[T]his ‘anticorporate’ agenda of ramping up regulation is actually pro-corporate. Stringent regulations tend to protect incumbent firms from their greatest fear — innovative start-ups that could drive them out of business … [N]ursing firms tenderly is only one way to spur firms to invest. A better way is to threaten them. Not with antitrust actions or NLRB rulings, though — instead, by making them face their strongest and most feared competitors in open combat … [R]egulations are a moat that surrounds corporate America and protects its profits … Unleashing entrepreneurs will force rich and powerful incumbents to spend money on inventing new products and processes that will help them maintain their edge. Lounging timidly on a mountain of cash will no longer be an option when new firms show up to compete and siphon away hefty profits.
Op-Ed by Reihan Salam in The Daily: Protecting the Big Guys (Regulations Don’t Hurt Established Corporations – They Keep Them Powerful). As they say, read the whole thing. (via john carney and pegobry)

I’ve always thought that one of the more serious policy mistakes of the past few decades was permitting publicly-held corporations to adopt poison pill takeover defenses, shielding poor performing firms and their managers from the discipline and focus that stems from the risk of loss of corporate control.