> The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers.
Yes, exactly. I am suggesting that competition and low barriers to entry to ensure that it's _customers_ that are regulating the markets, whenever possible.
> You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit.
I agree that regulation needs to have teeth. My favourite example of a jurisdiction with light regulation but lots of teeth is my adopted home of Singapore.
By and large, our government here leaves the economy alone, but when they implement some regulation, they do so properly and enforce it.
> Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change.
Honest and competent civil servants are the rarest and most precious of resources. Arrange matters to economise on their time and energy.
An interesting example of that principle is in bankruptcy law. There are generally two ways to deal with a business can't pay:
(1) Cut a deal with the creditors
(2) Liquidate the business and pay off the creditors as much as possible according to the fine print signed
If the business in question is a going concern, (2) is a losing proposition, but its very possibility tends to encourage everyone involved to work out a deal under case (1). (And even if you sell off the business to the highest bidder in case (2), the new owner can opt to continue running essentially the same organisation, if that makes sense.)
In a sane legal system, the judiciary might be involved briefly for option (2), if current management is unwilling. But most of the time, all participants can just agree that negotiations failed, and proceed with orderly liquidation.
Now in eg the US that beautiful simplicity is marred by a third option, where a judge gets involved big time. Judges are (hopefully) almost the prototype of a highly trained, honest, competent civil servant.
Alas, the very existence of this third option, blunts the previously sharp incentives on everyone to get a deal done under case (1).
To come back to your point: it's also pretty obvious that there's many more opportunities for corruption and graft for the court appointed manager in the third case, than the simple auction of all assets in the second case.