4 ms·

Absent the political temptation (using the state to "regulate away" the competition), businesses have no choice but to appeal to their consumers with better ser

by iwwr 16y ago

Absent the political temptation (using the state to "regulate away" the competition), businesses have no choice but to appeal to their consumers with better services.

jimrandomh 16y ago
If the only choices you can come up with are to make better services or to eliminate competition through regulation, you aren't being very creative. Corporations can, and do, eliminate competition with buyouts, with deliberate incompatibility, with exclusivity contracts, with spies and sabotage, and with a wide variety other creative, subtle, and sometimes unethical strategies.
- iwwr 16y ago
  More often than not, the regulatory agencies become captured by the very businesses they are regulating.
  - ible 16y ago
    I've been seeing similar comments to this around recently and I've been trying to identify the argument behind it. My best effort is something like: 1) Businesses will act in their economic self-interest to capture regulations/regulators. This is done to leverage the power of the state for themselves. 2) This capture is a bad thing, presumably due to net harm it causes to other business/customers/individuals/freedom. 3) Absent regulation businesses will not be able to (or be less able to) bend the power of the state to their own economic interests and will have to use other tactics. 4) Those other tactics are less harmful (or more beneficial?) than the effects of regulatory capture, to the degree that they overwhelm any good lost from removing regulations. Does that roughly capture it? If so, is there evidence to support point four somewhere?
DannoHung 16y ago
You mean they can't do things like slander competitors, disrupt supply chains through strategic purchases, strong arm vendors, and a whole host of other non-product based tactics that do nothing to show out the best product based choice? edit: And I mean that's not getting into any of the ones that are currently illegal due to regulation. Ever heard of trusts?
- p_nathan 16y ago
  Clearly enough laws will solve the problem. Clearly.
  - okaramian 16y ago
    Depends on the laws and regulations. A lot of things don't operate in black and white good and bad.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Ever heard of trusts? Yes, my grandparents had one. Oh, you were refering to the subject of "anti-trust". Name three bad monopolies that didn't depend on govt power for their monopoly status.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    What does "depend on gov't power" have to do with it? If you monopoly is raking in billions and the cost of a congressional race is millions, then of course you're gonna get the government on your side a bunch of the time. The question is, is this a problem with "government" or a problem with "bribery".
    - anamax 16y ago
      > What does "depend on gov't power" have to do with it? It depends. Do you think that we should treat orphans who kill their parents different from other orphans?
  - maxxxxx 16y ago
    Microsoft in the 90s Standard Oil
    - m_myers 16y ago
      > Microsoft in the 90s How long did the "monopoly" last? Were consumers injured by it? > Standard Oil Standard Oil was huge because they were cheaper than the competition. Kind of like how Wal-Mart did it. Is that a bad thing?
yequalsx 16y ago
There aren't only the two possibilities. Cartels come to mind. In a cartel situation appealing to consumers with better services is not a necessity.
jerf 16y ago
As some of your repliers have pointed out, that's a bit simplistic. Part of the reason I call myself a "little-l libertarian" is that I don't think you can necessarily deregulate in the sense of just removing regulations; I think you need carefully constructed regulations to make sure we have a free market where competition on quality is the only remaining good option for businesses, and that takes work. But it takes a good understanding of the way the market works and the way economics work, and certainly if you just slather regulation all over the system willy-nilly the most likely outcome is regulatory capture. This is what usually happens. Neither the right nor the left is very good at this sort of regulation at all.

by iwwr 16y ago

Absent the political temptation (using the state to "regulate away" the competition), businesses have no choice but to appeal to their consumers with better services.

jimrandomh 16y ago

If the only choices you can come up with are to make better services or to eliminate competition through regulation, you aren't being very creative. Corporations can, and do, eliminate competition with buyouts, with deliberate incompatibility, with exclusivity contracts, with spies and sabotage, and with a wide variety other creative, subtle, and sometimes unethical strategies.

iwwr 16y ago
More often than not, the regulatory agencies become captured by the very businesses they are regulating.
- ible 16y ago
  I've been seeing similar comments to this around recently and I've been trying to identify the argument behind it. My best effort is something like: 1) Businesses will act in their economic self-interest to capture regulations/regulators. This is done to leverage the power of the state for themselves. 2) This capture is a bad thing, presumably due to net harm it causes to other business/customers/individuals/freedom. 3) Absent regulation businesses will not be able to (or be less able to) bend the power of the state to their own economic interests and will have to use other tactics. 4) Those other tactics are less harmful (or more beneficial?) than the effects of regulatory capture, to the degree that they overwhelm any good lost from removing regulations. Does that roughly capture it? If so, is there evidence to support point four somewhere?

DannoHung 16y ago

You mean they can't do things like slander competitors, disrupt supply chains through strategic purchases, strong arm vendors, and a whole host of other non-product based tactics that do nothing to show out the best product based choice? edit: And I mean that's not getting into any of the ones that are currently illegal due to regulation. Ever heard of trusts?

p_nathan 16y ago
Clearly enough laws will solve the problem. Clearly.
- okaramian 16y ago
  Depends on the laws and regulations. A lot of things don't operate in black and white good and bad.
anamax 16y ago
> Ever heard of trusts? Yes, my grandparents had one. Oh, you were refering to the subject of "anti-trust". Name three bad monopolies that didn't depend on govt power for their monopoly status.
- jbooth 16y ago
  What does "depend on gov't power" have to do with it? If you monopoly is raking in billions and the cost of a congressional race is millions, then of course you're gonna get the government on your side a bunch of the time. The question is, is this a problem with "government" or a problem with "bribery".
  - anamax 16y ago
    > What does "depend on gov't power" have to do with it? It depends. Do you think that we should treat orphans who kill their parents different from other orphans?
- maxxxxx 16y ago
  Microsoft in the 90s Standard Oil
  - m_myers 16y ago
    > Microsoft in the 90s How long did the "monopoly" last? Were consumers injured by it? > Standard Oil Standard Oil was huge because they were cheaper than the competition. Kind of like how Wal-Mart did it. Is that a bad thing?

yequalsx 16y ago

There aren't only the two possibilities. Cartels come to mind. In a cartel situation appealing to consumers with better services is not a necessity.

jerf 16y ago

As some of your repliers have pointed out, that's a bit simplistic. Part of the reason I call myself a "little-l libertarian" is that I don't think you can necessarily deregulate in the sense of just removing regulations; I think you need carefully constructed regulations to make sure we have a free market where competition on quality is the only remaining good option for businesses, and that takes work. But it takes a good understanding of the way the market works and the way economics work, and certainly if you just slather regulation all over the system willy-nilly the most likely outcome is regulatory capture. This is what usually happens. Neither the right nor the left is very good at this sort of regulation at all.