3 ms·
That's not what I was saying. I was saying that government shouldn't impose so much red tape that small companies need a committee assigned to help them, when i
by lighthawk 11y ago
That's not what I was saying. I was saying that government shouldn't impose so much red tape that small companies need a committee assigned to help them, when it is not known whether that committee will necessarily get them through the red tape as efficiently as a big company that has more resources available.
- copsarebastards 11y agoYou can't just talk as if "red tape" is this thing that is just hanging around getting in people's way. Red tape usually exists for one of 2 reasons: 1. Corporations have done something bad that wasn't illegal, so regulation was created to prevent them from doing that. 2. Corporate interests have paid off politicians to make laws that favor them. Ideally we could reduce red tape by cutting out only the laws in category 2, but in practice, corporate interests cut both ways: they screw things up when creating laws and they screw things up when removing laws. Moves to reduce regulation almost always cause more harm than good, letting big corporations go back to doing bad things they were doing before. History is rife with this kind of deregulation: the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example. No move to deregulate that I know of has resulted in a better situation for small business. Deregulatory movements are almost always driven by monopolistic large corporations.