Are you kidding me? No area benefits from deregulation?
Regulation in a lot of areas is put in as a protection to businesses already in the space to help alleviate competition. Is Charter/Comcast is out there pushing for deregulation so that small cities and communities can come in and setup their own cheaper broadband services, or are they fighting it tooth and nail?
Does my barber actually need a license to cut hair? Sure you could argue that the barber is technically more hygienic, but that isn’t always the case… it’s just another way to make it harder for me to open up a competing barbershop.
Regulations are made to make sure that businesses comply with the minimum safety and health rules, as well as not actively harming the consumer. So, no, no area benefits from deregulation.
Giant companies love deregulation so they can monopolize and/or fix prices.
Getting to your barber example: if I’m trying to find a barber, I will surely only look for licensed barbers, as I surely do not want a busted hair job, or to incur in any hazard. Simple as that.
In Brazil, during 1990 - 2000, telecommunications were a highly regulated market. Due to difficulties to enter the market, there was not that many companies around, and outside big cities, phones are mostly inexistent or too expensive for the average customer.
I remember that in my city (100k people) there was only one option, and in my mother’s city (5k people) there was no option.
After ~2000, the government did a big deregulation, making easier to other companies to enter in the market and do investments. A few years later, we got coverage across the entire country. For example, in 2005 my city had 5 options and my mom’s city had its first option. At this time my family finally could afford paying for a phone plan.
So yeah, excess regulation can harm markets, and deregulation can be good. Finding balance is key here.
I mean, you said that deregulation has no benefits, I just gave you an example that disagrees with your idea. It does not matter other Brazilian problems in this context, I could take any example of any place to prove my point.
I didn’t have to search much to find an article talking about the corruption in the Brazilian telecommunications free market: https://teletime.com.br/10/12/2019/o-passado-mal-explicado-das-telecomunicacoes-no-brasil/
Sure, you can argue that many of these companies simply went bankrupt, but the weight of those bankruptcies falls on the same shoulders every time: private profit, public loss.
Sure, there were a lot of telecoms opening at that time due to the government opening up the market, but at what cost?
Let’s be honest, this is simply not true. Regulation acts in favor of the weaker link, no area benefits from deregulation.
Regulations also helps minor things like keeping food and medicines safe.
Traffic regulations make the entire system of people staying on their own side of a 4 inch paint line work.
Are you kidding me? No area benefits from deregulation?
Regulation in a lot of areas is put in as a protection to businesses already in the space to help alleviate competition. Is Charter/Comcast is out there pushing for deregulation so that small cities and communities can come in and setup their own cheaper broadband services, or are they fighting it tooth and nail?
Does my barber actually need a license to cut hair? Sure you could argue that the barber is technically more hygienic, but that isn’t always the case… it’s just another way to make it harder for me to open up a competing barbershop.
Regulations are made to make sure that businesses comply with the minimum safety and health rules, as well as not actively harming the consumer. So, no, no area benefits from deregulation. Giant companies love deregulation so they can monopolize and/or fix prices. Getting to your barber example: if I’m trying to find a barber, I will surely only look for licensed barbers, as I surely do not want a busted hair job, or to incur in any hazard. Simple as that.
In Brazil, during 1990 - 2000, telecommunications were a highly regulated market. Due to difficulties to enter the market, there was not that many companies around, and outside big cities, phones are mostly inexistent or too expensive for the average customer.
I remember that in my city (100k people) there was only one option, and in my mother’s city (5k people) there was no option.
After ~2000, the government did a big deregulation, making easier to other companies to enter in the market and do investments. A few years later, we got coverage across the entire country. For example, in 2005 my city had 5 options and my mom’s city had its first option. At this time my family finally could afford paying for a phone plan.
So yeah, excess regulation can harm markets, and deregulation can be good. Finding balance is key here.
Regulation is hardly on the top 20 Brazil problems list. Be serious.
I mean, you said that deregulation has no benefits, I just gave you an example that disagrees with your idea. It does not matter other Brazilian problems in this context, I could take any example of any place to prove my point.
It does matter because you cannot isolate the effects of regulations from the corruption, violence, etc… All of which are huge issues in Brazil.
So can you explain for this specific case how other factors influenced in a way that the deregulation was still bad for the end user?
I didn’t have to search much to find an article talking about the corruption in the Brazilian telecommunications free market: https://teletime.com.br/10/12/2019/o-passado-mal-explicado-das-telecomunicacoes-no-brasil/ Sure, you can argue that many of these companies simply went bankrupt, but the weight of those bankruptcies falls on the same shoulders every time: private profit, public loss. Sure, there were a lot of telecoms opening at that time due to the government opening up the market, but at what cost?