Over-regulation is doubling the cost

Debate over regulation vs. over‑regulation

• Many commenters stress that regulation is often “written in blood”: it exists because past harms (pollution, unsafe buildings, toxic products) actually happened.
• Others argue that after the big wins (e.g., leaded gasoline, asbestos bans), the system drifts into thousands of marginal rules whose cumulative overhead outweighs benefits.
• Some see blanket anti‑regulation rhetoric as ideological; others see blanket pro‑regulation rhetoric as thought‑terminating and blind to trade‑offs.

Revoy / truck engine certification dispute

• The requirement to certify emissions impact separately for ~270 engine “families” at ~$100k each is viewed by some as protection theater and an entry barrier for small players.
• Others respond that verifying claims is exactly what regulation is for, and that large fleet impact could justify substantial testing.
• Suggestions include testing only the most common engine families, using representative sampling plus exemptions, or lowering test costs rather than dropping the requirement.

Carbon capture and underground injection

• Several commenters are uneasy about injecting large volumes of novel liquids underground, likening it to earlier “safe” industrial practices that later proved toxic.
• Others argue that failing to deploy carbon‑reducing tech also has very real health and climate costs; the question is whether the specific risks have been adequately studied.
• The four‑year delay just to decide which injection‑well category applies is cited as pure procedural drag, not safety work.

Regulatory capture, costs, and inequity

• Recurrent theme: big incumbents treat regulatory complexity and certification fees as a moat; small firms and startups bear disproportionate burden.
• Certification bodies and testing labs are described by some as de‑facto rent‑extractors with little competitive pressure to lower prices.
• Counterpoint: in many industries, without strict, enforceable rules, firms do in fact cut corners, pollute, or mislead (Dieselgate, pharma pricing, unsafe buildings).

Process and reform ideas

• Proposals include: more staff and funding for regulators, clearer exemption paths, sunset clauses on rules, faster classification decisions, and government‑funded or subsidized testing.
• Some advocate “bigger but better” government that helps small firms navigate rules, rather than simple deregulation.
• Others call for sharply simplifying codes (e.g., housing, environmental review) and explicitly accounting for the cost of inaction as well as the cost of experimentation.

Comparisons and wider analogies

• China is cited as an example of heavy but fast, centralized regulation enabling massive infrastructure build‑out; others push back on calling that “democracy.”
• Housing, vapes, building codes, cookie banners, and insulin prices are all invoked as parallel cases where regulation either meaningfully protects the public or badly misfires.