7 ms·
I broadly agree with him, but I do think his opinions on the 'right' are more due to media portrayals of right wingers rather than the actual opinions of those
by tathougies 7y ago
I broadly agree with him, but I do think his opinions on the 'right' are more due to media portrayals of right wingers rather than the actual opinions of those 'on the right'. He says.
> The right must fight hard against crony capitalism, regulatory capture, ossified oligopolies, risk-inducing offshoring, and investor-friendly buybacks in lieu of customer-friendly (and, over a longer period of time, even more investor-friendly) innovation.
>
> It’s time for full-throated, unapologetic, uncompromised political support from the right for aggressive investment in new products, in new industries, in new factories, in new science, in big leaps forward.
Regulatory capture is something the right is adamantly against usually. I mean, most right-leaning politicians in America are into reducing regulation.
Offshoring is also something that hasn't been on the right for almost a decade.
Finally, the right typically often has absolute political support for aggressive VC investment. Our current right-leaning president has supported a ludicrously low interest rate to encourage private investment in technology as well as set up economic opportunity zones to encourage investment in underserved communities.
- multiplegeorges 7y ago> Regulatory capture is something the right is adamantly against usually. I mean, most right-leaning politicians in America are into reducing regulation. Getting rid of regulation is the ultimate regulatory capture.
- tathougies 7y agoCan you explain rather than simply state? Regulatory capture typically refers to regulations entrenching current players and increasing barriers to entry. By definition, less regulation, lowers barriers to entry of new participants. You surely cannot actually believe that no regulation increases barriers to entry of certain industries?
- fastball 7y agoPresumably they are talking about how monopolies are hard to compete against, and that monopolies are a fairly common outcome of no regulation.
- tathougies 7y agoIt's disingenuous to say that monopolies are an outcome of lack of regulation, when they are also an outcome of over regulation
- fastball 7y agoNot really. The point is that in a regulatory vacuum, monopolies will exist. Therefore "less regulation" is not always better. That is the only point. That being said, this is not an example of regulatory capture.
- tathougies 7y agoCan you cite an example of a popular right wing idea that promotes either a regulatory vacuum or regulatory capture?
- fastball 7y agoMany right-wing people I talk to express the wish for less regulation all the time.
- tathougies 7y agoSo you want more regulation made in an attempt to prevent regulatory loopholes from enabling private players to protect their market position using government regulation? Without any explanation, this position seems absolutely incoherent.
- fastball 7y agoUmm, no? I want there to be regulation in place to prevent monopolistic / anti-trust behavior. Many "right-wingers" I have talked to want to dismantle many of the regulations that have been put in place for expressly that purpose and actually do pretty well in that regard. I don't generally want "more regulation". I want the right regulation.
- multiplegeorges 7y agoMy understanding of regulatory capture is when the regulatory decision makers are beholden or acting in concert with those they purport to regulate. Most voters think that some level of regulation is beneficial and support it. Politicians who advocate for the complete removal of regulations don't usually do well in the polls, but this is a widely held belief in right-wing thought. The market will do all the regulating necessary. This has quite obviously been proven incorrect over the years. Nevertheless, the idea persists. The next most effective way to have no regulations is to keep the appearance of regulations and have the enforcers be completely ineffectual, thus regulatory capture. So, you end up with the externally perverse-looking, but internally consistent situation where the right will support regulators' existence and even promote their people into those institutions.
- tathougies 7y agoThank you for the decent explanation. You are certainly correct in your assesment. However, I was commenting on Andreesen's caricature of voters 'on the right'. While true that most voters support regulation, right-leaning voters are more likely not to support much at all, so they are entirely self consistent. When restricting yourself to only one 'side', then it's quite misleading to claim that right-leaning voters are siding with the kinds of people who enable regulatory capture. Your explanation explains why regulatory capture may arise out of an interplay between right-leaning politicians and their constituents. Regulatory capture in your view arises when right-leaning politicians succumb to voters (not necessarily right-leaning ones) desire for regulation. However, this is an emergent phenomenon, not a tenet of right-leaning thought.