I agree that capping prices inevitably leads to unintended consequences, many of which outweigh any potential short-term desired outcomes - and dictating CEO pay would be capping the price of CEOs. The government already tries to get at that top pay and some creative ways that compensation is structured to shelter it. Some of those ways purport to tie pay to performance, such as stock options, but there are some incentives for possible CEO behavior in paying with stock shares that can actually hurt the company long term built into those as well. It's a constant balancing act to drive and reward performance today without causing undue harm to the future.
Speaking of perverse incentives, when they look at government waste, they need to take a close look at some of the bizarre incentives that emerge from regulations. Utilities can have some strange economic outcomes from the way they are regulated that hurt consumers. Something tells me a good many of those sorts of unintended outcomes might actually have been known, but since the money goes back into the pockets of a few "in the know", it wasn't a worry when the regulations passed.
Yes, your "constant balancing act" sums the situation up nicely.
It's hard to tell what is intentional and what is, as you say, unintended consequences. From a circumstantial evidence standpoint there do see to be a lot of rich politicians and a lot of money seems to disappear.
I share your (cautious) enthusiasm and hope the recent changes in the US reflect upcoming changes in Canada. Otherwise, Atlas may eventually have to shrug
If you are interested in politics and you believe you can influence others,it's definitely the time to put on those the right is crazy hats. Caplan also had a short article where he argued that fre markets beat politics, you might wanna check it out,similar to yours
I agree that capping prices inevitably leads to unintended consequences, many of which outweigh any potential short-term desired outcomes - and dictating CEO pay would be capping the price of CEOs. The government already tries to get at that top pay and some creative ways that compensation is structured to shelter it. Some of those ways purport to tie pay to performance, such as stock options, but there are some incentives for possible CEO behavior in paying with stock shares that can actually hurt the company long term built into those as well. It's a constant balancing act to drive and reward performance today without causing undue harm to the future.
Speaking of perverse incentives, when they look at government waste, they need to take a close look at some of the bizarre incentives that emerge from regulations. Utilities can have some strange economic outcomes from the way they are regulated that hurt consumers. Something tells me a good many of those sorts of unintended outcomes might actually have been known, but since the money goes back into the pockets of a few "in the know", it wasn't a worry when the regulations passed.
Yes, your "constant balancing act" sums the situation up nicely.
It's hard to tell what is intentional and what is, as you say, unintended consequences. From a circumstantial evidence standpoint there do see to be a lot of rich politicians and a lot of money seems to disappear.
I share your (cautious) enthusiasm and hope the recent changes in the US reflect upcoming changes in Canada. Otherwise, Atlas may eventually have to shrug
We probably have to wait another 9 months or so. On the plus side that should provide time to learn what works in the US.
If you are interested in politics and you believe you can influence others,it's definitely the time to put on those the right is crazy hats. Caplan also had a short article where he argued that fre markets beat politics, you might wanna check it out,similar to yours
Thanks I'll do that.