When you pass new regulation (requirements), you generate new costs associated with providing $service_or_product. When costs go up, they are passed on to consumers. Now that your $service_or_product is regulated by 17 regulations that cost an average of $x each, your product now costs $base_price + ($x * 17) dollars. People with low income are less likely to be able to afford it.

Is there a better way to implement regulation then? Perhaps i'm unaware of what regulation means in this context, but a lot (not all!) of regulation serves a purpose, or did originally. Ie safety regulation for requiring how your home wiring is done; that builders can't skimp and use thin wiring or etc. Food safety regulation for how long food is allowed out of cooling, temperature requirements for cooling, etc.

These obviously serve a goal, but if you're saying that they also cause inequality, what is the better solution? Do we remove all safety rails? Or are some seen as essential, so the debate isn't pro or anti regulation but merely which ones are worth the cost? etc

This is extremely context sensitive. Antitrust regulation doesn't require a "compliance" department unless you're already huge and doing things that might be considered anti-competitive. Likewise financial regulations like Glass-Steagal[1] prevent certain types of organizations (in this case hybrid commercial-investment banks) from existing - I don't see how this could result in compliance costs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation

The best part about this is removing regulations wont change any prices. They will just keep the profits and continue to raise prices.

1) Company Complains about regulations 2) Gov Removes Regulations 3) Companies do dumb stuff 4) Gov Applies Regulations 5) People forget about dumb stuff 6) Return to step 1.

Case In Point: SVB

Not too mention that companies consolidate to cartels(I'm looking at you industry trade groups) which have significant pricing power so the cost usually don't end up with the consumer.

But a lot of times those regulations are enforcing things like health and safety or other types of cost shifting. where either the there is large differential in the expertise on one side of a transaction or a third party is the one paying the costs of the transaction.

EPA - polluting for instance.

In 1969, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in Cleveland just a few miles north of Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

When rivers start catching of fire the companies doing the polluting aren't really going to stop doing it and since most consumers live pay check to check they will generally chose the cheapest option available. even if they end up paying 10X the cost down the line.

What exactly does your experience include? because Texas is ranked 9/50 in terms of most affordable electricity at 11.36c/kw. Admittedly cost of electricity is not the strongest of arguments because there is a lot that goes into the cost - such as weather and natural resources available. But its a really week argument to use Texas electricity costs when they are among the most affordable in the nation.

edit: source = electricchoice.com

I'm not a libertarian, and believe pretty strongly that while it's probably not a good idea to have a "planned economy", you can and should redistribute some from the "winners" to those who the market leaves behind.

That said, zoning regulations in particular are a net negative, were mostly born out of racism in the US, and their purported objectives can be achieved better through other mechanisms - actually regulating externalities like noise and smell.

https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines

> you can and should redistribute some from the "winners" to those who the market leaves behind.

Personally I'm in favor of wealth and income limits, with anything past a threshold being redistributed or to fund UBI.