I don't think its anything like an "excess in government regulations" that are what is smothering innovation...
This is a perfect case in point, as you'd be fairly hard pressed to show how an excess in regulation, and not fraud in the markets, was responsible for an EXISTING innovation being denied market access here... when it doesn't encounter similar obstacles elsewhere...
The problem isn't that "the rules" prevented the company from accessing the market... rather than that the rules enabled skewing market power in ways that enabled others in crushing the effort.
I think it is tolerance of fraud that is one part of the problem... but, also, institutionalization of fraud...
Fraud... which enables theft and suppression...
That still has me saying that the rules we have ARE the problem... because the rules are designed to and intended to enable fraud, theft and suppression... through an imposition of market controls that limit access to capital... by limiting market functions in ways that ensure markets fail.
The issue is a "bait and switch" in definition of the problem...
More rules making fraud easier to prosecute aren't the problem.
The SAME rules, only less of them, when what the rules enable and impose is monopoly control over access to capital markets... means that the quantity in the rules is NOT the problem, and a reduction in quantity isn't a solution...
The right rules, properly enforced... are what you need to have a free market.
Right now... we don't HAVE a free market, because market access is being severely limited to enable larger benefits for a few... giving them power they wouldn't have otherwise... enabling fraud, theft, suppression.
.JPG)
.JPG)
