It happens all the time. The vast majority of regulation ends up doing nothing more than giving the existing large competitors in a space a tool to keep out new entrants and smaller, scrappier competitors.
One of the reasons that the software industry is do dynamic is because it's not regulated.
An illustration of this point is that in the UK the regulations for electricians, and building contractors in general, actually promotes small companies. They're usually either a two-man team or a father-son op. In fact the largest I ever saw was a three man team, which was a two-man team with one of their sons.
The point is, is that the regulations actually keep the income evenly disbursed. Essentially everyone is earning between £60,000 and £100,000 a year depending on what you do and how well you do it. However, when you work for a company (companies seem to exclusively do large businesses like factories and the few that don't have very bad reps) you earn much less, some get paid between £40,000 and £60,000. You, of course, get you tools paid for but they're a one time purchase, I mean our most expensive piece of equipment was a £1,000 tester and it has a 10 year warranty on it, so there is literally no incentive to go with one of those companies.
The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it, he's liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from shoddy work.
My point is that regulation can be used in many ways. Big business takes over the regulators, but when used effectively a regulator can actually promote smaller business and stop economic pyramid schemes forming (AKA big business, people work for minimum wage so that the people at the top can earn over a million a year).
The fact that software isn't regulated is a good thing right now. There's lots of competition and there's self-regulation going on. There's lots of virus' out there, but if you stick to the sites certified by Microsoft and don't go on any sites that google suggests may be harmful to your computer, then you're largely to be fine. However, if companies like Google and Microsoft weren't providing some form of assistance to users, then I believe the software industry would need regulation, which would probably kill millions of blogs and social websites.
> The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it, he's liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from shoddy work.
You may not like the choice that those certified electricians are making, but they clearly prefer it to their alternatives (such as running a two person shop).
Me - I see a significant cost savings. I don't care about certificates. I care about output and cost.
Note that regulatory capture actually isn't specific to big biz. It's often implemented by mobs of small biz trying to reduce competition. In the US you can see this in hair cutting and interior design. It sounds like electricians have done the same in the UK.
> In the US you can see this in hair cutting and interior design.
On a tangent, the story behind SuperCuts is quite fascinating. A 6'8" former truck driver who had a mid-life crisis and enrolled in beautician school. Page 182/250
Certainly possible, but the difference is is that regulatory capture by small biz creates an even playing field and can prevent dominance, however when big biz does it you end up with few choices and extreme difficulty.
Look at what happened in the UK, the companies were making an inferior product (not many British car enthusiasts would agree, but I've managed to have a look in a few of the old cars and motorbikes and they're shoddy. Some old British bikes had the serious problem that they'd drip oil in front of the driving wheel). What happened? Well all three became one, that one became nationalized, that one ended up getting handed between multiple companies before being renamed to the Rover brand and ultimately ended up as part of Ford. Who won out in the UK for vehicles? All the more efficient foreign ones.
What's happening in the US? Well Ford seems pretty stable despite the crisis. Chrysler says they seriously doubted they'd make it past 2009 without outside help. GM was planning to merge with Chrysler, however now GM is up shit creek without a paddle and are hoping subsidies will help them survive. If Chrysler and GM get significantly weakened, well Ford will likely buy them out. Can anyone see where this could potentially go?
I think the serious problem with big biz, is that when there's problems an entire industry can move to a different country. The only US owned car manufacturer in 10-20 years could be Tesla motors probably only because a bunch of silicone valley guys understand the importance of competition.
It's called Regulatory Capture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
It happens all the time. The vast majority of regulation ends up doing nothing more than giving the existing large competitors in a space a tool to keep out new entrants and smaller, scrappier competitors.
One of the reasons that the software industry is do dynamic is because it's not regulated.