Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regulation raises costs. Lowering costs causes more to enter that filed.
Competition is good. It lowers cost and raises quality. Plus it gives we the people more options.
This is all basic. How in the world do you not know this?
Years of corporate/government telling the public that high regulations will keep them "safe".
Call it propaganda, brain washing, etc.
Not true. Are you ignoring all the food recalls put out DAILY ?
Big companies are big proponents of complex, expensive regulations because it prevents any competition.
When there is no competition then they can charge what they want, lower their standards, etc.
But government and companies have convinced so many people that without regulations you will die in one form or another.
Here..take a gander.....arsenic in baby food, salmonella in pet food, listeria in organic mushrooms, etc.
So much for your "safety and higher quality".
The law can be drawn up in different ways. If you have a problem then you should want BETTER regulations, not LESS regulations.
Do you think if there were no standards things would be better?
Anyway, none of this matters, because these are not regulations that target big business. There are regulations that exist for the distinct purpose of promoting competition.
Without them there would be no competition because big fish eat little fish.
Nope. Not true in nature, and certainly not true in business. All the current "big 5" tech companies were little fish that ate the big fish, and this has all happened in my lifetime. They are now the big fish, and in time will get out flanked by some as yet unknown new and improved little fish.
Nope. Not true in nature, and certainly not true in business. All the current "big 5" tech companies were little fish that ate the big fish, and this has all happened in my lifetime. They are now the big fish, and in time will get out flanked by some as yet unknown new and improved little fish.
It's called competition.
The end.
No.
That is one giant replacing another.
Like Rome replacing Carthage, the Ottomans replacing the Byzantine, Britain replacing Spain.
That is not competition, that is evolution. Competition would be like having minor feudal states all warring against each other with no real balance of power.
The law can be drawn up in different ways. If you have a problem then you should want BETTER regulations, not LESS regulations.
Do you think if there were no standards things would be better?
Anyway, none of this matters, because these are not regulations that target big business. There are regulations that exist for the distinct purpose of promoting competition.
Without them there would be no competition because big fish eat little fish.
So your answer to high regulations failing is even more layers on top of that ?
Stop and think a minute here. Maybe it's not the regulations but monopolies that are safely operating at the top with complex regulations preventing new competition from entering the field.
You cannot be convinced otherwise and that is quite obvious as you dismiss every post that disagrees with you.
Again it does and you have no proof otherwise or you would have provided it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Housing is a public good that was opened to speculation. That created more businesses but it wasn't good for anyone.
Housing went under because government regulated it and forced lenders to lend to people who were a bad risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
So once more I will ask, how does deregulation lead to competition if big fish eat little fish?
This doesn't happen much and you have no proof. Otherwise you would have provided some. The big companies write the deregulation laws, which increase costs, which squeezes out the little guy, and hinders startups.
Again it does and you have no proof otherwise or you would have provided it.
Housing went under because government regulated it and forced lenders to lend to people who were a bad risk.
This doesn't happen much and you have no proof. Otherwise you would have provided some. The big companies write the deregulation laws, which increase costs, which squeezes out the little guy, and hinders startups.
this is all basic.
Still waiting for you to provide proof.
It is common sense, the housing market is entirely different because it is a public good (shelter).
The example you used is actual deregulatory in spirit because more people are included into the commercial lending market and need play by the same rules.
Now tell me why deregulation leads to more competition? When industries were deregulated they consolidated.
Forget about the problems with bad regulations, tell me why a completely free market will lead to a healthy ecosphere of small companies if large companies can destroy them with impunity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
