3 ms·

> “incumbents want fewer regulations” Just to be clear, you are quoting typical lobbyist talking points here? I definitely disagree with such a simplification.

> “incumbents want fewer regulations” Just to be clear, you are quoting typical lobbyist talking points here? I definitely disagree with such a simplification. I agree with the fact that incumbents want to make it easier to make money. > This is completely the opposite … Yes, I am in firm agreement that the content, quality and enforceability of the regulation matters. That said, I used contracts as an example, specifically to combat this common reduction: “Compliance cost price smaller businesses out of the market, so they are bad for competition and the little guy.” Writing up a contract is more expensive than trusting someone’s word, it is fair to say that having no contracts would enable more small businesses to flourish (lower costs). Many things reduce costs, however firms / businesses having to bear compliance costs is not bad for the polity.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Writing up a contract is more expensive than trusting someone’s word, it is fair to say that having no contracts would enable more small businesses to flourish (lower costs). But now we're back to "what the regulation is matters more than how many there are". There can exist rules that benefit small companies, obviously. But if the rules every company has to comply with can fill three shelves at the library, this is not going to benefit small companies because they will be unable to operate. > Many things reduce costs, however firms / businesses having to bear compliance costs is not bad for the polity. It depends what they are. One of most insidious is regulations that are ostensibly neutral, i.e. there is a societal benefit of approximately $100 per company on average and to get it the rule is going to impose costs of approximately $100 on the average company. The books are full of these because they provide some ostensible benefit and the cost isn't even being calculated. Nobody fights against them too hard because they're approximately breakeven. Except that each of them adds $100 in compliance costs to every company, and there are ten thousand of them, so now every company in that industry has a million dollars in compliance costs, which small companies can't sustain. So the rules on their own provide neither benefit nor cost to society, but impair competition, and that has a societal cost.
- intended 2y ago
  > we're back to "what the regulation is matters more than how many there are you and me are back to this. Most arguments dont get this far, unless these answers are first furnished. Which was the spirit and intent of my parent comment. And I agree, good regulation is better than absurd regulation. > ostensibly neutral… small companies can’t sustain Sure.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Writing up a contract is more expensive than trusting someone’s word, it is fair to say that having no contracts would enable more small businesses to flourish (lower costs). But now we're back to "what the regulation is matters more than how many there are". There can exist rules that benefit small companies, obviously. But if the rules every company has to comply with can fill three shelves at the library, this is not going to benefit small companies because they will be unable to operate. > Many things reduce costs, however firms / businesses having to bear compliance costs is not bad for the polity. It depends what they are. One of most insidious is regulations that are ostensibly neutral, i.e. there is a societal benefit of approximately $100 per company on average and to get it the rule is going to impose costs of approximately $100 on the average company. The books are full of these because they provide some ostensible benefit and the cost isn't even being calculated. Nobody fights against them too hard because they're approximately breakeven. Except that each of them adds $100 in compliance costs to every company, and there are ten thousand of them, so now every company in that industry has a million dollars in compliance costs, which small companies can't sustain. So the rules on their own provide neither benefit nor cost to society, but impair competition, and that has a societal cost.

intended 2y ago
> we're back to "what the regulation is matters more than how many there are you and me are back to this. Most arguments dont get this far, unless these answers are first furnished. Which was the spirit and intent of my parent comment. And I agree, good regulation is better than absurd regulation. > ostensibly neutral… small companies can’t sustain Sure.