A Quote by P. J. O'Rourke

Regulation creates a moral hazard. — © P. J. O'Rourke
Regulation creates a moral hazard.
Hazard has conditioned us to live in hazard. All our pleasures are dependent on it. Even though I arrange for a pleasure, and look forward to it, my eventual enjoyment of it is still a matter of hazard. Wherever time passes, there is hazard.
Regulation - which is based on force and fear - undermines the moral base of business dealings. It becomes cheaper to bribe a building inspector than to meet his standards of construction. Protection of the consumer by regulation is thus illusory.
Moral hazard is something I don't take lightly.
We have parts of our system which are overwhelmed by regulation. It wasn't the absence of regulation that was the problem. It was despite the presence of regulation you got huge risks built up.
How about we all stop paying our mortgages! It's a moral hazard.
As we try to make the financial system safer, we must inevitably confront the problem of moral hazard.
With less regulation, I think you would see growth come back. Of course, there are situations where you need regulation. Antitrust regulation, for example, is a good idea because you want competition. But beyond that, it gets very difficult.
Large credit guarantees also impede optimal allocation of financial resources and increase moral hazard.
As a conservative myself that, you know, generally I would have a point of view that less regulation is better than more regulation, but less regulation shouldn't supersede a tax on the fundamentally important institutions that sustain a democratic republic.
Yet the basic fact remains: every regulation represents a restriction of liberty, every regulation has a cost. That is why, like marriage (in the Prayer Book's words), regulation should not "be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly"
Market discipline can only limit moral hazard to the extent that debt and equity holders believe that, in the event of distress, they will bear costs.
Ratings agencies are highly conflicted, unimaginative dupes. They are blissfully unaware of adverse selection and moral hazard. Investors should never trust them.
I think (fantasy football) has become something that needs to be looked at in terms of regulation. Effectively, it's day trading without any regulation at all. When you have insider information, which has apparently been the case, when you have people who use that information, use big data to try and take advantage of it, there has to be some regulation. If they can't regulate themselves, then the NFL needs to look at moving away from them a little bit, and there should be some regulation.
I can't remember one [example of regulation] that's good. Regulation of transport, regulation of agriculture - agriculture is a, zoning is z. You know, you go from a to z, they are all bad. There were so many studies, and the result was quite universal: The effects were bad.
Mourinho criticised Eden Hazard for not doing his defensive duties. Eden Hazard is the type of player that you take that responsibility off.
Is regulation per se bad? Is better regulation bad? I think better regulation is good for the business community, and I think that's something we should get together on.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!