Free market rules.
Topic: Your ideal vision of regulation of the Market, how to do it? (Read 913 times)
No regulation is the best regulation possible.
Free market rules.
Free market rules.
If it's profitable then everybody will sell toxic stuff after forming a cartel. Market self regulation at work, I guess .
. 
I believe that some sort of voting and trust-less consensus would work best for bitcoin regulation. We proved with bitcoin that we don't have to trust each other or reach a consensus. A regulator that we don't have to trust a single entity would be ideal.
Choose your own "regulator". Only do business with companies or individuals that have been inspected, audited, and approved by your chosen "regulator".
We should be careful with regulation of markets. I completely agree that some regulation is needed, but them most efficient market (i.e, where the price of goods and services is as accurate as possible for both sides of the transaction) is one with limited interference of regulation and restriction.
Then if I have enough $ I could just buy the system agents necessary and be able to trade my toxic stuff, by making it legal.
In a democracy, agents will be reluctant to take your $$ and make your toxic stuff legal, primarily because of the fear of its consequences. The final power is with the people of the country and the system agents will be thrown out if their actions are perceived to be wrong.
Markets, Values, Regulations? How to regulate a market?
Market Participants will always want more freedom, and of course simple, clear and easily understandable regulations (this FedEx box is mine). However some market participants will want to be able to trade things that others may no agree on. This is called an internal market confrontation. For example in toxic stuff.
Then if I have enough $ I could just buy the system agents necessary and be able to trade my toxic stuff, by making it legal. However as we are in a market, others players, may not agree with me trading toxic stuff, and could too pay system agents to ban this toxic stuff, and make it illegal. So here we have a internal market confrontation involving corrupt system agents from both side.
The next scaling step is the involvement of violence, meaning the one with the most coercive means may win. Which can be translated by the rules of the jungle. But if you prefer stealth ala obamacare, it's the same mindset...
I don't think it's a nice world to live in. Is there a solution? Parliament worldwide are the most systemic weak institution that I never seen... purposely designed? any thoughts?
Market Participants will always want more freedom, and of course simple, clear and easily understandable regulations (this FedEx box is mine). However some market participants will want to be able to trade things that others may no agree on. This is called an internal market confrontation. For example in toxic stuff.
Then if I have enough $ I could just buy the system agents necessary and be able to trade my toxic stuff, by making it legal. However as we are in a market, others players, may not agree with me trading toxic stuff, and could too pay system agents to ban this toxic stuff, and make it illegal. So here we have a internal market confrontation involving corrupt system agents from both side.
The next scaling step is the involvement of violence, meaning the one with the most coercive means may win. Which can be translated by the rules of the jungle. But if you prefer stealth ala obamacare, it's the same mindset...
I don't think it's a nice world to live in. Is there a solution? Parliament worldwide are the most systemic weak institution that I never seen... purposely designed? any thoughts?
Jump to: