By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 08 March 2012
Edit Thread
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:

Because high risk entails high rewards. If you can release a drug onto the market without adequate testing that will net billions of dollars a company will. That drug could then end up causing huge damage. If you can drill an oil well for much cheaper than it currently can be done a company will. That well could then end up causing huge damage. The aim of regulation is essentially to force companies to lower risks because there is an inherent relationship in business between risk and reward.

If you release a drug onto the market without adequate testing you will face a massive class-action lawsuit and lose billions of dollars. If you dig an oil well that causes environmental damage you will either face a substantial fee to clean the land imposed by the land-owner or face substantial negative coverage due to the influence of environmental groups.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is arguing for the elimination of all government regulation, but the vast majority of government regulation is completely unnecessary and primarily designed to protect the interest of large powerful incumbents.


Yes the company will go bankrupt and the directors will go to jail. Will that make up for the lost lives or the environmental damage?

And people would try and cut corners if they could. Even with regulation they do their best to.