🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Hettinga writes:
 > "Regulation" is an inherently anti-economic process, and the statistical
 > effect of market "regulation" by government force is to retard innovation
 > in a market and slow down the process of giving consumers what they want.

Yup.  And the nature of economic regulation is to grow, and become
ever more finely detailed, e.g. down to the angle of the cut of green
beans.  That's why I'm so critical and cynical of Jamie Love's efforts
-- because his organization gets the biggest benefit from them.  The
more regulation, the more "consumer protection" needed.



As for telecom regulation, David Dorman, the former president of
PacBell said, in his article in this month's Upside,

    ``If we'd fired a gun in the air six years after divesture and
    said, "OK, instead of us managing competition, it's now a
    free-for-all--you guys go out and rip each other's throats out," I
    suspect we[1]'d be better off by now.''

I agree.  But I wouldn't even have divested.  I would have said
``AT&T: you just lost your monopoly.  Now learn to compete or die.''

[1] In context, by "we", he means all participants in the telecom
business -- suppliers and customers both.

-- 
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>  http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   Truth and Justice.