4 ms·

No. Most efficient allocation of resources happens in a free market, not in an overly regulated market. (Of course exceptions exist due to externalities but we

No. Most efficient allocation of resources happens in a free market, not in an overly regulated market. (Of course exceptions exist due to externalities but we are not arguing those here.) There are many good examples here. First one that comes to mind is the auto dealers. Telsa without dealers offers far better experience where as car dealers are normally despised. Having more car dealers have not really improved dealership experience for us. Resources wise it is extremely wasteful. > Large, vertically integrated companies can afford to comply with more stringent regulation. While this is true, they do not tend to get large overnight. It is a slow process and a learning curve for many. With higher regulations you end up creating significant friction at certain key levels. Some companies that would have gotten large wont grow large if you apply higher regulation to some companies.

mLuby 5y ago
> Most efficient allocation of resources happens in a free market, not in an overly regulated market. No, in a free market, it's winner take all in the race to become too big to fail, regulate, or compete against, so the mega-corp(s) can sit back and collect rents. We don't want free markets, we want competitive markets. Car dealerships aren't a good example because they're often franchises. That's like saying it's "competition" if McDonalds Corporate ship fries directly to consumers, bypassing its own (franchised) McDonalds locations. Competition is between McDonalds, Burger King, and your local hamburger stand.
jyounker 5y ago
I've never seen anything to suggest that a "free-market" is a stable environment. Historically it seems that the natural end-point for a "free-market" is control by a few large coordinating monopolies and monopsonies, which is anything but a free market in the economic sense. The only way I've ever read of/seen for maintaining something approximating a free market is significant government regulation and intervention. Significant regulation of large economic entities is probably a very good thing for the overall economy in the long term.

mLuby 5y ago

> Most efficient allocation of resources happens in a free market, not in an overly regulated market. No, in a free market, it's winner take all in the race to become too big to fail, regulate, or compete against, so the mega-corp(s) can sit back and collect rents. We don't want free markets, we want competitive markets. Car dealerships aren't a good example because they're often franchises. That's like saying it's "competition" if McDonalds Corporate ship fries directly to consumers, bypassing its own (franchised) McDonalds locations. Competition is between McDonalds, Burger King, and your local hamburger stand.

jyounker 5y ago

I've never seen anything to suggest that a "free-market" is a stable environment. Historically it seems that the natural end-point for a "free-market" is control by a few large coordinating monopolies and monopsonies, which is anything but a free market in the economic sense. The only way I've ever read of/seen for maintaining something approximating a free market is significant government regulation and intervention. Significant regulation of large economic entities is probably a very good thing for the overall economy in the long term.