3 ms·
> Regulation historically serves to entrench big business since they can more easily afford to ensure they meet regulations, and can amortize legal and employme
by croon 2y ago
> Regulation historically serves to entrench big business since they can more easily afford to ensure they meet regulations, and can amortize legal and employment issues than mom and pop stores.
How has the regulatory framework changed during the last few administrations and congresses? Who has lobbied for this (de)regulation? Has it led to less conglomeration or more?
Regulation is good, regulation is bad. It depends entirely on what it consists of. Changes in regulation historically has probably generally served to entrench big business through extensive and ever increasing lobbying, but that includes both regulation and deregulation.
- SideQuark 2y ago> Regulation is good, regulation is bad. That's vastly too simplistic. There's not some simple good versus evil linear axis for nearly anything, including regulation. Regulation provides tradeoffs, and even those are likely never simply two sided. > Changes in regulation historically has probably generally served to entrench big business Yes, that's what I wrote, and for the reasons I wrote it. To rephrase: regulation often means companies must comply with new rules, and keeping track of those changes and complying costs money (=time). Such things ten to have a fixed cost and an amortized cost. Big businesses can spread the fixed cost over more revenue. So it almost matters not at all what the regulation is - if there's a rule that needs followed, whether it's employee benefits, waste management, financial tracking, OSHA, EPA, IRS, or anything - each adds costs to every business. And most of them are easier to deal with on a per revenue basis as revenue increases.