[slg]

I didn't say regulatory capture is a good thing. I said that barriers to entry can be good in certain instances. In the instance of medical devices, the problem in the US has nothing to do with barriers to entry. If you can drive across the border to Canada and buy an identical product for a fraction of the price it would cost in the US, that isn't because the barrier to entry is too high in the US. The product already exists and is being produced, it just costs more due to a broken healthcare industry.

[missosoup]

No, Americans are paying 500 bucks for a pen precisely because of regulatory capture. None of the manufacturers of the cheaper version have been successful in jumping the regulatory barrier to entry which the incumbents lobbied for, and tens of thousands of Americans suffer for it each year.

[bildung]

I have a hard time believing e.g. most european countries have less regulation in the medical sector than the US. Probably less corruption/"lobbying" (because corporate campaign distribitions are more strictly regulated in most other countries), but corruption quite different from regulation, even if both affect how law gets written.

[throwaway100773]

Many times it’s hard to distinguish the difference between regulation and corruption. Sometimes they’re one disguised as the other. Not sure what method you have for distinguishing between the two, so please share!

[bildung]

I'd say they exist on different levels and shouldn't be conflated. Corruption is the undemocratic alternative to a democratic decision making process. Both affect regulation, e.g. law.

[sokoloff]

In what way is that scenario not suggestive of a barrier to entry to the US market for the maker of the product already being sold in Canada?