Which also includes building bureaucracy moats- that load smaller competitors with unpaid for paperwork and prevent them from operating. Which is never really addressed as source of state inefficiency in liberal literature. At some point, the creature gets hacked by the actual ruler (monopolistic cooperations) and used as a sock puppet.

If this is true, why do corporations lobby against regulation? Either they want more regulations to build this "moat", or they don't. If both outcomes result in a win for them, (deregulation vs moat-building by greater regulation) why spend money on lobbying?

I think two things happen:

1. They say they are opposed to regulations publicly, but indicate they will "compromise" privately. 2. They lobby against some regulations and against others.

Here is an example of a business openly asking for more regulation: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 I actually agree with some of his arguments, but I do not think his motives are exactly pure.

> Which also includes building bureaucracy moats- that load smaller competitors with unpaid for paperwork and prevent them from operating

Exactly. one of the defining moments for my political views was hearing the CEO of a big pub company explaining that this was why they could keep expanding as smaller competitors gave up because of the administrative burden.

Both governments and big business live complex rules.

I'm not sure which CEO you specifically heard, but this[only] is a great example of what you're talking about. Llloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, making statements to this effect in 2015.

[only]https://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation-is-good-for-goldman-...

Thanks, that is a brilliant quote.

The CEO I heard was Ted Tuppen, who ran Enterprise Inns, a big British pub company.

Shows what a wide range of things this is true for!

I’m thinking it must be mentioned more than you think, since I’m a proper lefty and even I think there’s a problem there.

Maybe you are aware of the problem because you are a "proper lefty"?

A dying breed these days, unfortunately.

It is certainly glossed over by "market fundamentalist" types who tend to think let the market do its work is magic pixie dust.

Are there many of those left anymore? Everytime i encounter it and probe it, its basically some thin layer of paint on basically neo-feudalism "whose bread i eat those song i sing" mercenary mentality. Probe for the "not-a-real-ism" shism and if they do not want to go back to small companies fighting, but prefer big behemoths stagnating- not a true free market spirit- also a indicator, if they integrate well into hierarchies.

Meh, markets are a useful tool for the allocation of resources, but like everything you need to keep an eye on what they're doing and who's benefiting. And like everything you need to keep an eye on the people entrusted with keeping an eye on things as well.