Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Depends on the time horizon you look at. A completely unregulated market usually ends up dominated by monopolists… who last a generation or two and then are usurped and become declining oligarchs. True all the way back to the Medici.

In a rigidly regulated market with preemptive action by regulators (like EU, Japan) you end up with a persistent oligarchy that is never replaced. An aristocracy of sorts.

The middle road is the best. Set up a fair playing field and rules of the game, but allow innovation to happen unhindered, until the dust has settled. There should be regulation, but the rules must be bought with blood. The risk of premature regulation is worse.



> There should be regulation, but the rules must be bought with blood.

That's an awfully callous approach, and displays a disturbing lack of empathy toward other people.


Calculated, not callous. Quite the opposite: precaution kills people every day, just not as visibly. This is especially true in the area of medicine where innovation (new medicines) aren’t made available even when no other treatment is approved. People die every day by the hundreds of thousands of diseases that we could be innovating against.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: