I've been seeing similar comments to this around recently and I've been trying to identify the argument behind it. My best effort is something like:
1) Businesses will act in their economic self-interest to capture regulations/regulators. This is done to leverage the power of the state for themselves.
2) This capture is a bad thing, presumably due to net harm it causes to other business/customers/individuals/freedom.
3) Absent regulation businesses will not be able to (or be less able to) bend the power of the state to their own economic interests and will have to use other tactics.
4) Those other tactics are less harmful (or more beneficial?) than the effects of regulatory capture, to the degree that they overwhelm any good lost from removing regulations.
Does that roughly capture it? If so, is there evidence to support point four somewhere?
1) Businesses will act in their economic self-interest to capture regulations/regulators. This is done to leverage the power of the state for themselves.
2) This capture is a bad thing, presumably due to net harm it causes to other business/customers/individuals/freedom.
3) Absent regulation businesses will not be able to (or be less able to) bend the power of the state to their own economic interests and will have to use other tactics.
4) Those other tactics are less harmful (or more beneficial?) than the effects of regulatory capture, to the degree that they overwhelm any good lost from removing regulations.
Does that roughly capture it? If so, is there evidence to support point four somewhere?