4 ms·

this is an interesting counter-counter-argument i've not seen before. does discussion of this sort of derivative behavior exist elsewhere? i.e. is there an esta

by dfee 7y ago

this is an interesting counter-counter-argument i've not seen before. does discussion of this sort of derivative behavior exist elsewhere? i.e. is there an established narrative of incumbents pushing against regulatory capture, or examples of this behavior?

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
It's just a general behavioral trend I (and plenty of others) have noticed in arguments against regulation coming from monopolies. When a big tech company claims a regulation it dislikes would hurt newer players from competing with it, you have to ask... why are they so opposed then? Is it out of the goodness of their hearts that large companies complain about regulation hurting small businesses? Or is it because the regulation will cost them a ton of money they'd rather keep in the bank, and they know they already have enough market capture to continue to obliterate small businesses either way? When someone says that regulations on large companies will actually hurt small businesses, the first thing you should do, is look who is claiming that, and see where they get their funding from. It's almost always a think tank funded by the biggest player in the market being discussed.
- btreecat 7y ago
  Why not look at who wrote the regulations?
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    Because lobbyists tend not to appear in the credits
- marcinzm 7y ago
  There is a difference between short term and long term impact. Short term regulation costs money and a large player doesn't want that since it'd hurt their stock price. Long term they probably benefit from it but wall street doesn't care as much about that.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  > When a big tech company claims a regulation it dislikes would hurt newer players from competing with it, you have to ask... why are they so opposed then? First off, I haven't seen big companies making this argument. Can you point us to a high quality source where one does? Secondly, suppose the size of a market is X and BigCo has a 0.9X slice of it. Suppose the cost of complying with new regulation is 0.5X. Now it is impossible for anyone else to compete with BigCo, since there is no way for second place to be profitable in the market. However, BigCo is still worse off. Their revenues are now X, but their profits are now -0.4X compared to what they were before, since they gained 0.1X revenue and lost 0.5X in compliance costs. So, if a BigCo were to make such an argument, that's at least one case where they could deploy it honestly while at the same time having their own best interests at heart.

by dfee 7y ago

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

It's just a general behavioral trend I (and plenty of others) have noticed in arguments against regulation coming from monopolies. When a big tech company claims a regulation it dislikes would hurt newer players from competing with it, you have to ask... why are they so opposed then? Is it out of the goodness of their hearts that large companies complain about regulation hurting small businesses? Or is it because the regulation will cost them a ton of money they'd rather keep in the bank, and they know they already have enough market capture to continue to obliterate small businesses either way? When someone says that regulations on large companies will actually hurt small businesses, the first thing you should do, is look who is claiming that, and see where they get their funding from. It's almost always a think tank funded by the biggest player in the market being discussed.

btreecat 7y ago
Why not look at who wrote the regulations?
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  Because lobbyists tend not to appear in the credits
marcinzm 7y ago
There is a difference between short term and long term impact. Short term regulation costs money and a large player doesn't want that since it'd hurt their stock price. Long term they probably benefit from it but wall street doesn't care as much about that.
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
> When a big tech company claims a regulation it dislikes would hurt newer players from competing with it, you have to ask... why are they so opposed then? First off, I haven't seen big companies making this argument. Can you point us to a high quality source where one does? Secondly, suppose the size of a market is X and BigCo has a 0.9X slice of it. Suppose the cost of complying with new regulation is 0.5X. Now it is impossible for anyone else to compete with BigCo, since there is no way for second place to be profitable in the market. However, BigCo is still worse off. Their revenues are now X, but their profits are now -0.4X compared to what they were before, since they gained 0.1X revenue and lost 0.5X in compliance costs. So, if a BigCo were to make such an argument, that's at least one case where they could deploy it honestly while at the same time having their own best interests at heart.