4 ms·

I see. And you keep looking at billionaires instead of regulations or the things that make it possible, like housing regulations (talking Europe now, Idk Americ

I see. And you keep looking at billionaires instead of regulations or the things that make it possible, like housing regulations (talking Europe now, Idk America well enough). If you really set the market more free, you will automatically have more reasonably wealthy people bc of competition. When thede few billionaires exist due to governments favors we should think what is wrong with some people selling favors to others without providing services to others. If you start regulation after regulation you create an elite of people and normal people suffering those regulations. The elites are basically, in this setup, a collusion of sellers of favors (politicians favoring employers) and people who buy those to avoid competition and favor their business. This is not possible by definition if you see that with bad eyes and watch out permanently. However, people want more and more regulation bc there are always things that are "wrong" and eventually those things take you exactly to the outcomes you complain about right now. But you want more of it. Guess what you are going to have if you ask more of it: more of that. There is a sentence from Javier Milei that I think is very correct regarding this matter: "the politician cannot sell you a favor he does not have for selling". Think of it. We cannot reduce all problems to that sentece but there is a very big part of truth in it. I recommend you to take a look at the profiles of billionaires there are around the world. Some are very different to others. But the more regulations you have in a country, especially the ones that did not develop first, the less wealth transfer you have and the more money stay in the same people's hands. This is something to think about very seriously: the path to derregulation is a better choice to keep things balanced. If you choose the other way, no matter how good it looks to you, you will get what you are asking for. Basically, "The great taking". Look for that book if you do not know it yet.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable. And it’s not so much less vs more regulation, there are two axis and yes corrupt and inefficient governments tend to produce regulation that decrease competitiveness, productivity, fairness etc. And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. There is no such thing as "without regulation". Nobody is suggesting a system in which murder is legal and the most powerful warlord gets a monopoly. But there is a difference between "the government enforces contracts and anti-trust laws and prices major externalities" and "the government micromanages the economy and is captured by the incumbents". So for example, a free market doesn't need zoning density restrictions. Their absence has no apparent mechanism that would lead to a monopoly. Therefore, a freer market in which the government has no power to impose zoning density restrictions is better than the current one in which that is possible and is consequently making housing unaffordable. Depriving the government of the authority to do that is a viable mechanism by which that form of corruption/inefficiency is avoided. > And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU). But even in these industries the necessary regulation is narrow and should be directed to isolating the natural monopoly from any other offering, e.g. roads are a natural monopoly but vehicle manufacturing isn't, so the government provides roads but the private market provides cars. Conversely, the US has last mile ISPs providing phone and TV service, which isn't adequately isolating the last mile and then we get regulatory capture and corruption. It's not obvious they should even be providing transit, rather than having an entity that narrowly maintains the fiber in the street and does nothing else. You're certainly right that it isn't just a matter of "more regulation" or "less regulation", but it is a matter of removing many of the existing regulations because they specifically are the source of the high costs and market concentration.
  - germandiago 2y ago
    > There is no such thing as "without regulation" No need to take my words literally. I you will, favor natural right and yes, put a bit of something on top. But this is not happening clearly. There is a lot of subsidizing and regulation. They are giving, literally, prizes to people that do nothing and punishments to people that kill themselves working. On the way, they have been swapping incentives from working hard to not work. This in itself is a problem. Currently I see democracies as giant clientele systems. I am not far from the truth at all I think, at least in the case of my country (Spain).
sofixa 2y ago
Your whole premise is wrong. Billionaires (equivalent, obscenely rich people) predate regulations. As a matter of fact, both initial regulations on business and socialism, communism, syndicalism directly came as a result and backlash of abuse of rich owners. Also, you're under the naive assumption that lacking regulations, companies will want to compete. Why wouldn't they just form oligopolies/monopolies? Either due to natural restrictions (e.g. competing in infrastructure is way too expensive, usually), or the richest company/private equity buying up all the competitors to have a free hand at abusing the market.

ffgjgf1 2y ago

Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable. And it’s not so much less vs more regulation, there are two axis and yes corrupt and inefficient governments tend to produce regulation that decrease competitiveness, productivity, fairness etc. And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. There is no such thing as "without regulation". Nobody is suggesting a system in which murder is legal and the most powerful warlord gets a monopoly. But there is a difference between "the government enforces contracts and anti-trust laws and prices major externalities" and "the government micromanages the economy and is captured by the incumbents". So for example, a free market doesn't need zoning density restrictions. Their absence has no apparent mechanism that would lead to a monopoly. Therefore, a freer market in which the government has no power to impose zoning density restrictions is better than the current one in which that is possible and is consequently making housing unaffordable. Depriving the government of the authority to do that is a viable mechanism by which that form of corruption/inefficiency is avoided. > And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU). But even in these industries the necessary regulation is narrow and should be directed to isolating the natural monopoly from any other offering, e.g. roads are a natural monopoly but vehicle manufacturing isn't, so the government provides roads but the private market provides cars. Conversely, the US has last mile ISPs providing phone and TV service, which isn't adequately isolating the last mile and then we get regulatory capture and corruption. It's not obvious they should even be providing transit, rather than having an entity that narrowly maintains the fiber in the street and does nothing else. You're certainly right that it isn't just a matter of "more regulation" or "less regulation", but it is a matter of removing many of the existing regulations because they specifically are the source of the high costs and market concentration.
- germandiago 2y ago
  > There is no such thing as "without regulation" No need to take my words literally. I you will, favor natural right and yes, put a bit of something on top. But this is not happening clearly. There is a lot of subsidizing and regulation. They are giving, literally, prizes to people that do nothing and punishments to people that kill themselves working. On the way, they have been swapping incentives from working hard to not work. This in itself is a problem. Currently I see democracies as giant clientele systems. I am not far from the truth at all I think, at least in the case of my country (Spain).

sofixa 2y ago

Your whole premise is wrong. Billionaires (equivalent, obscenely rich people) predate regulations. As a matter of fact, both initial regulations on business and socialism, communism, syndicalism directly came as a result and backlash of abuse of rich owners. Also, you're under the naive assumption that lacking regulations, companies will want to compete. Why wouldn't they just form oligopolies/monopolies? Either due to natural restrictions (e.g. competing in infrastructure is way too expensive, usually), or the richest company/private equity buying up all the competitors to have a free hand at abusing the market.