3 ms·
I understand your point if you're referring to government regulation. I don't think your argument makes sense if you're referring to "regulatory capture": Regu
by grzm 10y ago
I understand your point if you're referring to government regulation. I don't think your argument makes sense if you're referring to "regulatory capture":
Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
In the case of regulatory capture, you'd think regulation would most likely be reduced rather than impeded.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> In the case of regulatory capture, you'd think regulation would most likely be reduced No, in regulatory capture you expect regulation to be increased so as to form a barrier to entry to new competitors, while advantaging (comparatively) established incumbents that have the inside track with regulators and the regulatory process.
- grzm 10y agoMakes sense. Thanks for the insight. My believe main point that using the term "regulatory capture" is not what the commenter intended or is appropriate in this case (as it's regulation in general that would affect this rather than tangential effects of regulatory capture).