Regulations and regulated

Does government actions interfere with workings of the market or does any actions- be it positive or negative- be construed as negative impact regardless of it's purported objectives.

Hence then, does any government actions which purports to improve efficiency, disclosure, supervision and risk management justifiable to be viewed dimly as such by the private sector and sometimes even by the government officials themselves.

Private profits and public regulates- that is the common assumption. But of what bite does the public have when considering the muscle power of the private.

What the public have is the hard power of the legal system and it's authority- but with the market-based system so pervasive, it's hard power is almost negligible in faced of overwhelming public opinion of the market. It could be said that the market almost represents the people: if the market dislike regulations, it is therefore the same as saying people do not enjoy the hawkish stance. And therefore even if all the regulatory authority were vested into a few people to take on billion dollar companies with a fraction of the pay of the private- it would take lot's of guts to take a contrarian view on the market with nary of monetary benefits but just alot of stick.

 How effective then is the authority in managing and regulating the private of which he is tasked to do.

How then is some authorities more effective than others in regulating the sectors that he/she is tasked to manage while other's seem to lacked the bite.

But is an adversarial attitude critical in managing the private sector then or do we seek cooperation in compliance- and how far should the cooperation be before it starts looking like an co-option.

I have seen in most cases would be one of distant negotiation as opposed to cooperation or even an adversarial attitude. Taking the stance of a conflict context or compared with a harmonious one appears to be modus operandi.

A conflict stance is not of conflicting interest but rather one of negotiation of interest. It is the recognition that you are not my friend but neither are you my enemy but we understand that you have to make money but we have to ensure the long term well-being and interest of the market and society at large as well. Therefore very often the process of regulation- when it is effectively done- would often result in communication of the "spirit" of the objectives, it's ends, and coupled with means of which to achieve these ends.

And therefore regulator no longer is the watchdog but rather the guardian. It will only intervenes when the spirit is contravened but in matters of procedural rationality- it would also act as well to ensure that it's authority would not be questioned. Therefore the sector in question to be regulated is best to observe policies but are ultimately given leeway in extenuating circumstances- much like how most courts operate. If the procedural rationality becomes questionable- substantive rationality would comes into play and therefore in most legal systems- they have introduced the idea of equity, where judgements are discretionary as opposed to be absolute.

This conflictual stance allows the private market to operate in a manner of which would further their interest- within given a set of standard rules which in most common cases govern the well-being of the general public- without being overly restrictive. Therefore this stance would allow a negotiation of interest within the spectrum of guarding the spirit of ensuring various market or societal objectives. The spirit in itself is non-negotiable but means of achieving it thereby remains open to negotiation. It would therefore intuitively balance control, regulation with that of profit and freedom/enterprise.

A good authority would negotiate then to guard the spirit while the sector regulated would negotiate then not to contravene but rather to act within it as the spirit is such that it is universal which ultimately safeguard even the very existence of itself. Therefore it is matter of ceding grounds by both ends depending on market and societal context as opposed to synthetical approach of head-on clashes.

What I do believe is that ceding of grounds must be guarded by the idea of ensuring maximum benefits. And therefore only when timing is opportune- and this is the result of market and societal trends-, can one gain ground or cede ground. But they must be open to ceding ground so to ensure that the above spirit is not sacrificed. Therefore, in time of crisis, the sector must be prepared to cede as much as ground as possible to ensure it's survival- while the regulator must be prepared to cede as much ground as possible to ensure a proper functioning of markets.

Therefore in this context, a conflict stance would ensure a distant negotiation of which not that the regulator is absolutely incorruptible but rather that on both ends, it is a recognition that on both ends both sides would have to negotiate to guard it's spirit as opposed to conflict which really at the end of the day and in most cases, contravenes the spirit: of in most cases- is the proper functioning of markets and societies to ensure maximum benefits and welfare.