
The Libertarian Who Accidentally Helped Make the Case for Regulation - raleec
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2018/null-hypothesis/
======
SlowBro
Curious, I found the economist's (Alex Tabarrok) response to the article about
himself:

[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/04/ec...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/04/economic-
research-biased-partisanship.html)

The concluding paragraph is important:

\----

"Let me conclude on a lighter note. There are many reasons why regulation
could be costly outside of its effects on dynamism. Thus, for my friends who
think that I have gone all-squishy, n.b.: 'Not that Tabarrok himself has
become a booster for regulation. He doesn’t think much of government’s ability
to spark innovation through setting standards; the first thing he did when he
last bought a new shower head, he said, was remove its federally mandated flow
restrictor.'"

~~~
coldacid
Tabarrok's response even makes for better reading than the Washington Monthly
article he replies to.

------
badmadrad
The dilemma is that heavy regulation tends to lend itself to monopolies and
more government control which even the article admits hampers dynamism. The
consequences of not following regulatory practice can be burdensome to new
ideas, newcomers, and most importantly -- speed. Corporations know that
federal regulations can be a tool to make it harder on its competitors. So I
still think its better to err on the side of less regulation.

