4 ms·

> How much more competition do you think there can be? Quite a bit more, apparently. See the other comments here. There are startups trying to tackle the probl

by maratd 8y ago

> How much more competition do you think there can be? Quite a bit more, apparently. See the other comments here. There are startups trying to tackle the problem. Regulation is not the answer. Competition is. If you feel you can provide better service at a lower cost, the field is wide open.

Johnny555 8y ago
Regulation levels the playing field. It'd be easy to undercut the airlines by starting a company that eschews safety regulations. It'd be easy to undercut the banks by starting a company that eschews financial regulations. It'd be easy to undercut a doctor by offering services by unlicensed medical staff that don't follow medical guidelines. There are lots of businesses that would be more affordable to the poor if they didn't have any regulation at all. Reasonable regulation is not a bad thing, it ensures that consumers are getting what they paid for and that they aren't being exploited. Like, giving the customer a $500 loan at 300% interest that they may never be able to pay back so they end up in an endless cycle of debt.
- maratd 8y ago
  > Like, giving the customer a $500 loan at 300% interest that they may never be able to pay back so they end up in an endless cycle of debt. If that's the percentage being charged and that's the best a person can do, that means that person has a very high chance of defaulting on the loan. Which would explain why nobody else wants to lend to that person. With your regulations, that financial institution would not exist. You can't regulate people into losing money. They'll just shut down. You've now deprived the person of a legal financial option of borrowing money. You think they won't borrow anyway? They will. From a loan shark. They'll go into the black market. They'll end up paying more for that loan since the shark now needs to cover the legal risk involved and if they don't pay it back, they may end up with broken legs. How is that better?
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    The same could be said about allowing poor people to seek treatment from unlicensed medical practitioners "If we don't give them our substandard medical care, they'll get it from underground providers that will be even worse". Or let them be served by an unregulated transportation providers "Well yeah, our buses aren't safe, some of our drivers have suspended licenses, but if they don't ride with us, they'll ride with someone worse". Just because there are worse alternatives is no reason for the government to sanction exploitative businesses.
    - maratd 8y ago
      > The same could be said about allowing poor people to seek treatment from unlicensed medical practitioners No, it can't. Because they can always walk into a hospital and receive treatment, even if they have no capacity to pay. A hospital may not refuse treatment. > Or let them be served by an unregulated transportation providers Like Uber? Interestingly enough, if an unregulated method of transportation becomes popular enough, it gets regulated, not regulated out of existence.

by maratd 8y ago

Johnny555 8y ago

Regulation levels the playing field. It'd be easy to undercut the airlines by starting a company that eschews safety regulations. It'd be easy to undercut the banks by starting a company that eschews financial regulations. It'd be easy to undercut a doctor by offering services by unlicensed medical staff that don't follow medical guidelines. There are lots of businesses that would be more affordable to the poor if they didn't have any regulation at all. Reasonable regulation is not a bad thing, it ensures that consumers are getting what they paid for and that they aren't being exploited. Like, giving the customer a $500 loan at 300% interest that they may never be able to pay back so they end up in an endless cycle of debt.

maratd 8y ago
> Like, giving the customer a $500 loan at 300% interest that they may never be able to pay back so they end up in an endless cycle of debt. If that's the percentage being charged and that's the best a person can do, that means that person has a very high chance of defaulting on the loan. Which would explain why nobody else wants to lend to that person. With your regulations, that financial institution would not exist. You can't regulate people into losing money. They'll just shut down. You've now deprived the person of a legal financial option of borrowing money. You think they won't borrow anyway? They will. From a loan shark. They'll go into the black market. They'll end up paying more for that loan since the shark now needs to cover the legal risk involved and if they don't pay it back, they may end up with broken legs. How is that better?
- Johnny555 8y ago
  The same could be said about allowing poor people to seek treatment from unlicensed medical practitioners "If we don't give them our substandard medical care, they'll get it from underground providers that will be even worse". Or let them be served by an unregulated transportation providers "Well yeah, our buses aren't safe, some of our drivers have suspended licenses, but if they don't ride with us, they'll ride with someone worse". Just because there are worse alternatives is no reason for the government to sanction exploitative businesses.
  - maratd 8y ago
    > The same could be said about allowing poor people to seek treatment from unlicensed medical practitioners No, it can't. Because they can always walk into a hospital and receive treatment, even if they have no capacity to pay. A hospital may not refuse treatment. > Or let them be served by an unregulated transportation providers Like Uber? Interestingly enough, if an unregulated method of transportation becomes popular enough, it gets regulated, not regulated out of existence.