This is a highly relevant point. The more difficult it is to learn about and comply with regulations, the fewer businesses will attempt to do so.

In some cases, business simply ignore regulations that that are obscure or inefficient to comply with; this leads to corruption and/or shadow economies.

In more cases, business is simply discouraged and doesn’t grow, or just doesn’t start at all.

The messy patchwork is city, (sometimes) county and state licensing and taxation framework in the US is a huge drag on small business.

I am not arguing for no regulation, licensing, or taxation, only that these entities recognize that requiring businesses to file paper tax returns every quarter, even if they have done zero business in a given city is a significant hindrance to business activity.

> Make it easier for people to sell stuff, and there will be more stuff.

This is an excellent idea. Just lower the barrier whatever that barrier is.

Some people can think that lowering the entry barrier can result in subpar products and services but in fact the higher the competition, the higher the quality will be.

> but in fact the higher the competition, the higher the quality will be.

If this were true, then appliance manufacturers who produce higher-quality goods would be rewarded. But instead, we're at a weird state where appliances are still not cheap while also not being built to last.

Competition isn't guaranteed to keep the market honest; I'd argue once a market passes a certain size the number of people who can spot lemons becomes insignificant, and then it's a race to the bottom.

If that was true... You might end up with mass bacterial infections everywhere as only those cutting standards while providing highly addictive products survive etc. There was a reason why those regulations started initially. Overburdening with new more and more expensive regulations might be the issue.

> For instance hitting on this topic (of food prices), why can't I simply start baking bread and selling it?

Excessive bureaucracy and excessive legislation have the perverse effect to seemingly protect the consumer while in reality helping the big players. Small players will go out of business while new players can't enter. It wouldn't be much surprise if powerful lobbies ask for such legislation while they pretend they think of the public good.

No one likes competition, even entering the bar as a new lawyer is difficult.

Safety, including healthcode safety, is a good thing. A level playing field ensures that everyone in the market is making safe, hopefully good quality, products for that market. Reviewing, streamlining, and creating easier for small businesses to follow guidelines about the regulations that exist in a given field also sounds like good ways of improving consumer choice and safety.

> Safety, including healthcode safety, is a good thing. A level playing field ensures that everyone in the market is making safe, hopefully good quality,

Sure, you can raise the standards so much that only multi billion companies will be able to comply. In fact that is what we witness today. How many mom and pop shops still exist compared to the '60s?

Absolutely! Food safety is critical!

Let's just be honest with ourselves that these regulations cause us to have less stuff, and consider when they are worth it, and when they are not.

And 100% - making it easier for individuals/businesses to comply with regulations is winners all around.

Safety is not an absolute good. Safe enough is fine, so safe that nothing can get done and everyone is miserable helps no one. When the "level playing field" prohibits small business, things have almost surely gone too far.

> A level playing field ensures that everyone in the market is making safe, hopefully good quality, products for that market

I don't believe "safe" and "good quality" are necessarily aligned. I live close to a dairy farm where they sell (their own) unpasturised milk. You bring your own bottle, fill it, and pay in the honesty box. The farmer has a (small) disclaimer suggesting that the milk be boiled prior to consumption, but I don't believe any of the local buyers actually do that.

Q: Should this be forbidden?

My OPINION is that it should not be forbidden BUT that it should be clearly labeled.

UNPROCESSED Raw Milk (animal species)

There should probably be a poster or something created by the FDA that quickly summarizes the risks involved with not performing each of the mandatory safety steps for normal retail 'Milk', and it would be helpful if more detailed information were available on a website and from the local health agencies.

There is always a tension between economic growth and consumer protection. Selling bread is hard mostly due to health regulations. We used to have a lot of people die due to contaminated food. Now that's so rare that it makes the news when it happens. Food safety rules were written in blood.

Some states such as California do have special exemptions for "cottage" production of low risk foods such as bread.

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/Pages/FDBPrograms...

In other industries it's much easier to legally start selling things. Want to make screwdrivers and sell them to the local hardware store? Go ahead.

> Selling bread is hard mostly due to health regulations. We used to have a lot of people die due to contaminated food. Now that's so rare that it makes the news when it happens. Food safety rules were written in blood.

Bread was just an example. Just try to open a small corner shop and see how easy it is. Almost any small business has legal obstacles and a barrier as a high to entry as a large corporation. While the corporation can pass that barrier, little guys can't.

> Want to make screwdrivers and sell them to the local hardware store? Go ahead.

I doubt you can do it without having to pay attention to thousand of different regulations.

Your claim is trivially falsified. There are literally hundreds of small restaurants and retail stores within a few miles of me that are run by small businesses or individual proprietors. The barriers are more in high rents than in regulatory compliance.

The bread example seems pretty bad too. There are tons of local bakeries that take more of an artisanal spin on things in my neck of the woods, and I bet all over the US. They'd have to be niche because it's not like they're going to compete with a national brand that has automated factories that crank bread out. That's who a corner store in the US is going to buy from.

But the point is that you can compete against these national brands, quite trivially. I wasn't exaggerating on the cost. You can make a loaf of bread literally for pennies. And it's better in every single way than what you buy in the store besides the fact that it will tend to go stale within a few days if not refrigerated. But even that's arguably a benefit as well. It goes stale because it's not jam full of chemical preservatives.

It's only when you start making all sorts of things for yourself that you really start to see how completely irrational the markup on many things is, which then begs the question - why isn't anybody simply dropping the prices by 50% and making a killing? And the only answer I can really see is because it's become really quite painful to be able to sell things in America, unless you want to go all-in on it.

I'd also add that in terms of food safety, the big concern is not small business, but big business. Buy food from an individual or a family and you're eating what they're also eating for dinner, and probably have been for decades. By contrast at e.g. McDonalds, those executives probably aren't touching their "product" except for photo ops. Their only motivation is to maximize profit, which often comes in the form of sacrifices in quality or even safety of what's sold. [1] And this has always been true. "The Jungle" wasn't about Joe Bob's streetside shop.

[1] - https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/20650-lftb-to-be-classi...

At my corner store, you can buy a taco wrapped in foil that was clearly made by some local next to a crack pipe and milligram scales. The bread is Mrs. Baird's or some other national brand. If you think that strict regulation is what created this state of things, then you may want to re-evaluate that.

The answer that you see is just totally wrong and ignorant. Instead of making a fool of yourself here perhaps go talk to an actual commercial baker. Ask them how much they spend on licensing and regulatory compliance versus other costs like rent, labor, insurance, utilities, machinery, etc.

Sure if you bake a few loaves of bread at home then that probably seems cheap in terms of ingredients. Now add in your labor, allocate costs for utilities and kitchen appliances, and figure out what it would cost to drive around all day delivering that bread to retailers. Suddenly it's not so cheap.

The false dichotomy you're assuming is precisely the problem I'm talking about. There's a huge range of production between 0 and industrial scale commercial baker. At least there can and should be. But this false dichotomy isn't really so false in America, precisely because of our systems. Go to most of any (and to my knowledge literally any) "developing" country, and you'll see everything I've described here, and it's awesome! The effects on prices, independence, society, 'neighborliness', and more just have such great knock-on effects.

There has been a complete and confusing lack of deregulation talk in the inflation discussion and I don’t know why. Your example could also be taken with housing - why is construction not deregulated in smart ways to jump start residential building? Building a house is a total red tape disaster.

Because home prices are tracked so closely, sited widely, and used as a barometer of economic success and political success.

But yeah I think that's weird and destructive. Wouldn't it be better to prominently track and celebrate how much new housing is built?

OTOH, many people have all or most of their net-worth tied up in their home price. So even though NOTHING CHANGES when that price goes up or down, it has a psychological affect on them, who vote a lot.

HOAs are even worse than county & state governments when it comes to building a house. Many HOAs have building codes which include a minimum square footage. Some HOA regulations require over a 1000 sq ft livable footprint (garages don't count). The problem is HOAs have an incentive to raise property value, which makes it far more expensive for people to build a home to live in. HOAs are incentivized to increase property value of the neighborhood & large houses increase property value.

Small plots of land are dominated by HOAs. Finding small plots of "unregulated" (no HOA) land requires one to live very far from a city & decent grocery stores.

I'm not a big fan of the red tape of regulation & how regulations can be abused by large capital, but in the case of housing, HOAs are a bigger problem. Of course, there are also municipal regulations which require small plots of land to be more tightly regulated re: housing.