Rant about capitalism

[didymus]

Fundraising for charity is just another business, and the people going door to door are likely paid on commission.

Too much regulation is the reason behind most monopolies and why small businesses are struggling.

True. I have nothing against real health & safety regs but a lot of the times regulation is just a cover for crony capitalism. I follow reason.com (the Libertarian Party’s site) and they run a lot of stories about licensing schemes keep out lower and middle class people from competing in the market.

 

[Theo520]

Regulations can stifle small businesses. I don’t think it’s the reason behind monopolies so much as monopolies can ride the tide more readily because they are monopolies, for example through hiring excellent lawyers.

That’s exactly why monopolies enable regulations, that they’ve helped write.

What about regulations to assist small businesses? I often wonder if regulations introduced to allegedly protect society actually do? I the last year I have been police checked three times as I work with vulnerable people. Each check costs £200. In September I will have to be checked again as I am starting a new job. None of my previous checks have expired but because I will be working for a different organization I must be checked again. Personally I think it’s just a veiled tax.

Your example doesn’t support your premise as small businesses are punished by the regulation that requires a check on each new employee, it’s friction that doesn’t benefit anyone but the people receiving the fee (big businesses negotiate a lower fee)

 

[minkymurph]

That’s exactly why monopolies enable regulations, that they’ve helped write.

Good point. On the issue of monopolies I agree they squeeze the lifeblood out of small businesses, but whilst we may not like monopolies there is little prospect of them going away. Thus, what I am suggesting is regulations to compensate for the disparity of power that exists to reduce the disadvantageous effects the degree of power and influence monopolies have.

Your example doesn’t support your premise as small businesses are punished by the regulation that requires a check on each new employee, it’s friction that doesn’t benefit anyone but the people receiving the fee (big businesses negotiate a lower fee)

I can see why you would say my example does not support my premise if your interpretation of what I wrote is it is the regulation that is causing the harm, but it cannot validly be argued no regulation of individuals who work with children, young people and vulnerable adults is necessary. For this reason my objection is not the regulation itself, but the frequency with which these checks are carried out. Last year I simultaneously worked for as volunteer for two organizations that involved working with vulnerable adults. I had to be security checked for both as they are separate entities, and two security checks were carried out within two months of each other. The checks are carried out by government departments in conjunction with the police, the fee is set by the government and is non-negotiable, and the government receives the fee. Thus, in my view the government are using the regulation to generate revenue. I agree this hits small businesses harder then monopolies, and there is no reason why the government could not make their life easier without compromising protection of our most vulnerable citizens.

 

[Theo520]

Good point. On the issue of monopolies I agree they squeeze the lifeblood out of small businesses, but whilst we may not like monopolies there is little prospect of them going away. Thus, what I am suggesting is regulations to compensate for the disparity of power that exists to reduce the disadvantageous effects the degree of power and influence monopolies have.

So what is your example of regulation that would give a small business a leg up over big businesses? It’s also not really fair to compare a small business against a large conglomerate, if that is your intent. Even small businesses can have a monopoly within a given local market.

I can see why you would say my example does not support my premise if your interpretation of what I wrote is it is the regulation that is causing the harm, but it cannot validly be argued no regulation of individuals who work with children, young people and vulnerable adults is necessary. For this reason my objection is not the regulation itself, but the frequency with which these checks are carried out. Last year I simultaneously worked for as volunteer for two organizations that involved working with vulnerable adults. I had to be security checked for both as they are separate entities, and two security checks were carried out within two months of each other. The checks are carried out by government departments in conjunction with the police, the fee is set by the government and is non-negotiable, and the government receives the fee. Thus, in my view the government are using the regulation to generate revenue. I agree this hits small businesses harder then monopolies, and there is no reason why the government could not make their life easier without compromising protection of our most vulnerable citizens.

So is your point that you want ‘smarter’ regulation?
Get in line.

 

[minkymurph]

So what is your example of regulation that would give a small business a leg up over big businesses? It’s also not really fair to compare a small business against a large conglomerate, if that is your intent. Even small businesses can have a monopoly within a given local market.

When I read your last post I thought you were comparing monopolies and small businesses and the unfairness that exists. If you now say that it is unfair to make that comparison, than I can only assume I misunderstood your intentions. Could you explain what you meant by monopolies and small businesses and then why it is unfair to make a comparison?

There is no regulation that would give a small business a leg up over big businesses due to the disparity of wealth, but there are many examples of regulations that compensate for disparity of power and promote conscionable dealings. Examples include The Unfair Contract Terms Act and Fairtrade.

Dairy farmers and small businesses are often compelled to sell milk at a loss as a consequence of lack of bargaining power. The dairy farmers main purchaser is the supermarkets. I don’t see how anyone who in good conscience could say there is nothing wrong with supermarkets compelling dairy farmers to sell milk at loss simply because they can in that the dairy farmer has limited options in terms of purchasers. When supermarkets drive down the price of milk small businesses are compelled to sell milk at a loss. Regulations that guarantee a minimum rate for milk and prevent it from being sold at a loss for no good reason would help. As a consumer I would have no problem paying more for milk if it helped farmers and small businesses.

Regulating devolved powers held by local councils in terms of setting business rates would also help, particularly as local councils are not elected. To illustrate, my bin is included in my land and property charges. I did not have to pay a fee for it. I live near the high street and small business the council determined small businesses in the high street must pay £1 200 per annum for a bin that is the same size as mine, and they are emptied with the same frequency as mine simply because they are a business. These retailers also pay phenomenal rates (don’t know what you call rates in the US) and it has driven business away from the High Street. The High Street is in fact now called Hair Street because so many shops are hairdressers. I say should the government should regulate charges councils can demand on small businesses.

So is your point that you want ‘smarter’ regulation?
Get in line.

I take your point, but if we all stand in line who will lead the charge?