[HervalFreire]

>You can't just handwave away complexity. It's entirely possible for the US to have too little regulation in some fields and too much regulation in other fields.

I didn't handwave anything. My answer is sufficiently complex with multitudes of counter examples to your point.

The whole thing with the massive list of examples is to illustrate a general point on the lack of business regulation overall in the US.

I literally stated it's the ratio of failures to successes that matters here. If I can produce 30 examples of the US failing to regulate and you produce one, that speaks to an overall generality that eclipses your example.

The arena of scientific validation is hard to establish here. Neither of us can paint a picture of the entire domain of every single failure and success of regulatory laws in existence for the US. So given the nature of this debate just list as many general examples as possible.

You have nuclear power as one, that's it.

>I never claimed otherwise. But why would a conservative think tank, which favors less business regulations, not even put the US on the top ten list of most "economically free" countries if the US is so underregulated? Why would they prefer the regulatory environment in Denmark and Sweden over the regulatory environment in the United States?

Don't know. The motivations of such groups are complex and multifaceted. Following some breadcrumb trail to get at the root of it is too much effort. I only know that this group is biased and not a neutral party. There's no point in vetting a known compromised source. Pick a valid one.

>So when I bring up examples they're "exceptions", but while you bring up examples, they're examples of the rule. When I cite sources that do an overall survey of a country's regulatory environment, that's "biased", but when you cite a source that makes their money by helping companies comply with food regulations, that's just fine.

Yeah you cited one bogus example from the heritage foundation. All my examples are real. Unlike yours.

>I can run ChatGPT myself, thanks. Why don't you try thinking for yourself and considering the possibility that your presuppositions are wrong?

Highly disagree. Your answers are inferior to anything chatGPT can come up with so obviously you likely can't run it yourself.

[philwelch]

> The whole thing with the massive list of examples is to illustrate a general point on the lack of business regulation overall in the US. I literally stated it's the ratio of failures to successes that matters here. If I can produce 30 examples of the US failing to regulate and you produce one, that speaks to an overall generality that eclipses your example.

Your list produces nothing of the kind, as I tediously went out of my way to demonstrate.

> I only know that this group is biased and not a neutral party. There's no point in vetting a known compromised source. Pick a valid one.

You haven't provided any valid sources yourself.

> Highly disagree. Your answers are inferior to anything chatGPT can come up with so obviously you likely can't run it yourself.

Well, that's just your opinion, and it's an opinion that reflects more on your poor judgment than on me.