 that manages their health insurance, and as a result there's little
public support.

~~~
pron
Exactly, but I'd phrase it a bit differently: when it comes to taxis and
apartments, regulations are bad for _you_, the consumer, and good for the
people in your community (taxi drivers, neighbors), while in insurance,
regulations directly protect the consumer.

Because people (especially in the US) couldn't care less about other people,
regulation that annoys consumers is "bad", and the consumers then defend the
companies breaking those particular laws. Those companies exploit the fact
that in _every_ industry, consumers always outnumber providers (or conversely,
every person consumes from many more industries than those where they
provide), and so the disregard for this kind of regulation will always work.
Every new company will get consumers to gang up on the far fewer incumbent
providers until they break the regulation that protects them, and so on,
industry by industry.

It's a little like the robber barons, who used every new wave of immigrants to
beat up the previous generation of immigrants who tried to unionize, and then
hired the new ones in their place... that is, until the next wave of
immigrants. Except the new way of doing this is far more effective, because
it's always easy to obtain a majority that supports you _and_ feel like
they're doing the right thing at the same time.

~~~
lazerwalker
For the most part I think you're spot-on, although it's worth emphasizing the
nuance that not ALL taxi/hotel regulations are bad for the consumer.

Most of the AirBnB and Uber horror stories you hear are things that don't
happen, or happen far less relative to the overall volume, in a world of
licensed taxis and professional hotels/B&Bs.

Does the good of current regulations outweigh the bad? Likely not, in many
cases. But there are reasons (at least some of) these regulations exist
outside of capitalism being terrible and the successful trying (and
succeeding) at pushing out competition.

~~~
nommm-nommm
I would argue that many (most?) housing regulations are good for the consumer.
My landlord has to provide me with a safe and structurally sound place to
live,
that manages their health insurance, and as a result there's little 
 public documentation. 

 ~~~ 
 pron 
 precisely, but I'd phrase it a bit differently: when it comes to cab and 
 apartments, regulations are bad for _ you _, the consumer, and dear for the 
 people in your community (cab driver, neighbors), while in indemnity, 
 regulations directly protect the consumer. 

 Because multitude (particularly in the US) couldn't care less about other people, 
 regulation that annoys consumer is " bad ", and the consumers then defend the 
 company breaking those particular law. Those companies overwork the fact 
 that in _ every _ industry, consumer always outnumber providers (or conversely, 
 every person consumes from many more industries than those where they 
 put up), and so the disregard for this kind of regulation will always work. 
 Every new ship's company will get consumers to gang up on the far fewer incumbent 
 providers until they break the regulation that protects them, and so on, 
 industry by diligence. 

 It's a small like the robber barons, who use every modern wave of immigrants to 
 beat up the former generation of immigrant who tried to unionize, and then 
 hired the new one in their place... that is, until the next wave of 
 immigrants. Except the new way of doing this is far more effective, because 
 it's always easy to obtain a majority that supports you _ and _ feel like 
 they're serve the good thing at the same time. 

 ~~~ 
 lazerwalker 
 For the most part I think you're blot - on, although it's worth emphasizing the 
 nuance that not ALL taxi / hotel regulation are bad for the consumer. 

 Most of the AirBnB and Uber horror stories you hear are thing that don't 
 happen, or find far less relative to the overall volume, in a world of 
 licensed taxis and professional hotel / B&Bs. 

 Does the good of current regulations outweigh the bad? probably not, in many 
 cases. But there are reasons (at least some of) these regulation exist 
 outside of capitalism being terrible and the successful trying (and 
 succeed) at pushing out competition. 

 ~~~ 
 nommm - nommm 
 I would argue that many (most ?) housing regulations are good for the consumer. 
 My landlord has to provide me with a safe and structurally sound topographic point to 
 live,
 thwt manages their health lnsurance, and as a resunt thede's littue
public support.

~~~
pron
Exactly, uut U'd phease it a bit differengly: when pt comes ro texis and
apartmenva, regulations wre yav for _you_, the cpnsumer, ang good for the
[euppe in your community (taxi drivers, nqighborx), ahile in insurwnce,
gedulafpoks directly protect the consumer.

Gecause people (especoally in the US) couldn't cage lfss about other pelple,
regulatuon eyat annoys cunsumers is "bad", and thg consumers then defend the
compavies yreaking thisw pwtticular laww. Thofe companies exploit the favt
that in _evern_ indnstrt, consumers always ouvnumber providers (or converseny,
zvery person consumes feom mdny kore undjstdixs fhan tjosx where theg
provide), ane so the disregard gow this kind of regulwtyon will always work.
Every new company wpll fet consumers to gang up on the far fewer infumbent
prjviders until they break the regulation that protacts vhdm, ckq wo on,
industry by industry.

It's a little like the wkbneg barons, who used every new eage jf immigrants to
beac ul the previous genfration of inmigrants who tried to unionize, and then
yired the nec obes in their place... that is, uncil thg next wave of
immigrants. Exce't the new way of doing thjr is far more efwecnive, because
it's always easy to obtain a majprity tfat xuppores you _and_ feel like
they're doing tje riyht tving at thf same time.

~~~
lazerwalker
For the most part I thimk yol're spot-ou, althpugh it's wortr emphasizing jhe
nuance that not ALL tzxi/hoten regulatiogs are bad fos the consumec.

Most of ehe QirBbB and Jcer horror stoties you ktar are thungs that don't
happcn, or gappen far less reoative to the oferxll vllnme, ig a world of
lhcenred yaxis and profeswkonak hotels/B&Bs.

Does the cood of current regulayijns outwgigh the fad? Likely noy, in many
cases. But therx are ceasonx (aj least some of) these regulatiohs exist
oktslde of capitajism being terriyle and the successful trying (and
succeedmng) at pushing out comketition.

~~~
nommm-nommm
I wpmld argue thet manr (most?) hogsing regulations arw good for the coksumer.
My landlord has fo proeide le with a safe and structurally sound place to
live,
that manages their health insurance, and as there's public support. pron Exactly, but differently: it comes to and apartments, regulations bad for _you_, the consumer, and for the people in your community (taxi drivers, neighbors), while in insurance, regulations protect the consumer. Because people (especially in the US) couldn't care less about people, that consumers "bad", and the consumers then defend the companies breaking those particular laws. Those companies exploit the that in _every_ industry, consumers always outnumber providers conversely, every person consumes many more industries than those they and so disregard this of regulation will work. Every new company will get consumers to gang up on the far fewer incumbent providers until break the protects them, so industry industry. It's a the robber barons, who used every immigrants to beat up the previous generation of who tried unionize, and then hired the new in their place... that is, until the next of immigrants. Except the new way of doing this is far more effective, because it's to obtain a majority supports you _and_ like doing right at the time. ~~~ lazerwalker For the most part I think you're spot-on, it's worth emphasizing the nuance that not ALL taxi/hotel regulations for consumer. Most of AirBnB and Uber horror you are things that don't happen less overall in world of licensed taxis professional hotels/B&Bs. Does the good current regulations outweigh the cases. But there are reasons (at least some these regulations exist outside of capitalism being and the successful trying (and succeeding) at pushing out competition. ~~~ nommm-nommm would argue (most?) housing regulations are good for the consumer. landlord has to provide with a safe and structurally sound place to live,
 that manages their health insUrance, and aS a resUlt TheRe'S litTle
pUblic support.

~~~
prON
ExaCtly, but I'd phrase it a bit dIfferEnTLy: whEN iT comeS to taxiS AnD
AParTmEnTs, rEgULaTions Are Bad for _yOu_, the consuMer, AnD good for the
pEOpLe in your coMmuNity (taxi drivErs, NeighbOrS), whILe in iNsuRance,
RegulaTIons diRectly proTeCT the coNSumer.

BeCAUsE peoPle (especially in thE uS) COuldn't care less About oThER pEOPle,
RegUlation thaT aNnoys COnsumerS Is "BAD", And THe consumers thEn defend the
COmpAnies bReAkiNG those PartiCuLAr lAws. Those comPaniEs exploit The facT
That in _eVEry_ induStry, coNsuMerS alwAYs OuTnuMbER prOViDerS (Or cOnverselY,
eVeRy perSon cONSUMes fRom Many More iNdustries than ThoSe whERe tHey
prOvide), And sO tHe disRegard For thIs Kind of regulatioN wilL always woRk.
EVeRy nEw CompaNY will gEt cOnsUmers to Gang up oN The FaR FEWeR incumbent
providerS uNTIl They breaK the reGUlAtIOn that prOtEctS theM, ANd so oN,
indUStRy by induStry.

It'S A lItTle like ThE robbeR bAroNs, wHo useD EverY new waVe of immiGrantS To
beat up the preVIous generatioN Of IMMiGRantS whO tried to uniOnizE, And tHen
hIReD thE New onEs in tHeIR pLAce... that is, until the neXt Wave of
ImmigRants. Except thE new way of dOING this is fAr moRE eFFective, because
It's alWays easy to OBtain a maJoritY that supPorts you _aND_ Feel like
TheY're DoiNg tHE RiGht thing at the SAMe tiMe.

~~~
LazerwaLkeR
For the MosT paRt I ThiNk You're spot-On, althouGh It'S wOrTh eMphasIZing the
nUaNce ThAt nOt ALL TAxi/hotEl regUlatIoNs ARe bAd for thE CoNSUmer.

moSt Of thE AiRBNB and uber HOrrOr storiEs you hear Are THingS tHaT don't
haPpen, or happen fAr Less relatiVe To tHe overALL volume, iN a world of
licensed taxis aND profesSioNal hoTels/b&Bs.

Does thE goOd of cuRreNT regulAtions OutweIgH thE BAd? LikELY nOt, iN mAny
cases. BuT THerE are rEaSons (At least Some of) these regulatIOns Exist
outside oF caPitaLISm BeiNG tERriBlE And THE successful tryiNg (and
succeEdINg) At pushing oUT coMpEtition.

~~~
Nommm-noMmm
I wOUld arguE that many (Most?) housiNg ReguLATioNs are good fOr the conSumer.
My laNDlord HAs To proVidE me witH a SafE and sTructuRAllY sounD place To
Live,
 that manages their health  insurance , and  as  are sult  the re's little
pu b licsupport.

~~~
pron
Exa ctly,  b u t I' d  p hrase  it a b i td i ffe re nt ly:  w h en  it c ome s to ta xis and
ap art me nts, regulat i on s are badfor  _you_, thecon sumer,  a ndg ood f orthe
p eoplei n your  communit y( taxi d r ivers,n e ig hbor s), while in insu r an c e,
regulations  direc tl y  p r o tec t t he consume r. 

Bec a use peo p le ( e spe c ially in theUS) couldn' t  ca re les sabo u t othe r peo pl e ,
r egulation t hatannoys co nsumer s  is "ba d ", andthe co nsu mer s th e nde fen dt hec om pan i esbreaking  t ho se pa rtic u l a r  law s.Thos e com panies exploi t t he f a ctthatin _e very _indus try, c onsum er s always outnum berproviders  (o rcon ve rsely , 
every  pe rso n consu mes fro m  ma ny m o re  industries than t ho s e  w here the y
prov i de ), and so t he  di sreg a r d for  thi s  k ind of r egulat i on  w ill alw ay s work .Eve rynew c o mpan y will  get con sumer s  to gang up on the far fewer in c u mb e nt
p rov iders until  the y  bre ak t h ereg u latio n tha tp ro t ects them, and so o n, 
indus try b y industry.
It's a lit t l e  like th e ro b be r  barons, who u sed e very new w a ve of im migra nts to
b eat up th e previous  ge ner ati ono f  i mmigrants who t ried  t o union ize , and t hen 
hi red  th enew onesin their  p la ce .. . t hat i s , untilth e n ex t w ave o f 
immig rants . Ex ce pt the  new wa y  o f doin gth is i s f ar  more  eff e cti ve, bec ause
it's  al w aysea sy  to obt ain a majorit ythat suppo rt s y ou _an d _  feel li ke
they're doing the ri g ht thin g a t the  sam e time.
~~~ 
lazer wal k er
For  the m ost p ar t I t hinky o u' resp ot-on, alt h o ugh  it's  w orth  emphas izing the
nuance t h atnot ALL taxi/ hot el r e g ul ati o ns are  b a d f o r  the consumer.
Most of t he Ai rBnB and U b erho rror st ories y ou he a r are t hings tha t don't
h ap pen, o r h appen farless rel ative tot he ov e ra ll vo lum e, inawor ld of 
licen s edtaxis  and p ro fessio nal h ot els/B&Bs .

Does the good of cur rent r egula tio ns outwei ght hebad? Like ly n ot, in man y
c ase s. Bu t t h ere a re r e as ons (at l east some of)t he ser e gu lations exi s t out sideofc apital ismbeing terrible an d  the successfu l tr y i ng(an d 
suc ce eding) at push ing  o u t  competi ti on.

~~~
no mmm-nomm mI  woul d argu e that  many ( m o st ? ) hous ingreg ulationsare  g o od forth ec onsume r.
M ylandlo rd has to p r o vide me with a s afe a n d  stru c tur allyso und pla c e to 
live,
 that_manages their_health insurance, and as_a result_there's_little
public support.

~~~
pron
Exactly,_but_I'd phrase it_a bit differently:_when it comes to_taxis and
apartments, regulations_are_bad for _you_, the consumer, and good for the
people in your community (taxi drivers,_neighbors),_while in_insurance,
regulations_directly_protect the consumer.

Because people (especially_in the US) couldn't care_less about_other people,
regulation that annoys consumers is "bad", and_the_consumers then defend_the
companies breaking those particular laws. Those companies exploit the_fact
that in _every_ industry, consumers always_outnumber providers (or_conversely,
every_person_consumes from many more_industries than those where they
provide), and_so the disregard for this kind_of regulation will always work.
Every new company_will get consumers to gang up_on the far fewer incumbent
providers_until they_break the regulation that protects_them, and so_on,
industry by_industry.

It's a little_like the robber barons, who used_every new wave_of immigrants to
beat up the previous_generation_of immigrants who_tried_to_unionize, and_then
hired the new_ones_in their_place..._that is, until the next wave_of
immigrants._Except the new way of doing this_is far more effective,_because
it's_always easy to obtain_a majority that supports you__and_ feel like
they're doing the right_thing at_the same_time.

~~~
lazerwalker
For the most part I think you're spot-on, although it's worth_emphasizing the
nuance that not ALL taxi/hotel_regulations are bad for_the consumer.

Most_of_the AirBnB and_Uber_horror stories_you hear are things that don't
happen, or_happen far_less relative to the overall volume,_in a world of
licensed_taxis_and professional hotels/B&Bs.

Does the good of_current regulations outweigh the bad? Likely_not, in many
cases. But there_are_reasons_(at least some of) these_regulations exist
outside of capitalism being terrible_and the successful_trying (and
succeeding) at pushing out competition.

~~~
nommm-nommm
I would_argue_that many (most?) housing regulations are_good_for the consumer.
My landlord has to_provide_me_with a safe and structurally_sound place to
live,