I never made that argument though. My original post was simply stating that there are regulations that can cost more to the companies than it saves consumers that are still good. A simple "is this profitable to the company" test is not a good measure for a regulation.

> As with your post, this isn't defending all regulations or that specific parent argument, just pointing out that the cost on the company being regulated versus money saved is not a valid metric for deciding if a regulation is needed. The regulation accounts for many more intangibles such as fair customer protections, and again, is not aimed at the value of the regulation for the company being regulated, though a regulation that causes a needed private business to be unprofitable is likely not sound.