Hacker News Reader

Comment by supriyo-biswas | Hacker News Reader

The example of the new EU regulation in the article is a great example of how regulation typically only serves to enable regulatory capture, thereby playing into the same goals of creating a monopoly or duopoly that governments otherwise say they’re opposed to.

View on HN

Regulation “typically only” serves the interests of incumbents? Surely that’s an overstatement, no? Personally I tend to think that the inability to move fast and break things is a good thing when it comes to, say, air travel or food safety.

Ah yes the USB regulation which did nothing for the consumers.

And the safety regulations which made our products less toxic and less shoking

Plus the 40 hour workweek, 2 day weekends, healthcare (not in the US, outlier among developed countries), pensions, equal rights acts, ...

Or in the EU, roaming charges removal, flight reimbursement regulations, etc.

Heck, speaking of flying, the entire airline industry is regulated up the wazoo and a few years ago we had a full year of metal coffins flying through the skies at 10 000m going 950 kmph without any fatalities.

This is a popular talking point but it feels ahistorical to me. Was Ralph Nader really working for General Motors all along when he called for more regulation?

> Was Ralph Nader really working for General Motors all along when he called for more regulation?

You don't get it! Only big companies can make safe cars cheaply, so it was all a big ploy against small car manufacturers.

I'm being sarcastic in case someone missed it :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com