> Of course they are, by your own hypothesis.
I'm not sure what hypotheses I've proposed that suggests I think one organization has control of the behavior of entirely other organizations -- can you explain where you think you've seen this?
> Ah yes, the ol' "I just do retarded shit so people think I'm a genius" trick. Who could possibly doubt the strategic genius or umm... existence... of such a strategy.
Well, I suppose anyone who sees the extent to which such a strategy might be effective at achieving their goals might be included to do so.
I believe both myself and others have made a plausible case as how messaging "we've created something we can't control without political intervention" has the dual effect of both increasing the perceived value of the product itself, and laying the groundwork for regulatory capture in a market where early dominant players have a natural incentive to pursue regulatory intervention.
I don't see how characterizing the situation as simplistically as you're attempting to do here functions as a meaningful counter-argument.
> No, I understand it completely. Obviously regulatory capture only works if it in reality inflicts asymmetric costs on other parties.
No, I don't think the "only" works there. There are plenty of ways that regulatory capture can advantage one party over another without it being based on economies of scale or cost thresholds.
One way is to influence regulations such their qualitative requirements directly target non-cost-related aspects that distinguish the firms from each other, e.g. placing restrictions that burden or favor product features or operating practices already implemented by some firms and not others, or targeting non-operational aspects that distinguish firms, like their board composition or financial structure.
I'm not sure what hypotheses I've proposed that suggests I think one organization has control of the behavior of entirely other organizations -- can you explain where you think you've seen this?
> Ah yes, the ol' "I just do retarded shit so people think I'm a genius" trick. Who could possibly doubt the strategic genius or umm... existence... of such a strategy.
Well, I suppose anyone who sees the extent to which such a strategy might be effective at achieving their goals might be included to do so.
I believe both myself and others have made a plausible case as how messaging "we've created something we can't control without political intervention" has the dual effect of both increasing the perceived value of the product itself, and laying the groundwork for regulatory capture in a market where early dominant players have a natural incentive to pursue regulatory intervention.
I don't see how characterizing the situation as simplistically as you're attempting to do here functions as a meaningful counter-argument.
> No, I understand it completely. Obviously regulatory capture only works if it in reality inflicts asymmetric costs on other parties.
No, I don't think the "only" works there. There are plenty of ways that regulatory capture can advantage one party over another without it being based on economies of scale or cost thresholds.
One way is to influence regulations such their qualitative requirements directly target non-cost-related aspects that distinguish the firms from each other, e.g. placing restrictions that burden or favor product features or operating practices already implemented by some firms and not others, or targeting non-operational aspects that distinguish firms, like their board composition or financial structure.