2 ms·

Good regulations are good sure. Many regulations are written by the encumbant in a market. Often they are designed to be difficult for upstarts to compete with

Good regulations are good sure. Many regulations are written by the encumbant in a market. Often they are designed to be difficult for upstarts to compete with them. Major corporations are often publicly in favor of regulation, they lobby for it.[0] I don't propose you allow people to burn tires in their backyards to generate electricity for the community. What I propose that when you see a commodity and the producers of that commodity have relatively high margins that is a signal that something is preventing someone else from coming in and offering the same commodity at a slightly lower price. At a minimum we need to lower those often specifically designed by the encumbant barriers to entry. This should happen in every market, what people are calling greedflation can only exist due to a mixture of these sort of barriers, money printing and non-existant anti trust enforcement. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

kristopolous 3y ago
The thing preventing others from coming in is the power asymmetry that's an inherent property of capitalism associated with the wealth of the company and their command of the market. Loosening "regulations" in a way that allows them to consolidate more power doesn't actually get to the goals. They're propaganda moves to allow the dominant companies to gobble up the market or offload their costs. These were done, for example, in media and music to ostensibly "increase freedom" but in practice it just consolidated things into fewer hands than ever before. You don't win the market through naive stupid competition like some price cutting moron. They don't actually work that way. The problem are in the incentives and fundamental structure, not in the existence of laws or governance. Libertarian economics is what got us here through 45 years of Chicago and Virginia school policies, not some solution we haven't tried that'll get us out. It is the problem.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  All regulations are good is a weird take. For example abortion bans are regulations, they prevent businesses from harming fetuses.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    That's not the take. Instead it's to stop the illusion that a free market is one without government intervention. Instead, free-market systems are planned, all-encompassing, complex, intimate, specific, and targeted government regulations. The libertarian Cato handbook for policymakers book, for instance, is 744 pages long: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-03/cato-handbook-9th-edition.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-03/cato-handb... They don't want "less" regulations but instead, a redirection of them. Additionally it's to stop insisting that movements towards free market ideology hasn't been attempted or that it will be a ticket out of the mess. It's been the leading paradigm since the Volcker shock in 1979. It was so dominant that libertarian free market economics was often confused as the totality of economics - it was not only the 2 ton gorilla in the room, but it was the room itself. The libertarian free market economic world of Milton Friedman, James M Buchanan and Hayek was the only mainstream paradigm and the only framing there was for decades. The problems we have are a consequence of those policies - not a consequence of not heeding to them in a pure enough form - claiming an incorrect solution failed only because it wasn't tried with more enthusiasm is an argument of fools. My advocacy is to be unmoored from ideology and focus on the problems and then advocate for solutions without being subservient to any paradigm of how things ought to happen. This is also known as heterodox economics. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics

kristopolous 3y ago

The thing preventing others from coming in is the power asymmetry that's an inherent property of capitalism associated with the wealth of the company and their command of the market. Loosening "regulations" in a way that allows them to consolidate more power doesn't actually get to the goals. They're propaganda moves to allow the dominant companies to gobble up the market or offload their costs. These were done, for example, in media and music to ostensibly "increase freedom" but in practice it just consolidated things into fewer hands than ever before. You don't win the market through naive stupid competition like some price cutting moron. They don't actually work that way. The problem are in the incentives and fundamental structure, not in the existence of laws or governance. Libertarian economics is what got us here through 45 years of Chicago and Virginia school policies, not some solution we haven't tried that'll get us out. It is the problem.

willcipriano 3y ago
All regulations are good is a weird take. For example abortion bans are regulations, they prevent businesses from harming fetuses.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  That's not the take. Instead it's to stop the illusion that a free market is one without government intervention. Instead, free-market systems are planned, all-encompassing, complex, intimate, specific, and targeted government regulations. The libertarian Cato handbook for policymakers book, for instance, is 744 pages long: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-03/cato-handbook-9th-edition.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-03/cato-handb... They don't want "less" regulations but instead, a redirection of them. Additionally it's to stop insisting that movements towards free market ideology hasn't been attempted or that it will be a ticket out of the mess. It's been the leading paradigm since the Volcker shock in 1979. It was so dominant that libertarian free market economics was often confused as the totality of economics - it was not only the 2 ton gorilla in the room, but it was the room itself. The libertarian free market economic world of Milton Friedman, James M Buchanan and Hayek was the only mainstream paradigm and the only framing there was for decades. The problems we have are a consequence of those policies - not a consequence of not heeding to them in a pure enough form - claiming an incorrect solution failed only because it wasn't tried with more enthusiasm is an argument of fools. My advocacy is to be unmoored from ideology and focus on the problems and then advocate for solutions without being subservient to any paradigm of how things ought to happen. This is also known as heterodox economics. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics