My support for a laissez-faire economy is often challenged by socialists and conservatives alike who criticise large corporates, their failures to provide a good service and the threat such corporate monopolies/oligopolies represent to our society. The energy and banking sectors are good examples. Usually these socialists and conservatives claim that “more” regulation is needed to control these corporates.

However, I would assert that increased regulation always results in more large corporates and more monopolies/oligopolies while less regulation results in a more competitive market, with better services. My reasoning is based on the views of a number of famous economists that also make this argument.

So, if your high electricity bill, or the poor service from banks, annoys you, the answer is always “less” government regulation, rather than more.

Anyhow, below is the argument chatGPT provides to justify my position …

Certainly, here are multiple reasons to support the argument that corporate monopolies are more likely to occur in more government-regulated economies:

1. **Barriers to Entry**: As mentioned, heavy regulation can make it costly and complex for new businesses to enter the market. Larger corporations can more easily absorb these costs, discouraging competition.

2. **Regulatory Capture**: In some cases, larger corporations may influence the regulations themselves through lobbying efforts, creating rules that serve their interests and make it difficult for new entrants to compete.

3. **Economies of Scale**: Regulatory compliance often involves fixed costs that do not vary with the level of production or sales. Larger firms, which can spread out these costs over larger volumes, have a competitive advantage over smaller rivals.

4. **Limited Innovation**: Heavy regulation can stifle innovation, which is often the way smaller companies disrupt larger incumbents. Compliance requirements may restrict the ability to innovate, thereby preserving the status quo and helping existing large companies maintain their market positions.

5. **Risk Aversion**: In highly regulated environments, companies may be more risk-averse to avoid potential legal consequences. This can deter smaller companies from entering the market, while larger corporations have the legal and financial resources to manage these risks.

6. **Access to Capital**: Large corporations usually have better access to capital that can be used to comply with regulations, acquire smaller competitors, or even fund lobbying efforts for more favorable regulations, thereby consolidating their market power.

7. **Legal Complexity**: Heavily regulated environments often result in complex laws that require specialized legal advice to navigate. Larger firms can more easily afford these specialized services compared to smaller competitors.
8. **Administrative Burden**: The time and manpower required to comply with regulations can be overwhelming for small businesses but manageable for large corporations with specialized departments.

9. **Market Exit**: Over-regulation can make market exit more difficult, trapping inefficient companies and preventing the reallocation of resources to more efficient market entrants. This can also reduce competition, making it easier for large corporations to dominate.

10. **Reduced Consumer Choice**: With fewer competitors in the market, large companies have less incentive to reduce prices or improve services, leading to a consumer environment dominated by a few major players.

Each of these points contributes to a scenario where a heavily regulated economy favors the growth and maintenance of large corporations at the expense of smaller competitors, making corporate monopolies or oligopolies more likely.