4 ms·

Regulation usually implies not just behaving appropriately but proving you behave appropriately, which has significant costs and precludes the smaller portions

by hansvm 4y ago

Regulation usually implies not just behaving appropriately but proving you behave appropriately, which has significant costs and precludes the smaller portions of the market. I don't have a good mental model for why excluding all firms under, say, $1M would have a different consolidation pattern from including everyone, but it's not totally unreasonable to assume something simple like starting with drastically fewer companies will end with fewer companies as well (that consolidation is monotonic). There might be some nice explanation for that difference.

chii 4y ago
what if gov't regulated industry must also come with a mandated set of startup tax breaks or grants, for fostering competition? If regulation is what stops competition from forming, but the regulation is required for safety reasons, it makes logical sense to assist new competition into the market. This assistance should be limited to helping the startup be certified, etc, in such as way as to eliminate the barrier to entry resulting from the regulation (but not more - i.e., startups aren't getting extra help beyond that, so as not to artificially subsidize them but not their larger counterparts).
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > This assistance should be limited to helping the startup be certified, etc Sounds like it would create some inappropriate incentives for lawyers and others assisting with certification... But generally I agree with the sentiment of the idea. Just not sure how to deal with further layers of problems.
- specialist 4y ago
  Aka Govt administered cartelism. Which we already have. The trick is changing the governance (incentives, transparency, accountability) to favor people over corporations (and finance). Perhaps one step would be to stop thinking of corporations are superpersons, deserving of superrights. Instead, we could charter corporations and stipulate that they serve the public good.

by hansvm 4y ago

chii 4y ago

what if gov't regulated industry must also come with a mandated set of startup tax breaks or grants, for fostering competition? If regulation is what stops competition from forming, but the regulation is required for safety reasons, it makes logical sense to assist new competition into the market. This assistance should be limited to helping the startup be certified, etc, in such as way as to eliminate the barrier to entry resulting from the regulation (but not more - i.e., startups aren't getting extra help beyond that, so as not to artificially subsidize them but not their larger counterparts).

epicureanideal 4y ago
> This assistance should be limited to helping the startup be certified, etc Sounds like it would create some inappropriate incentives for lawyers and others assisting with certification... But generally I agree with the sentiment of the idea. Just not sure how to deal with further layers of problems.
specialist 4y ago
Aka Govt administered cartelism. Which we already have. The trick is changing the governance (incentives, transparency, accountability) to favor people over corporations (and finance). Perhaps one step would be to stop thinking of corporations are superpersons, deserving of superrights. Instead, we could charter corporations and stipulate that they serve the public good.