The socially positive nature of the industry on one axis and the degree of strong completion on the other.
So we can have say Retail food stores, sainsbury's and tesco, that deliver mostly positive things (food!) in a highly competitive manner.
We can also see positive industries (water / sewage) that have terrible competitive landscapes (fundamentally monopolies/ utilities). These need to be regulated differently - ie with hands firmly
clasped round the throat of all
participants.
Bad industries and bad competition looks like the illegal drugs trade (I personally think the cut throat nature of retail
stores is as literal cut throat as we want. When the completion stops focusing on making the product better and starts focusing on killing the other stores employees we are not seeing improved markets
And your example was bad industry / good competition- cigarettes are a good example here.
I think it's worth adding a third dimension to the grid - time and future shape. The retail food model is a good one but over time we can see the effect on out of town car parks, the urbanisation vs wqlkability etc etc. Intervening in how stores advertise the price of milk won't help this. But neither will "nerd harder" - there is no solution to "this business model if continued will go the wrong way" that does not involve chnaging the business model - ie charging for car parking space or something.
Anyway, it struck me as a useful simple graph. As business models move to different parts of grid they get regulated differently, and adding time/dependencies in means we can shape the results.
But in the end I am arguing for smart proactive interventionist government.
The socially positive nature of the industry on one axis and the degree of strong completion on the other.
So we can have say Retail food stores, sainsbury's and tesco, that deliver mostly positive things (food!) in a highly competitive manner.
We can also see positive industries (water / sewage) that have terrible competitive landscapes (fundamentally monopolies/ utilities). These need to be regulated differently - ie with hands firmly clasped round the throat of all participants.
Bad industries and bad competition looks like the illegal drugs trade (I personally think the cut throat nature of retail stores is as literal cut throat as we want. When the completion stops focusing on making the product better and starts focusing on killing the other stores employees we are not seeing improved markets
And your example was bad industry / good competition- cigarettes are a good example here.
I think it's worth adding a third dimension to the grid - time and future shape. The retail food model is a good one but over time we can see the effect on out of town car parks, the urbanisation vs wqlkability etc etc. Intervening in how stores advertise the price of milk won't help this. But neither will "nerd harder" - there is no solution to "this business model if continued will go the wrong way" that does not involve chnaging the business model - ie charging for car parking space or something.
Anyway, it struck me as a useful simple graph. As business models move to different parts of grid they get regulated differently, and adding time/dependencies in means we can shape the results.
But in the end I am arguing for smart proactive interventionist government.
Let governments be governments