4 thoughts on “Does regulation serve the public interest?”

  1. Posted 24/01/2016 at 15:03 | Permalink

    We might contend that regualtion is worse than that – a mechanism by which lobbying encumbents use credulous politicians to raise barriers to new market entrants.

    The solution seems obvious – proportional regulation.

    Incumbents get the big stick.

    New market entrants get light touch and help and advice to get started.

    Once the sector is truly competitive (>25?) the regualtion can be light touch for all.

    If a sector converges below that threshold, the big sticks emerge once again.

  2. Posted 25/01/2016 at 07:35 | Permalink

    First of all well said, but to be fair a free market and competition are what drive consumption. If competition did not exist then prices would be exponentially higher. Uber serves as an inferior substitute to cabs.In addition many more people chose to take an uber especially when it is an almost fifty percent savings. With a higher supply of drivers shuttling people when needed cost of transportation for consumers will be less expensive. This would allow for the passenger to be transported much cheaper. It is also an additional job on the market. It can offer those who are claiming unemployment to have an extra opportunity to seek an occupation. Ultimately uber helps stimulate the economy and enables competition to proactively seek paying consumers. Therefore I personally agree with the uber service in perceptive of an economical standpoint.

  3. Posted 24/02/2016 at 00:14 | Permalink

    Regulation, like the rest of government, is force. A reduction of the incidence of force in our dealings with other can only benefit all of us – except, of course, for those in a position to apply force.

  4. Posted 24/02/2016 at 02:25 | Permalink

    Government regulation generally is of more benefit to established business than to the consumer. In the case of the US where donations to political candidates, causes, etc., is virtually now unlimited, the business with the most money to spend is likely to be the one “favored”. As I’ve frequently said on other posts, “The few benefit at the expense of the many.” In this case the established taxi companies benefit through the limitations upon what businesses can legally transport people for hire. This reduces available competition, gives the consumer less choice, and generally allows higher prices or fees charged by those favored.

Comments are closed.