The constant hammering against regulation continues; even columnist Don Brunell, who appears in The Columbian Business section on Tuesdays, is part of that. One would think, as informed by some of the business community, that regulation has been implemented capriciously, without discernible benefit. There is usually cost to regulation compliance, and that cost is typically and should be passed to the consumer of the product or service.
The basis of much regulation has to do with costs — things like handling waste, providing for infrastructure required when a project is implemented or handling adverse environmental impacts. Often none of that provides direct benefit to the supplier or consumer, but nevertheless, eventually that cost must be paid and, if not by the supplier or consumer as mandated by regulation, it becomes an external cost that at some time, somehow, will be paid, often by an utterly disconnected taxpayer. In other words, would you, as a taxpayer, be happy paying for a set of stoplights across town because a 300-home subdivision went in?
There’s no doubt that some regulation should be modified, or even rescinded, but to paint it with the broad brush of economic gloom is wrong.
