Member-only story
What reducing regulation is really all about: getting the public to subsidize big business
Just another transfer of wealth to the very rich from everyone else
It’s an article of faith among conservatives that government regulation on business should be reduced. The argument is that regulation gets in the way of economic activity, and thus reducing it leads to higher growth. There are certain circumstances where regulation can choke out economic growth, but most times when it is called for, that is really not the case.
Indeed, business is not always in favor of reduced regulation. Regulation creates a bottom line that everyone in the industry must comply with. As a result, each firm knows with certainty what its expenses are, and can be confident that its competitors will not undercut it on price.
An example of this phenomenon occurred a few years ago when a major food manufacturer decided it wanted to help address the obesity problem in America by reducing the amount of sugar in its products. According to Robert Lustig MD, everything seemed to be going well in this socially responsible initiative until… one of its competitors INCREASED the amount of sugar in its products, forcing the responsible corporate player to do the same or risk losing market share.
