I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course, Draghi's report has led to nothing more than a few headlines.

▲

gessha an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I’m not saying the following regarding Draghi’s report or particular regulation in mind:

If an unethical business gets started due to underregulation and it generates revenue and contributes to GDP, is that a good thing?

▲

wizzwizz4 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That 50% figure seems extremely dubious. I'd expect either methodological failures, or a definition of "costs" that I disagree with (e.g. fair-competition regulations preventing price-hikes, "costing" EU companies the profit they could obtain from a cartel). However, skimming the report (https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...), I can't find the 50% figure.

▲

l5870uoo9y 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Mario Draghi has argued that the EU's internal barriers, which are equivalent to a high tariff rate, cost more than external tariffs. He has cited IMF estimates that show these internal barriers are equivalent to a \(45\%\) tariff on manufactured goods and a \(110\%\) tariff on services. These internal market restrictions, which include regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy, hinder cross-border competition and have a significant negative impact on the EU's economy.

Source: https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-...

	▲	palata 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sure, someone argues something. Who knows if it's right or wrong? It's not a hard science. How do you estimate the cost of regulations on businesses? You ask businesses. Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. "Just in case", they will say it hurts them. That is, until there is a de facto monopoly and they can't compete anymore, and at that point they start lobbying like crazy for... more regulations. Look at the drone industry: a chinese company, DJI, is light-years ahead of everybody else. What have US drone companies been doing in the last 5+ years? Begging for regulations. All that to say, it is pretty clear that no regulations is bad, and infinitely many regulations is bad. Now what's extremely difficult is to know what amount of regulation is good. And even that is simplistic: it's not about an amount of regulation, it depends on each one. The cookie hell is not a problem of regulations, it's a problem of businesses being arseholes. They know it sucks, they know they don't do anything with those cookies, but they still decide that their website will start with a goddamn cookie popup because... well because the sum of all those good humans working in those businesses results in businesses that are, themselves, big arseholes.
	▲	wizzwizz4 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That article does contain the correct answer, so thank you very much for finding it, although the passage you've quoted is ChatGPT gibberish not in the source given. Per https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-..., the model treats shopping local as evidence of the existence of a trade barrier, as opposed to a rational preference based on cultural and environmental considerations. This is why the numbers are ridiculously high. (Is there a 120% implicit tariff for textiles? Or do people just prefer warm clothes in the north and breezy clothes in the Mediterranean?)