To me less government regulation would reward larger factories which is what got is into this mess in the first place. Concentration of manufacturing. Most of the federal regulations I know of are around employee safety and excessive labor exploitations, safer environmental practices, or consumer safety. And I'm not sure I've seen where less regulation has had a good track record on this things.
The larger factories existed within the currently high government regulation, so assuming larger factories would result from less regulation isn't in evidence.
"so assuming larger factories would result from less regulation isn't in evidence."
there's no evidence that less regulation will make markets more competitive either. but, economy of scale is a pretty well know market phenomenon.
but, I'm going to look into your argument. Is government regulation a major contributing factor to market consolidation.
Let's not talk about less or more. Let's just focus - for now - on who and what is. The point is, we are where we are. What got us there?
That is, it's not a matter of less regulation or more. It's a matter of we have some form of regulation and that favors some and not the other. That's not a judgement. It's a statement of fact.
The point being, too often we assume legislation / policy is neutral / agnoagnostic. That's a false assumption.
In short...whether less or more, legislation / policy is a thumb on the scale for someone, somewhere, somehow.
This is a problem across most industries. the "free market" rewards concentration and exploitive labor practices naturally and cost shifts externalities like the environment away from the producers.
so what do you do? any regulations etc will raise prices which would be bore onto poorest parts of the population.
This is less of a "free market" problem than it is an overregulation problem. The article states that the primary issues are state granted monopolies and tariffs on imports, neither of which are "free market".
I just have to comment how this is a perfect microcosm of political discourse.
There's much talk about facts and misinformation these days, but even when the facts are undisputed (ie a production shut down due to safety regulations) we still cannot agree.
Is the problem the free market or over regulation? Is it greedy business or incompetent interference by regulators? Do we want regulations or are regulations the problem?
9 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 30.2 ms ] threadThe sad irony is, the "solution" is certainly going to be throwing more Fed government at it.
As long as were willing to put more eggs in Uncle Sam's basket (read: pocket), we're going to be subject to these "catastrophic failures."
Yes, governing is difficult, central governing even more so. Yet we insist on continuing to play to its weaknesses. And we keep adding more eggs.
but, I'm going to look into your argument. Is government regulation a major contributing factor to market consolidation.
That is, it's not a matter of less regulation or more. It's a matter of we have some form of regulation and that favors some and not the other. That's not a judgement. It's a statement of fact.
The point being, too often we assume legislation / policy is neutral / agnoagnostic. That's a false assumption.
In short...whether less or more, legislation / policy is a thumb on the scale for someone, somewhere, somehow.
so what do you do? any regulations etc will raise prices which would be bore onto poorest parts of the population.
There's much talk about facts and misinformation these days, but even when the facts are undisputed (ie a production shut down due to safety regulations) we still cannot agree.
Is the problem the free market or over regulation? Is it greedy business or incompetent interference by regulators? Do we want regulations or are regulations the problem?
If we got rid of the regulation we might have more baby food but would it be safe to feed a baby?
And pushing more regulations to the states usually just adds to business costs and regulatory shopping.