5 ms·

US is a very, very regulated economy. And if you go into securities space, you basically can't even slice a piece of bread without a lawyer. There are countrie

US is a very, very regulated economy. And if you go into securities space, you basically can't even slice a piece of bread without a lawyer. There are countries with much lower amount of regulation, without everything rolling into one giant monopoly. I would say it is exactly that legal minefield, and active dirigisme that greatly distorts natural conduct of business into non-stop search of how to game the policy. One thing deserving a look is to what length US legal system is set to go to intervene into sale of public companies, which is taken as purely a contractual matter in between two companies, rather than dispute over "fairness" in pretty much every normal country. An outright fraud should of course be prevented, but courts should not be allowed to order somebody to basically be compensated for a bad deal.

wpietri 5y ago
Your theory is that Microsoft and Google and Facebook ended up with monopoly power because their industries were just too darned regulated at the time they established themselves?
- baybal2 5y ago
  Yes, they repeatedly sued their respective competitors, and disruptors out of business
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Which company did Google sue out of business?
    - wpietri 5y ago
      And let me add to that: How specifically did that suit against a competitor leverage regulations that we should remove?
- MontagFTB 5y ago
  The regulations may not have existed at the time these companies established themselves, but could have evolved over time. It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This isn't true for regulations categorically, to be sure- the established companies can wield lobbying power for particular regulations to pass. That makes them look good in the public eye, the government wins for adding "oversight", but the actual competitive landscape becomes more encumbered, not less.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Sure, regulations are a way already-established monopolies can entrench dominance. But given that major new monopolies came up in low-regulation areas of business, regulation is not a primary driver of why they exist.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This point about "regulatory capture" is a often brought up as a clever anti-regulation/free market parry, to create a demotivating feeling of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that breaks in the free marketeers' favor. I think the rhetorical tactic only really works if you look at part of the problem in isolation, and it's eliminated or at least mitigated with the consideration of action in other areas (e.g. more aggressive anti-trust/pro-competition regulation, or the kind of oversight regulated monopolies get).
dv_dt 5y ago
There are countries with such little regulation, and thus not enough of a reliable economic or market framework that the economy can't even work it's way up to the point where companies can make good medium and long term decisions that payoff. Microsoft evading all sorts of anti-monopoly regulation (in a scene of waning anti-monopoly enforcement), caused them to destroy all sorts of smaller businesses.
jandrese 5y ago
So your complaint is that too much regulation is oriented around protecting large incumbent players instead of the public at large?
- jacobr1 5y ago
  That is one my my complaints. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also ensure competitive markets. But it isn't so much that the regulation is designed to protect the incumbent, it is: - the volume of regulations requires a compliance overhead that is more easily amortized by larger firms - incumbents are involved in the design (or provide feedback) into the regulations such that they are able to comply specific rules, which might not actually fulfill the intent of the protecting the public. The process of codifying and validating practices to check boxes is often just waste.

wpietri 5y ago

Your theory is that Microsoft and Google and Facebook ended up with monopoly power because their industries were just too darned regulated at the time they established themselves?

baybal2 5y ago
Yes, they repeatedly sued their respective competitors, and disruptors out of business
- Jensson 5y ago
  Which company did Google sue out of business?
  - wpietri 5y ago
    And let me add to that: How specifically did that suit against a competitor leverage regulations that we should remove?
MontagFTB 5y ago
The regulations may not have existed at the time these companies established themselves, but could have evolved over time. It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This isn't true for regulations categorically, to be sure- the established companies can wield lobbying power for particular regulations to pass. That makes them look good in the public eye, the government wins for adding "oversight", but the actual competitive landscape becomes more encumbered, not less.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Sure, regulations are a way already-established monopolies can entrench dominance. But given that major new monopolies came up in low-regulation areas of business, regulation is not a primary driver of why they exist.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This point about "regulatory capture" is a often brought up as a clever anti-regulation/free market parry, to create a demotivating feeling of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that breaks in the free marketeers' favor. I think the rhetorical tactic only really works if you look at part of the problem in isolation, and it's eliminated or at least mitigated with the consideration of action in other areas (e.g. more aggressive anti-trust/pro-competition regulation, or the kind of oversight regulated monopolies get).

dv_dt 5y ago

There are countries with such little regulation, and thus not enough of a reliable economic or market framework that the economy can't even work it's way up to the point where companies can make good medium and long term decisions that payoff. Microsoft evading all sorts of anti-monopoly regulation (in a scene of waning anti-monopoly enforcement), caused them to destroy all sorts of smaller businesses.

jandrese 5y ago

So your complaint is that too much regulation is oriented around protecting large incumbent players instead of the public at large?

jacobr1 5y ago
That is one my my complaints. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also ensure competitive markets. But it isn't so much that the regulation is designed to protect the incumbent, it is: - the volume of regulations requires a compliance overhead that is more easily amortized by larger firms - incumbents are involved in the design (or provide feedback) into the regulations such that they are able to comply specific rules, which might not actually fulfill the intent of the protecting the public. The process of codifying and validating practices to check boxes is often just waste.