3 ms·

First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse reg

First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Third, regulation is not just needed to protect the people from the inherent private appropriation of benefits and the externalization of negatives that a market economy presents. It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts.

oliverx0 7y ago
> First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. I just started a company myself in Spain. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through was unbelievable. Furthermore, I have to pay over $300 a month in taxes, even though I am currently not making any revenue. How am I supposed to compete with a U.S company like this? I know this is going on a tangent because my original argument was about overregulation of tech companies specifically. In that sense: U.S companies are allowed to compete in Europe, which means that European companies are at a disadvantage de facto since it is easier to operate in the US. I think that providing the same level of freedom to European companies is what would make it easier to compete at the same level. Trying to level the playing field by over regulating US tech companies is not the way to go. > Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Have you heard about the Google Tax law? It is specifically addressed at tech companies making more than $X in revenue per year. Funny how the only companies that fall under that umbrella are US corporations. > It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts. This is a fair point, but I think it hinders innovation in the name of long term stability, at the expense of consumers. (Uber vs Taxis)
- pjc50 7y ago
  > I just started a company myself in Spain. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through was unbelievable. Furthermore, I have to pay over $300 a month in taxes This is one of those things that continental Europe (as opposed to English law derived systems) handles very badly: compliance costs and scaling down. In the UK system you can start a company for almost nothing from a single webform, and if you're not trading much there's almost no fees. There is an excellent book, "The Other Path", about bureaucracy reduction in South America as a path towards the rule of law, where by making it possible for people to come into "the system" there were beneficial effects on crime and even terrorism. I suspect there would be a lot fewer anti-EU small businessmen if most of the EU commercial law had exemptions for "fewer than five employees and less than €100k turnover". In all of this we need to keep the reasons close to the rules. "Regulation" and "freedom" can't be assessed without asking what's being regulated and what the impacts are on the regulated and the public, and whether the regulations are necessary and effective.
  - oliverx0 7y ago
    Really insightful comment. Thanks for the book recommendation.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      It's absolutely fantastic. One of the big insights is that people want to be inside the regulatory system if it can be made easy enough - because having a legal business on legal land gives you protection. Whereas the de facto unregulated anarchy was also reliant only on community protection. Also making the commonsense but controversial argument that the solution to huge numbers of people who have lived on squatted land for years, built houses etc is to ... give them title to the land. (You should probably read something else about Peru in the same time period as a counterbalance, especially given that this took place in the time of Fujimori, but the ILD work on title and registration is extremely solid and should be above left-right factionalism and is not in conflict with human rights)
- _visgean 7y ago

oliverx0 7y ago

> First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. I just started a company myself in Spain. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through was unbelievable. Furthermore, I have to pay over $300 a month in taxes, even though I am currently not making any revenue. How am I supposed to compete with a U.S company like this? I know this is going on a tangent because my original argument was about overregulation of tech companies specifically. In that sense: U.S companies are allowed to compete in Europe, which means that European companies are at a disadvantage de facto since it is easier to operate in the US. I think that providing the same level of freedom to European companies is what would make it easier to compete at the same level. Trying to level the playing field by over regulating US tech companies is not the way to go. > Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Have you heard about the Google Tax law? It is specifically addressed at tech companies making more than $X in revenue per year. Funny how the only companies that fall under that umbrella are US corporations. > It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts. This is a fair point, but I think it hinders innovation in the name of long term stability, at the expense of consumers. (Uber vs Taxis)

pjc50 7y ago
> I just started a company myself in Spain. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through was unbelievable. Furthermore, I have to pay over $300 a month in taxes This is one of those things that continental Europe (as opposed to English law derived systems) handles very badly: compliance costs and scaling down. In the UK system you can start a company for almost nothing from a single webform, and if you're not trading much there's almost no fees. There is an excellent book, "The Other Path", about bureaucracy reduction in South America as a path towards the rule of law, where by making it possible for people to come into "the system" there were beneficial effects on crime and even terrorism. I suspect there would be a lot fewer anti-EU small businessmen if most of the EU commercial law had exemptions for "fewer than five employees and less than €100k turnover". In all of this we need to keep the reasons close to the rules. "Regulation" and "freedom" can't be assessed without asking what's being regulated and what the impacts are on the regulated and the public, and whether the regulations are necessary and effective.
- oliverx0 7y ago
  Really insightful comment. Thanks for the book recommendation.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    It's absolutely fantastic. One of the big insights is that people want to be inside the regulatory system if it can be made easy enough - because having a legal business on legal land gives you protection. Whereas the de facto unregulated anarchy was also reliant only on community protection. Also making the commonsense but controversial argument that the solution to huge numbers of people who have lived on squatted land for years, built houses etc is to ... give them title to the land. (You should probably read something else about Peru in the same time period as a counterbalance, especially given that this took place in the time of Fujimori, but the ILD work on title and registration is extremely solid and should be above left-right factionalism and is not in conflict with human rights)
_visgean 7y ago