Recent searches
Search options
Well, if you needed further proof that Labour have been nobbled by big business, looks like Keir Starmer is going to require the Competition & Market Authority to soften its approach while he tries to 'rip out bureaucracy' to stop it 'stifling' investment in the UK....
The CMA actually needs to be strengthened to reduce the rampant oligarchy across so many UK economic sectors, not have its wings clipped (further).
This is a major mistake!
#economics #regulation #business
h/t FT
@ChrisMayLA6 Does the UK even have antitrust legislation?
The CMA does have a range of powers.... but not so often deployed - is often more about gentlemenly persuasion around the old boys club
@ChrisMayLA6 Then it doesn't sound like antitrust legislation. Antitrust is rarely deployed in the US. But when it is, it brings down the hammer on the offender. No gentlemanly presuasion here.
@ChrisMayLA6 its kind of like saying the UK has an unwritten constitution. Another way of saying you don't have one. And if you have a state church, you're not a sevular society
Yes, I see what you're getting at; but there is some regulation of competition, just not tough enough.... and weakening i further is going to help no-one other than the oligopolists
@ChrisMayLA6 No question, esp. if no one is interested in abolishing the limited liability corporation.
I get quite sick of this cycle of nonsense.
A simple syllogism:
* “Red Tape” is a metaphor for regulations that were introduced in response to financial, environmental or H&S practices that were bad for society.
* Some businesses say that this “Red Tape” deters them from doing business as it hinders their objectives.
* Therefore their objectives include or require practices that are bad for society.
Sounds to me like government shouldn’t be chasing their business.
@OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 exactly. If you can’t make a profit without exploiting workers, polluting the environment, defrauding people or avoiding tax then you don’t have a business you have a criminal scam
Idk, entering into a single market or having free movement would be good examples of reducting red tape.
@lucy don’t those just move the red tape for entry of goods/people to a different perimeter? And doesn’t it depend on those within that perimeter then being held to the same standards as inside each original border (in whatever direction) unless there were parity beforehand - otherwise it’s just opening the door to for example less safe or more destructively produced things, which would mean less of one red tape but require more of another for some people/places?
@lucy (thinking out loud there rather than necessarily intending to significantly disagree)
@OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 You have missed a very big assumption - that the regulations that were introduced in response to very real problems were well conceived, well drafted, proportionate, and actually did anything at all to address the actual problem they were aimed at.
In every case that I personally have experience of, the regulations were forced through by panicked politicians desperate to be seen to be doing something about issues they were profoundly ill-equipped to understand.
Hmmm.... I cna see that is sometimes the case, but as a proponent of 'regulatory capitalism' (that is a capitalism that is well-regulated), I'm not convinced that is a universal situation, while accepting that clearly some regulations to fit your characterisation
@ChrisMayLA6 @OccasionalDucks I too am keen on well-regulated capitalism. I would not dream of suggesting that all regulations are ineffective, anymore than you would suggest that no regulations are ineffective.
Working out which is which is left as an exercise to the reader...
@ChrisMayLA6 @OccasionalDucks Also I don't know anything about the Competition and Markets Authority, I was more responding to @OccasionalDucks with my comment.
Given that the business plan of every single tech giant is
1) Establish a monopoly using market dominance and predatory pricing to force competitors to give up
2) Squeeze the consumer until their pips squeak
I would be inclined to agree that in this instance the CMA needs both bigger teeth, and more encouragement to use them.
@ChrisMayLA6 @bencurthoys isn’t that an argument for better regulation rather than deregulation?
@OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 What I understand by "red tape" is the bad regulation that adds cost without making anyone safer; I can't see any argument for keeping it. Obviously care must be taken not to throw the baby of good regulation out with the bathwater; I don't want no regulations at all!
@OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 In general, fields which feel well regulated - airplane safety, elevator safety - have been around for a while, whilst fields which feel badly regulated - computerised voting - are quite new.
Possibly the early regulation of those fields was stupid (the "man with a red flag running in front of the car") but has been removed so that what remains is sensible. Possibly the regulation which made cookie consent popups ubiquitous will be the modern equivalent.
Yes, the development of regulation is an iterative process - we often start badly/crudely and then refine.... better regulation is always the aim.
@ChrisMayLA6 @bencurthoys unfortunately experience suggests a willingness to upend the tub without checking what is in it at all, not entirely unlike the knee jerk regulation you mentioned before.
Similarly to targetitis such as Blair’s “you should be able to see a doctor same day” leading rapidly and predictably to “you can only book same-day appointments”.
Much easier to sit back and criticise from the sidelines than to make the decisions of course!
as per the previous reply in this thread, the use of regulation os iterative & the aim should be for better regulation.... when folk talk of 'deregulation' they seem to misunderstand the dependence of modern capitalism on regulation.... which is to say, all we can ever sensible achieve is different regulation, which should be kept under pragmatic view to check it brings about the social outcomes we need/desire - itself a political Q., of course
@OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 my ex wanted to convert a listed barn into a holiday let. She had the National Park planner insisting on things which the building inspector said were illegal and the builder saying they were impossible
Oh, don't get me started on planners' discretion - luckily never effected me but I know of some ludicrous cases round here
@ChrisMayLA6 @OccasionalDucks never live on a listed house or in a National Park. How do planners learn taste?
#FBPE @OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 Correct, of course, but all such regulations do require reviewing from time to time to see if they're still needed, or still the best way to achieve the objective. Otherwise you end up with "we do this because we've always done this" and rules such as "every Uber car must carry a bale of hay in its boot".
@OccasionalDucks @ChrisMayLA6 "Red tape" isn't really a metaphor for only those regulations, which is why the "get rid of red tape" message has a receptive audience, but there are definitely lobbyists trying to get those regulations thought of as "red tape" even when they are well thought out and proportionate.
@ChrisMayLA6 It's a major error, but I doubt it's an even minor mistake by Starmer. He knows what he's doing.
@ChrisMayLA6 He seems to have two directions, two faces, or hover on a fence for a while before plopping down firmly on the side of employers and big business. It's very disappointing.