Governments are hell bent on regulating big business and banks. Not that they don’t deserve it. But where’s the focus on innovation?
100 years post industrialisation the world’s leading economies are controlled, even strangled, by monopolies or cartels. This does need to be governed – I just think the focus is wrong. Leading economies should drive much needed change by focusing on innovation not regulation.
Imagine if the money and resources spent regulating businesses and banks was instead spent on fostering, developing and investing in innovative startups to challenge the big guys. Take the banking industry. Would it more likely change if governments fostered and (maybe even) invested in dozens of innovative startup banks to take on the Goliath’s – or should they remain content merely snagging them in regulatory snares.
In the current climate, given the choice, customers would flock to fresh, banking startups focused on service and value rather than leave their money with the abusive, ‘thin’-value-providing incumbents.
The reality is that the only way to truly alter industry practices is by nurturing legions of innovative Davids to challenge the Goliath’s. Offering greater value and keener prices. Imagine if each team of sector regulators were focused on sector innovation and the billions spent on regulating was instead invested in innovation and startups.
There’s little doubt in my head that our economies would be better set for the future. But maybe that’s just me.
3/12/09
blackwolf
Imagine if the money and resources spent regulating businesses and banks was instead spent on fostering, developing and investing in innovative startups to challenge the big guys. Take the banking industry. Would it more likely change if governments fostered and (maybe even) invested in dozens of innovative startup banks to take on the Goliath’s – or should they remain content merely snagging them in regulatory snares.It's always best to stay away from politics, but here's my challenge with the above statement: It suggests that the government should invest in an entity–and then avoid that entity at all costs. It's contradtictory in every sense of the word. When something becomes too big to fail, the government has to other choice but to step in. Try coming up with a solution whereby the taxpayer doesn't have to fund it. The ironic thing is that the author of this article is probably a conservative!
Max
I know the author and he is far from conservative or into government funding – he's making an interesting and challenging point about where tax payers money goes and priorities for the 21st Century – towards big business/banks or supporting change.The choice seems obvious.
blackwolf
I'm all for change, but the thinking on the right is far too pervasive in American society. It's not the size of government, it's the role of government that needs to be challenged by sensible debate. We need solutions, and backing away from the crooks and thieves on Wall Street, for example, isn't one of them. I get things done, on a private and business level. If I had given the command on a Monday to bail out the banks–the following day (Tuesday), I would have issued an arrest warrant for any exec who couldn't tell m how the funds were used….in full detail.Funding for start-ups is great. But why not simply allow the government to provide the funds directly? Why create a middle man if there's free money is to be given away? Either take the government out completely, or don't complain when the government wants to step in and maintain control.
Max
I agree, why not fund directly?Max
I agree, why not fund directly?