Here's an example from a different field. Regulation of checmicals.

In Europe the regulatory framework is called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), while the US uses a regulatory framework called TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act).

There is a major difference:

(from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825) :

  REACH requires companies to develop information on chemicals' effects on human health and the environment, while TSCA does not require companies to develop such information absent EPA rule-making requiring them to do so. While TSCA does not require companies to develop information on chemicals before they enter commerce (new chemicals), companies are required to provide EPA any information that may already exist on a chemical's impact on human health or the environment. Companies do not have to develop information on the health or environmental impacts of chemicals already in commerce (existing chemicals) unless EPA formally promulgates a rule requiring them to do so.

So, simplified: In Eurpe a company must provide proof that a chemical compound is not harmful, while in the US a compound is considered legal as long its harm can't be proven.

While the US approach is certainly better for commerce I very much prefer the European approach. I consider the general health of the population much more important than the money that can be made by private companies.

And I think the example pretty nicely demonstrates the difference in attitude between the continents.

> I consider the general health of the population much more important than the money that can be made by private companies.

There's a feedback loop in the cost of innovation. Better medicines, fertilisers, preservatives, insulators, et cetera have increased both the health of the populace and wealth of their creators. Ceteris paribus, in a world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society will outcompete the more cautious one.

I think that's a bit simplified. In pharmaceuticals, the regulation is absolutely vital for the innovation loop, because it sets an objective standard for demonstrating progress. If you cut out all pharmaceutical regulation, you would get limited, biased trials 'proving' that a treatment worked, and then an even more massive marketing department behind it. There's a multibillion dollar industry in skincare, but are skin treatments any better now than they were 50 years ago? Nobody really knows, because large scale, long-term trials are expensive, and there is no regulatory requirement to rigorously demonstrate how well your product works.

Similarly, in chemicals regulation, an unregulated industry works towards the cheapest, most effective solution for their problem, but ignores the externalities. If the pesticide increases your yield, why would you care if it lowers the insect life which pollenates the crops for the neighbouring farms? The neighbouring farms aren't paying your bills. If your furniture treatment is cheaper than the alternative, who cares if it causes marginal damage to the health of the people using it over 20 years? In any case, it will be very difficult for anyone to tie any damage back to your product, so the reputation risk is limited. Again, the regulation is required to set a standard of progress - you don't just want innovation in cost and efficacy for the manufacturer, you want innovation relative to an objective standard which takes into account other impacts.

I do agree, though, that reducing cost for testing is also very important, to reduce the barrier to entry. Making testing too expensive also does damage. The EU actually had a clinical trials directive which proved to be too onerous, made the trials too expensive, and some measures had to be repealed. So it is a balancing act, but to me it's clear that both sides are important.

> Ceteris paribus, in a world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society will outcompete the more cautious one.

Sure but we don't know how bad the negative externalities of accumulation of human-made chemicals in our natural environment are until we get there.

We could be outcompeting in the short term with very large negative societal effects in the long term.

This works out nicely for Europe, with the USA being the guinea pig. I could imagine Europe opposing any change to the US law. The USA tries things out, and Europe reaps the benefits.

You could argue that the French position: that the service could upset the French capital’s “commercial equilibrium”" shows a common-sense appreciation of the advantages of living in a neighbourhood where the is a good mixture of local shops and an attempt to preserve the benefits of this system. I'm sure that living in such neighbourhoods has all kinds of quality-of-life benefits in terms of communal life, neighbourhood cohesion and mental wellbeing that a strictly profit-driven approach doesn't recognise.

Very much agreed. Americans have a nasty habit of valuing everything in dollar terms, especially when such things cannot be valued in such a way. What is the dollar value of clean air, friendly neighbors, and social cohesion? Sure you could factor things like physical health, but that never paints a full picture.

I think the obvious objection to this kind of central planning is that the community isn't deciding that for themselves. If members of a community experience the kind of benefits from local business that you say (and I agree, I shop overwhelmingly local) why is it that they can't vote for those businesses with their own dollars?

I see these kind of regressive economic policy as an obvious (and probably unintentional) attack on the poorest members of the community. Sure, I can afford to pay a little more and shop locally. It's a luxury to pay more for something because you enjoy the shopping experience more. Some people can't afford that luxury, and should be able to decide for themselves. Some people need to shop paying very close attention to the dollar value.

Discount supermarkets are less expensive than Amazon.

Then what's the concern? People who want to pay for the convenience of amazon will pay for it, people who value the dollar more, will shop locally in this case. Outlawing advances in convenience seems regressive, no?

The point is about the small shops network in Paris. They are a vital part of the city culture, the social cohesion, the charm of Paris. The city recognize the convenience of Amazon, they are not banned. They city also recognize its commercial aggressiveness and want to protect small shops from it. Not because small shops are cute but because they are an important part of the culture and economy of the city.

Then I will point back to my original comment which you commented on. Is the importance of these shops something only the ruling class recognizes? If not, why does the protection of them need to be mandated?

Tragedy of the commons. Everybody benefits from the corner shop being available, but don't use it often enough for it to stay profitable.

There is a flip side to every coin. The least well-off among us do not benefit from having the most economical options handicapped to support the less economically feasible option, regardless of the intangible communal benefits. This plays into the most common error surrounding how people view protectionism; the interests of the most obvious group is held above the harder to see ramifications of their protection. It seems ethically troublesome to me for a handful of bureaucrats to pretend they can predict every pro and con of every economic mandate for everyone else (or for the majority to decide for the minority). Decentralization of the decision making seems like the least problematic way to go about such things; and you can't get much more decentralized than each individual consumer. If the community at large recognizes the benefits of these local shops, they should put their money where their mouths are and make them profitable.

> They are a vital part of the city culture, the social cohesion, the charm of Paris.

my experience when I lived in Paris that this is highly neighborhood dependent. If amazon was to decimate the faux authentic stores of Montorgueuil or Montmartre, I don't think it'd necessarily be a bad thing.

Montorgueil and Montmartre are not representative of Paris.

I think they are. There's no better display of the gentrification phenomenon that's going on over there.

> I think the obvious objection to this kind of central planning is that the community isn't deciding that for themselves.

If they vote for people who have this type of curation as part of their manifesto - sure they are.

> What is the dollar value of clean air

Paris happens to possess among the most polluted air of any major first world city. So based on your premise, the French value their diesel pollution over their clean air - they found a (very low) price to put on it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-20/breathless...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-19/paris-smog...

Clean air? Are you kidding me? Seems like Paris was already polluting its air before Amazon's express delivery.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/09/24/paris-ca...

In Europe they used to have kings and nobles in charge of entire swaths of the nation's production. As a minor counterbalance they'd have alternative power centers in the form of a city's guilds who would own the rights to do certain types of business in the city. The French Revolution may have swept away the nobles, but the general structure of an economy run by the other various entrenched interests remains, and feel that they have a right to the work and customers, treating said customers like property.

To this add strong nationalism and the fact that Amazon is un-French (and the French have few problems strongarming their citizens to be more French: see the French-language TV/radio content quotas).

The US has seen a few of the attitudes (see: any food truck dispute) but never really had the same types of power structures ... with the exception of the Depression-era National Recovery Administration (quickly deemed unconstitutional by 9 out of 9 Supreme Court justices).

Let's not forget there is probably some (plenty?) of anti-American feeling after France declined to join BUsh's coalition

"About 40 percent of Americans tell pollsters they favor boycotting French products"

Including the wonderful Freedom Fries by misunderstanding of what the french meant in french fries.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-boycotting-w...

American approach is more 'trial and error' while French education system is more oriented toward demonstrating that something is good or not. Hence, when they see something new coming up they want to make sure that this won't interfere the current state of things. Both approaches are good, just different.