If public safety regulations aren't needed because the free market would discourage dangerous practices, why do companies still cut corners?

A common talking point is that regulations aren't necessary because practices that put public safety at risk like pollution by factories would result in less people buying items produced by the factory thus discouraging said pollution. But the problem is that now (even when they are faced with competition) they still try to cut corners and dodge the regulations. So what makes you think that once the regulations are removed, the free market is going to be sufficient to discourage pollution? I mean maybe competition would prevent it from being as bad as it would be if the company that owned the factory had a monopoly but at the end of the day the pollution is an externality so the idea that it would be as effective as regulations just seems like idealized nonsense.@:20 Dave Rubin: I would put most of that on the builders though. They want to build things that are good.
@:35 Dave Rubin: "They cut corners when there are regulations anyway".
Well obviously if they're already cutting corners with competition from other builders, they'll do it even more when the regulations are gone.
If public safety regulations aren't needed because the free market would discourage dangerous practices, why do companies still cut corners?
0
5
Add Opinion