11 ms·
Because lobbying is almost always 1) more effective and 2) less expensive than developing and implementing business processes which result in actual change. It
by iplaw 10y ago
Because lobbying is almost always 1) more effective and 2) less expensive than developing and implementing business processes which result in actual change.
It is easier to pay off a handful of politicians to legislate maintenance of status quo, for the next several decades, than it is to reengineer an entire industry in response to market forces and Capitalism. We are pseudo-Capitalists. We let market forces decide until those market forces decide that status quo isn't working. Then, rather than allowing the market to self-correct and increase efficiency and value, we artificially prop up and, further, mandate, the status quo via legislation.
Transportation, Internet Service Providers, Cable Providers, Automotive Dealers, ..., and now Accomodations.
This list of industries is growing at an alarming rate.
- emodendroket 10y agoEven if we ignore the hotel industry it's not entirely clear that allowing residential housing to be used in lieu of hotels is a win for everybody. And yes, I'd freely admit that I don't actually want to allow the free market to just do whatever it decides without any external political control.
- patrickaljord 10y agoThe free market is just you and me deciding what we want to buy or not. What you want is the politicians to decide what we can and cannot do with our money because we are not smart enough to make free choices, which is the argument behind every single dictatorship.
- dragontamer 10y agoZoning laws are increasingly local however. At some point, its no longer "Politicians over in Washington" and your own darn neighbors who are attending HOA meetings, deciding to ban Airbnb locally. A huge part of neighborhood local politics is the ability to push out "poor" people to certain corners. Single-family home dwellers don't like apartments or townhomes closeby. Not only are they "unsightly", they are filled with "lower class people" and "bring down home values". (often: codewords for browner and otherwise "less white" people) But its important to realize that this phenomenon is NOT top-down, but instead bubbles up from the bottom up. The people who think this are your neighbors down the street.
- emodendroket 10y agoI won't say those motivations are nonexistent, but having a bunch of unknown short-term people coming for a stay in a neighborhood makes it less like an actual neighborhood (who cares if I make a mess and do a half-assed job cleaning up?) and a temptation to turn housing into lucrative rentals squeezes housing stock in places where it's already constrained.
- dragontamer 10y agoFair point. That's also a local concern (and more legitimate). Although I need to remind people that in a democracy, its about the number of people who think a certain thought... not the legitimacy of those thoughts that count.
- xapata 10y agoThen regulate what you dislike: making a mess, being loud, etc. Or do you want to ban motorcycles because some riders have too-loud mufflers?
- emodendroket 10y agoWhich one of these things do you think is easier to enforce? Would you prefer to have to call the police with a noise complaint regularly or not have noise in the first place?
- xapata 10y agoI think that the AirBnB host will be careful about what guests are permitted after the first noise complaint, risking being evicted. Perhaps just knowing the rules might avoid the issue. After all, that's how you expect any AirBnB regulation to take effect.
- dragontamer 10y ago> I think that the AirBnB host will be careful about what guests are permitted after the first noise complaint, risking being evicted. How about a simple law: don't violate zoning regulations. Its no different than in the "good ol days" when you weren't allowed to run a Bed-and-Breakfast Inn out of your own home (unless you lived in a commercial district, or otherwise lived in a district with more lax Zoning laws)
- emodendroket 10y agoWhat benefits you or me individually can easily be detrimental if we all start doing it, even if we take as a given your (in my opinion incorrect) assumption that in an unfettered free market there aren't some actors far more powerful than others.
- electricEmu 10y agoPolitical regulation is just you and me delegating representation of interests. What you want is for corporations to decide what we can and cannot do with our money because we are not smart enough to make free choices, which is the argument behind every single corporation. Companies do not exist for altruistic purposes. They exist to make a handy profit for the fee at the expensive of many sometimes. Regulation extends a more fair playing field in some cases. Sometimes it protects the public interest. It's why there's no Walmart in Seattle.
- iplaw 10y agoThe problem is, people still inexplicably think that they are delegating this representation to people who actually care or who are bound by some type of moral code which mandates acting in the person's best interests. How has this basic falsehood persisted for so long and in the face of such damning evidence to the contrary?
- ceejayoz 10y ago> How has this basic falsehood persisted for so long and in the face of such damning evidence to the contrary? Probably the fact that there's strong evidence to support it? Compare today versus the 1970s in air quality, car safety, waterway pollution, etc.
- patrickaljord 10y ago> Political regulation is just you and me delegating representation of interests. Is there a way to opt out? Otherwise it sounds more like coercion than delegating. Corporations are not made of martians, they are made of people making free choices. Should they get a special status with limited liability protected by the government? I don't think so but that's something to blame on the government, not corporations. If your neighbor's airbnb ruins your nights you should be able to sue and the owner of the building should be free to ban airbnb. But the government deciding that airbnb should be illegal or regulated centrally is where I draw the line.
- 10y ago
- ceejayoz 10y ago> ... we are not smart enough to make free choices... You say that like it's not true, but history has borne that out pretty well. Humans are great at ignoring externalities, impacts on minority groups, etc.
- zebrafish 10y agoNobody wants politicians to decide what we can and cannot do with our money. What we want is a free market with a check on human greed. For example, do I think all people deserve cheap energy, personal transportation, and inexpensive plastic products? Yes. Do I think they deserve them at the expense of millions of peoples lives/livelihoods? No. Therefore, I believe there should be regulation in the "free market".
- iplaw 10y ago> Nobody wants politicians to decide what we can and cannot do with our money. This seems like an essentially true statement, but a substantial majority of evidence points to the contrary.
- freeflight 10y ago>For example, do I think all people deserve cheap energy, personal transportation, and inexpensive plastic products? Yes. Do I think they deserve them at the expense of millions of people's lives/livelihoods? No. Sorry for being nitpicky, but wouldn't that second group of people also "profit" from cheap energy, ect. because they are also part of "all people"? Then what is so inherently wrong about that situation? If ALL of us can be living a little bit better by SOME of us sacrificing, then isn't that what we should be doing, at least in a somewhat "equal" measure? Guess I'm just channeling my inner Spock a tad bit too much ;)
- emodendroket 10y agoYour Inner Spock might determine that it's Highly Illogical to only look at cheap transportation and not consider externalities like pollution.
- iplaw 10y agoExternal political oversight* is one thing. Control is another. There is a trend of legislature propping up broken industries to the detriment of the people. Take the dealer network argument for example. Dealers argue that the existence of dealers creates inter- and intra-brand competition that drives prices lower and benefits the consumer. In the same breath, however, they say that it is impossible to compete with direct sales from Tesla. It is too competitive. These are two contradictory statements. Dealers act as a middlemen that necessarily increase prices in order to generate profit that is allocated to said dealers. Dealers have historically enjoyed this now-oft-unnecessary place in the chain of automobile conveyance. But dealers view this profit source as a basic right which must be legislatively protected. And, thus far, they have been quite successful at lobbying for mandates which require these market inefficiencies.
- emodendroket 10y agoWithout legislating any particular example I agree that regulation can be used as a cudgel to stifle competitors too, but I don't agree that the answer is to throw out the concept.
- geogra4 10y agoThis is actually existing capitalism though. Capitalism on paper is much different from capitalism in reality.
- cpursley 10y agoWell, no. There's actually a term for it: Crony Capitalism aka "Cronyism" (protectionism). Don't conflate this with actual Capitalism.
- geogra4 10y agoWhere has "actual capitalism" ever existed? It's always cronyism.
- dragonwriter 10y agoCronyism is actual capitalism; “capitalism” was a name first applied by critics to the real world dominant system of the 19th Century industrialized West, and cronyism is a central feature of that system. Heck, the name “capitalism” is a reference to the fact that that system is characterized by active measures (starting with the design ofnthenstructure of property rights) taken to organize society for the benefit of a particular narrow class, the capitalist class. (“Protectionism” is a different, but related, thing, though.)
- CPLX 10y agoBut some of us like the status quo where drunken vacationing Europeans aren't allowed to rent out units in our residential apartment buildings. Trying to just "disrupt" business without actually addressing and solving the complex issues that define the market is just lazy, and often illegal. I'm pretty glad we have regulated capitalism. If you like the unregulated kind perhaps you should visit unregulated hotspots like northern Iraq or Somalia and see what Capitalism looks like in all its raw glory.
- iplaw 10y agoThere is a difference between oversight and control. Maintaining market inefficiencies to the detriment of consumers, simply for the sake of maintaining status quo and profit allocation to the establishment, goes beyond mere regulation.
- pc86 10y agoMarket regulation is by definition controlling what a market can and cannot do. The intent does not change the definition of the word.
- NeonVice 10y agoCapitalism != Anarchy. Free markets still require laws addressing theft, property ownership, contract law, etc. Protectionism, however, simply rewards first comers. Disruption is the crux of a free market and should be embraced not lobbied against. Services that people dislike the most due to cost or service rendered (airlines, health insurance, telecom providers) are often the most regulated.
- iplaw 10y agoSomeone here must work for Comcast or owe hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ill-timed taxi medallion purchase. There are lots of downvotes flying around well-reasoned posts. It's not a disagree button, people.
- 10y ago