10 ms·

I'd love to see some serious information and expert analysis about these kind of claims. How much regulation is there? Is it more or less? Where is it too much,

I'd love to see some serious information and expert analysis about these kind of claims. How much regulation is there? Is it more or less? Where is it too much, where is it too little, and how do we decide? What outcomes does it produce and for what costs? The talking points, such as those in the parent, are well-known and popular among large business and its advocates, but being often-repeated doesn't make them true (especially for political talking points). Personally, I have had little experience with problematic regulations. Some businesses I work with have to follow them, but the ones I'm aware of seem to protect the public from injury and fraud. Certainly I'm glad my water, air travel, roads, financial system, legal system, etc. are regulated. But neither my personal experience nor the talking points are useful knowledge. It shows how little we know about the subject - and how mindlessly politicized it is - that there is almost no commonly known, serious knowledge about it.

Kenji 9y ago
I just look at my Romanian friends. Basically they have 10x more internet speed at 10x less price, just so, despite living in a much poorer country. The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. This is just one of many examples where you see such patterns. Just because my comments fit a narrative doesn't mean I cannot back them up, or they serve special interests of mine.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  That doesn't mean the same will happen if you deregulate the US. Most ISPs are already monopolies. Where would the competitors come from? ISPs in countries like Romania blossomed because many small providers were able to compete with each other from the outset. In the US, the initially fragmented market (the "Baby Bells" etc.) have congealed into just a few major players that have no incentive to compete.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  Alternative explanation: Romania is a comparatively teeny tiny country so the necessary infrastructure costs are a fraction of what they would be here. Or: see the UK and Netherlands, where government regulation improved service by forcing more competition in the broadband market [1], i.e. exactly the opposite of your "regulated to death" claim. In all three of those examples, increased competition seems to have been the real explanation for reduced prices and improved service, not deregulation as you claim. https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadban...
- hackuser 9y ago
  > The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. How do you know that's the reason? For those interested, I looked up the story: http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/16900/romanian-digital-divide/ http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/... the same World Bank study that applauded Romania’s well-connected cities cautioned about a digital divide. A much larger share of Romanians have ultra-fast internet connections compared to other European countries, yet one-third of the country’s population has never used the internet. Half of all households have no broadband connection—half of households don’t even have a computer, for that matter.
IsaacL 9y ago
You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs. Eg, in a weestern country, most restaurants are hygienic with properly maintained premises - which seems great. Until you compare to Asian countries where you can visit nice restaurants if you're so inclined, but you also have abundant choice of street food and little diners, which aren't super clean but are cheap and tasty. This also changes the economy - it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars to open a restaurant and obtain the proper licensing, which means that new locations can spring up for cheap. Which means there's an extra source of jobs for people at the bottom of the economy, and so on. Multiply that by every regulated industry and you start to see the real downsides to gov't control of private enterprise. This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. As well as ample evidence, there's also the fundamental principle - govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value. All it can (and should) do is define laws to protect everyone - this covers things like fraud, but not decreeing what products can and cannot be sold.
- JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
  So eating establishments without proper food inspection and food safety laws is the new internet you desire? Brilliant. I'm sure all that money the Telcos save will go right back into the consumer's pocket and into increasing connection speeds too...
- jancsika 9y ago
  > This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. Are you saying the economic downsides to regulation have been studied? Or are you saying there is abundant scholarly research that shows the costs of government regulation of private enterprise clearly outweigh the benefits? Edit: typo
- hackuser 9y ago
  > You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs In my defense, I plainly asked about the outcomes and the costs. My point is that we need serious information, not more speculation. The parent comment omits the costs of a lack of regulation, such as sickness for diners, spread of disease, injury for workers, etc. But the question is not can we speculatively come up with costs and benefits, but how much do these things actually cost and benefit us? > This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post I didn't say that. I said there is no well-known information. Could you point to some? > govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value I don't agree at all. In fact, government performs much that helps business produce value. Look at the benefits from NASA, medical research, scientific research (Albert Einstein wasn't a private entrepreneur) ... fracking, IIRC, is the product of government research, as is much of the energy industry ... the entire foundation of the Internet and web is mostly from government institutions (ARPA, CERN, U of Illinois, and many more). And for much of the period of the West's greatest growth, the 1950s and 1960s, government ran businesses, and regulated and taxed at rates that seem astronomical today. Government also provides (produces) systems of laws, regulations, roads, security, education, health, and other things that are absolutely necessary for and greatly enhance business. Without education and health, who would be working for the businesses and buying their goods? Without roads, how would they ship? Without law and regulation, who would feel safe buying from them and how would disputes be resolved? Without the military, how would international shipping lanes supply all those goods?

Kenji 9y ago

I just look at my Romanian friends. Basically they have 10x more internet speed at 10x less price, just so, despite living in a much poorer country. The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. This is just one of many examples where you see such patterns. Just because my comments fit a narrative doesn't mean I cannot back them up, or they serve special interests of mine.

lobster_johnson 9y ago
That doesn't mean the same will happen if you deregulate the US. Most ISPs are already monopolies. Where would the competitors come from? ISPs in countries like Romania blossomed because many small providers were able to compete with each other from the outset. In the US, the initially fragmented market (the "Baby Bells" etc.) have congealed into just a few major players that have no incentive to compete.
outsidetheparty 9y ago
Alternative explanation: Romania is a comparatively teeny tiny country so the necessary infrastructure costs are a fraction of what they would be here. Or: see the UK and Netherlands, where government regulation improved service by forcing more competition in the broadband market [1], i.e. exactly the opposite of your "regulated to death" claim. In all three of those examples, increased competition seems to have been the real explanation for reduced prices and improved service, not deregulation as you claim. https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadban...
hackuser 9y ago
> The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. How do you know that's the reason? For those interested, I looked up the story: http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/16900/romanian-digital-divide/ http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/... the same World Bank study that applauded Romania’s well-connected cities cautioned about a digital divide. A much larger share of Romanians have ultra-fast internet connections compared to other European countries, yet one-third of the country’s population has never used the internet. Half of all households have no broadband connection—half of households don’t even have a computer, for that matter.

IsaacL 9y ago

You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs. Eg, in a weestern country, most restaurants are hygienic with properly maintained premises - which seems great. Until you compare to Asian countries where you can visit nice restaurants if you're so inclined, but you also have abundant choice of street food and little diners, which aren't super clean but are cheap and tasty. This also changes the economy - it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars to open a restaurant and obtain the proper licensing, which means that new locations can spring up for cheap. Which means there's an extra source of jobs for people at the bottom of the economy, and so on. Multiply that by every regulated industry and you start to see the real downsides to gov't control of private enterprise. This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. As well as ample evidence, there's also the fundamental principle - govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value. All it can (and should) do is define laws to protect everyone - this covers things like fraud, but not decreeing what products can and cannot be sold.

JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
So eating establishments without proper food inspection and food safety laws is the new internet you desire? Brilliant. I'm sure all that money the Telcos save will go right back into the consumer's pocket and into increasing connection speeds too...
jancsika 9y ago
> This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. Are you saying the economic downsides to regulation have been studied? Or are you saying there is abundant scholarly research that shows the costs of government regulation of private enterprise clearly outweigh the benefits? Edit: typo
hackuser 9y ago
> You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs In my defense, I plainly asked about the outcomes and the costs. My point is that we need serious information, not more speculation. The parent comment omits the costs of a lack of regulation, such as sickness for diners, spread of disease, injury for workers, etc. But the question is not can we speculatively come up with costs and benefits, but how much do these things actually cost and benefit us? > This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post I didn't say that. I said there is no well-known information. Could you point to some? > govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value I don't agree at all. In fact, government performs much that helps business produce value. Look at the benefits from NASA, medical research, scientific research (Albert Einstein wasn't a private entrepreneur) ... fracking, IIRC, is the product of government research, as is much of the energy industry ... the entire foundation of the Internet and web is mostly from government institutions (ARPA, CERN, U of Illinois, and many more). And for much of the period of the West's greatest growth, the 1950s and 1960s, government ran businesses, and regulated and taxed at rates that seem astronomical today. Government also provides (produces) systems of laws, regulations, roads, security, education, health, and other things that are absolutely necessary for and greatly enhance business. Without education and health, who would be working for the businesses and buying their goods? Without roads, how would they ship? Without law and regulation, who would feel safe buying from them and how would disputes be resolved? Without the military, how would international shipping lanes supply all those goods?