It's a means of preventing competition in order to drive up costs in the name of regulation. It doesn't equal better outcome. It doesn't equal better work.
Hehehe, pay no attention to me. My first post was intended to express the emptiness of my opinions, knowledge and therefore any real interest in this subject. I believe the argument over regulations etc to be something I take on a case by case basis. I believe, for example, that doctors should be part of the civil service, get free education, free housing for life on a campus setting that includes university and hospital and a job and retirement guaranteed for life. Let people who want to make millions go into stamp collecting or some other profession. Let people who want to help people be our doctors.

In short, I like licensing that is intended to insure competence and prevent fraud and but don't like it when it is there to limit the supply of people going into that profession to keep their incomes up. I like regulation similar, when it prevents slime from defrauding people but don't like it when so rigorous or unreasonable that it drives prices out of reach. As a member of society, I depend on society to work to find balance on these things, and so I depend on those who I hope have experience and good judgement to make things equitable. I don't think a single person like me has the capacity to make that call universally. There are millions of regulations and licenses and is an area of politics that I am unsuited to evaluate.

I paid little attention to the dialog you had with fiskimo other than to smile to myself when he said he was conservative on housing. He and I seem to see things differently on CA Prop 13 as it relates to kicking Grandma out of her house. Logical easily drifts over into being inhuman, as I see it. So, the only thing I wanted to say, not really understanding the hairdresser thingi between you and he, was to comment on where I could see a reason to regulate that profession. There is a risk to close body contact with people who are in contact with many many people. Hairdressers are just one small set. At a minimum, people should be aware they take a risk rather than be blindsided with an illness they had no idea they might be able to catch from a professional. Just wanted to emphasize that point. I put it as a question just for emphasis. I have no desire at all that you catch any of those things. Sorry if it seemed that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Hehehe, pay no attention to me. My first post was intended to express the emptiness of my opinions, knowledge and therefore any real interest in this subject. I believe the argument over regulations etc to be something I take on a case by case basis. I believe, for example, that doctors should be part of the civil service, get free education, free housing for life on a campus setting that includes university and hospital and a job and retirement guaranteed for life. Let people who want to make millions go into stamp collecting or some other profession. Let people who want to help people be our doctors.

In short, I like licensing that is intended to insure competence and prevent fraud and but don't like it when it is there to limit the supply of people going into that profession to keep their incomes up. I like regulation similar, when it prevents slime from defrauding people but don't like it when so rigorous or unreasonable that it drives prices out of reach. As a member of society, I depend on society to work to find balance on these things, and so I depend on those who I hope have experience and good judgement to make things equitable. I don't think a single person like me has the capacity to make that call universally. There are millions of regulations and licenses and is an area of politics that I am unsuited to evaluate.

I paid little attention to the dialog you had with fiskimo other than to smile to myself when he said he was conservative on housing. He and I seem to see things differently on CA Prop 13 as it relates to kicking Grandma out of her house. Logical easily drifts over into being inhuman, as I see it. So, the only thing I wanted to say, not really understanding the hairdresser thingi between you and he, was to comment on where I could see a reason to regulate that profession. There is a risk to close body contact with people who are in contact with many many people. Hairdressers are just one small set. At a minimum, people should be aware they take a risk rather than be blindsided with an illness they had no idea they might be able to catch from a professional. Just wanted to emphasize that point. I put it as a question just for emphasis. I have no desire at all that you catch any of those things. Sorry if it seemed that way.
PS: I see now what happened. I said 'nick me' rather than 'nick you'. Should have been, "
You want one with herpes, AIDS, or hepatitis to nick you with a razor, right? Nobody would want that hence, perhaps licensing could be set up to reduce that risk.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,345
2,705
136
I can see licensing in some fields as to prevent an over abundance of people in those fields thus depresing overall pay in them, also to have a minimum standard in others.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I can see licensing in some fields as to prevent an over abundance of people in those fields thus depresing overall pay in them, also to have a minimum standard in others.


Well, I will also say that there is a difference between licensing and required licensing.

Certified Public Accountants (CPA) is a common "certification", however, it isn't required for me to perform the majority of accounting work - or to be hired at an accounting firm.

That's a very big difference between cosmetology licenses that don't allow you to do a single thing related to hair without having it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,961
27,640
136
Broad answer.

When have you even known corporations to be concerned about public safety when they don't have to?

We need it.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,218
136
You're sounding awfully conservative right about now.... ;)

But yes, I agree with you pretty much in full.

I'll even go out on a limb and say that I agree with regs/licensing on CERTAIN industries - in particular (just as an example) being food (restaurant/groceries)... Namely because what we eat can very much determine disease control, etc. Even still, I'm sure the rules are still overboard.
See this is what has you all mixed up. Republicans claim to be against regulations and have successfully convinced plenty of really stupid people that liberals are the ones who make all the stupid regulations. However, I bet if you did a tiny bit of research you would find out that at least half of all the regulations you personally think are ridiculous government overreach were put in place by conservatives. It's the same thing with guns, patriotism, and fiscal "conservatism." All things Republicans use to paint liberals as whackos because really stupid people can't see past simple sound bites.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
NYS has horrible regs, inconsistently applied when it makes sense at all. My wife was trying to get a new curriculum going where she teaches and for three years she got delays, new demands that weren't on any documentation and no appeals. Finally the woman in charge of her case was termed and her college was approved in three months. This is typical in this state. My daughter went to college in MA for elementary ed, passed her licensing with flying colors and spent two years with the same thing trying to get up and running here. She finally gave up as so many do, her education would be wasted except it served as a basis for another program completely unrelated to her undergrad degree.

My wife's college did a detailed breakdown of costs which took a year to complete because tuition has to be high. Regulatory compliance was among the highest and I'm not talking handicapped features or academic standards that made any sense either. The process could be streamlined and consistent with a rational purpose but that's not how we do things. I thought MA was bad but I've not seen anything like NY, and it's not education alone that suffers.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,973
7,891
136
I'm not at all convinced by the claims the OP makes about the banking sector.

Mutualised building societies (which I think are broadly the same thing as credit unions) have declined massively in number here, not because of 'regulations' but because of the turn to buccaneering high-finance over the old highly-regulated 'safe hands' approach.

It appears to me that their decline has been a result of deregulation, in fact, exactly the opposite of what the OP implies. Demutualisation was made possible by the _removal_ of regulations that prevented it. Once those regulations were removed by Thatcher, the mutuals all rapidly disappeared as people rushed for short-term gains.

The decline of mutualised building societies began with Thatcherism and the deregulation of the financial sector (known as 'big bang'). That led to a consolidation of financial institutions, as it removed all the old legal barriers that prevented institutions from covering different market sectors and integrating them all into a more 'efficient' (but 'too big to fail') whole.

As far as I can see, the OP has it back-to-front when it comes to the banking and finance sector.

Also, the US always had far more small banks than the UK because it had such strong anti-trust laws - the UK didn't have such strong regulations preventing consolidation and so had a handful of major banks dominating the entire market. Again - an absence of a certain kind of regulations meant fewer banks.

The trouble is though, that it seems as if the only people who really understand the financial sector are those who have a huge vested interest in it, and who also have a strong interest in not being honest with the rest of us about what it's actually up to. As the saying goes, all professions are conspiracies against the laity.