The deregulation con - who really benefits?

Good article on the behind the scenes deregulation efforts of Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-deregulation-guns-wall-st-climate.html?_r=0

The question is: The conservative rationale for deregulation is that it's a way to free up business to be more efficient, create jobs, something something.

However, has there ever been a case where deregulation has either helped the consumer with lower prices or has created jobs for the middle class?

I'm thinking no. Sure you might find a deregulatory effort here or there that has had some minor benefit, but on the whole, deregulation only serves to help the oligarchy, the wealthy or the upper manager class.

Some people on MOL constantly talk about the benefits of deregulation, but for the life of me, I can't remember any of them ever citing a specific reg that if overturned would benefit ordinary people.

The corollary to this question is: Have the Republicans ever done anything to help the working/middle class?

All of the above applies to privatization too.

The only exception to this is, perhaps, the deregulation of certain entire industries. I'm thinking of two in particular: airline deregulation and telecomm deregulation,

Businesses and their owners benefit. Otherwise, the consumer gets the short end.

There are only 4 major airlines left in the U.S. and only 4 major telecom companies. Airlines have benefited from record low fuel prices for several years and now charge fees for almost everything. The cost of cell phone plans are very high and consumers are typically locked in to two-year contracts.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-style/4-cell-phone-providers-that-charge-way-too-much-money.html/?a=viewall

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/06/02/airlines-getting-peak-benefit-cheap-oil/85285616/

There's no such thing as deregulation. Regulations are replaced. The question is, when that happens, who benefits?

The purpose of competition by reducing prices is to run your competitor out of business. Then you raise prices later, once there is less competition, to make up for initial losses purposely made to narrow down the field.

Making states compete for businesses, population, etc., is a race to the bottom -- to narrow down the number of solvent states.

The mattress industry had consolidated into just a few firms selling all the brands that were traditionally the big sellers in America. It was a slow growth low innovation industry and the consolidation did raise prices. All the received wisdom was that that was the way it would stay.

But low and behold the consolidation and the higher prices spurred new entrants to find new niches and new innovations. And today there is more choices as to type and price range than ever before.

Competition will always prevail.

Well, no, that's not true at all. For example, one of Trump's orders was to repeal the recent gas mileage requirements for automakers. There is no replacement. Same for the fiduciary rule.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

Tom_Reingold said:

There's no such thing as deregulation. Regulations are replaced. The question is, when that happens, who benefits?

Gilgul said:

Competition will always prevail.

When the big players make the price of entry into their industry too high, competition does not prevail to provide the best value to the consumer.

Newcomers find ways to topple even the most well entrenched status quo.

But you know what the greatest barrier to entry usually is - government regulation. Regulation is the established players best friend.

drummerboy said:

Well, no, that's not true at all. For example, one of Trump's orders was to repeal the recent gas mileage requirements for automakers. There is no replacement. Same for the fiduciary rule.




Maybe I'm missing your point.

So now the rule is that vehicles may have any level of fuel economy without penalty. You call it a lack of rules. I call it a rule.

If I recall correctly, and I do, in 1979 or so when gas mileage became all the rage, Detroit could not compete against fuel efficient Japanese cars.

Gilgul said:
But you know what the greatest barrier to entry usually is - government regulation. Regulation is the established players best friend.

Or regulations can make something innovative emerge that soundly beats the challenge and becomes popular because of it... like a Tesla.

Tesla has been severely hurt by incumbent favoring regulations. For instance they want to sell direct but dealer regulations has made that a slog.

So... perhaps it depends on the regulation. For example, is the regulation from a lobbyist, and benefits the businesses who already have amassed wealth and want to maintain an advantage? Or does it benefit the general population?

Elon Musk said about CO2 emissions:

"When you have an un-priced externality, then the normal market mechanisms don’t work and then it’s the government’s role to intervene in a way that’s sensible."

Whenever you regulate, incumbent players will find a way to benefit. Because they have the lobbyists who tailor the regulations.

So, regulate it so that companies can't buy regulations.

They are paid more and are more motivated. They will always find a way to regulatory capture.

Gilgul said:

They are paid more and are more motivated. They will always find a way to regulatory capture.

Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.

I would not. But regulatory capture results in the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Regulations mostly make things worse.

Tesla has been massively subsidized by federal and state government through various tax breaks. Their cars are still far too expensive for the average consumer.

Gilgul said:

Tesla has been severely hurt by incumbent favoring regulations. For instance they want to sell direct but dealer regulations has made that a slog.

I'm wondering that, too. For example, how will removing the regulation about coal mining waste being dumped into rivers help the avg citizen?

er no. you're saying that having no laws written down is a law.

that's incorrect.

Tom_Reingold said:

drummerboy said:

Well, no, that's not true at all. For example, one of Trump's orders was to repeal the recent gas mileage requirements for automakers. There is no replacement. Same for the fiduciary rule.




Maybe I'm missing your point.

So now the rule is that vehicles may have any level of fuel economy without penalty. You call it a lack of rules. I call it a rule.

HOW??????????????????????? WHICH ONES??????????????? WORSE FOR WHO?????????????

I'm getting tired of asking this question.

It's like a religion with you guys. Someone said it once, and it's become canon.

Gilgul said:

I would not. But regulatory capture results in the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Regulations mostly make things worse.

tell that to the breathing people of Southern California. Or London.

Gilgul said:

I would not. But regulatory capture results in the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Regulations mostly make things worse.

Or Love Canal

ml1 said:

tell that to the breathing people of Southern California. Or London.

Gilgul said:

I would not. But regulatory capture results in the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Regulations mostly make things worse.

It is much more preferable to tax pollution than to try to regulate it.

yahooyahoo said:

Businesses and their owners benefit. Otherwise, the consumer gets the short end.

There are only 4 major airlines left in the U.S. and only 4 major telecom companies. Airlines have benefited from record low fuel prices for several years and now charge fees for almost everything. The cost of cell phone plans are very high and consumers are typically locked in to two-year contracts.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-style/4-cell-phone-providers-that-charge-way-too-much-money.html/?a=viewall


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/06/02/airlines-getting-peak-benefit-cheap-oil/85285616/

We also have one of the crappiest, slowest internet systems in the world.

how is that not regulating it? you're playing semantic games.

Gilgul said:

It is much more preferable to tax pollution than to try to regulate it.

Taxation is very different from regulation. No one is trying to manage what can or can not be done or how it can be done. Rather they just make the full cost of doing something be paid.

So taxation is less distorting and lets any innovative solutions be used.

that's nonsense. it's all "regulation." Also known as "laws."

Gilgul said:

Taxation is very different from regulation. No one is trying to manage what can or can not be done or how it can be done. Rather they just make the full cost of doing something be paid.