It is an old, old story. No, this has little to do with love triangles, although it is not totally removed from them either; on this see below. Restrictive entry of this sort is purely a tale of commerce and business.
One chapter in this saga concerns Uber and Lyft. For years and years and years, decades even, perhaps centuries, the industry of picking up passengers and delivering them elsewhere was conducted in one way, and in only one way. Taxi drivers would float all around the city and be hailed by those who wished a quicker albeit more expensive way of reaching their destination than was afforded by mass transit, whether buses or trains. Then along came this new way of conducting business. Were those involved in the established way of doing things happy with these two new kids on the block? To ask this is to answer it. They were not. And they did everything they could to encourage the government to make it difficult for Uber and Lyft.
Here is another episode. Ever notice that some black people have very intricate hair-dos? They cannot, of course, do anything like this for themselves; they cannot see on the tops of their heads. Who, then, is responsible for these complicated and complex hairstyles? Typically, they are due to young black women. How have the established, licensed members of this profession reacted to this occurrence? Go to the head of the class if you said Not too well. Indeed, these worthies have insisted that their young black competitors enroll themselves in classes that take months even years to complete, cost quite a bit of money, and then pass some licensing exams. Yes, another case in point regarding attempts at restricted entry.
A plethora of legal impediments were placed against supermarkets when they first replaced mom and pop groceries. Walmart, in particular, was subject to a whole host of rules and regulations that did not apply to its more well established smaller competitors. As but one small example, “Independent Grocers Are Pushing For Better Antitrust Enforcement.” The usual explanation is that it will better protect the public. Better protect the public against allowing competitors, that is.
And now that Amazon is horning in on the retail business, those biggies who have long complained about the government unfairly protecting small entrepreneurs against them are smiling all the way to the bank at barriers set up against this interloper who is stealing customers away from them. For example, laws compelling them to be responsible for the safety and reliability of of goods it sells for outside vendors on its website.
An even more recent case in point involves Bitcoin. This initiative previously faced the government placing it big fat thumb on the balance wheel against it in its competition with other means of making payments, settling debts, etc. But now it faces from an even more recent innovation, and the state is unfairly restricting it.
According to twisted SEC logic, Bitcoin, because it is valuable and has utility, is classified as a “commodity” or a “utility token,” distinct from initial coin offerings (ICOs) that the SEC classifies as securities. These can be viewed as fractional ownership certificates of some valuable underlying business, and in this sense, are securities that require registration, not “utility tokens.” However, by denying to issue no-action letters to many competing cryptocurrencies, including TNT, the SEC has effectively granted a regulatory monopoly to Bitcoin and Ethereum, because they are already established, preventing better competing alternatives from being offered to the public. This is due to huge regulatory and legal risks imposed by the SEC's refusal to issue no-action letters.
It is amazing that US capitalism makes such great strides with widespread barnacles like these and many more attached to it, sucking away at its innards. It is difficult to see how the impediment of taxes, which, along with death are always with us, and can be removed as an impediment to progress and prosperity. But, surely, with a little bit of good will, we can make radical reductions in restrictions on entry of this sort.
Is there a connection with restrictions on competitive commercial entry and the love triangle? Yes there is, although it is a tenuous one. In both cases there are three participants, one winner, one loser and one “decider.” There is not much that can be done about taxation, but the entry restrictions are entirely a legal matter which can be changed under sensible law. Hopefully, the next administration will put this on its to do list. The present one? Fughedaboudit.
