In the modern age, in theory at least, it should be easy to oversee hundreds of small-to-medium sized businesses. In practice, however, it’s easier to license and control a few large entities. This is a symbiotic relationship: Large businesses have the necessary resources to build the infrastructure to uphold the strict policing of their space. These arrangements produce cartels and oligopolies that act as experts and advisers to the government, creating more bureaucracy to keep the status quo, effectively eliminating competitors where the costs of compliance are prohibitively high. These operating costs are invariably passed onto the consumer.

These centers of influence create high profile examples to others when things break. On the streets, those who dare to trespass will have their boots hung to dry for all to see, “stay away, we mean business”.

This systemic breakdown in competition versus public good does not need a conspiracy. We can consider this a structural problem, built by people with good intentions. Each person, a cog in the machine, looking out and watching the machine in motion, yet not brave enough to rebuild it. The outcome is thus indistinguishable from malice. It is as passive as watching someone drown without throwing a lifeline.

The rules of the game are often changed when the subtleties become clear and the shortest paths are followed.

Before cryptocurrencies, off-shore wealth was reserved for the few and it was entirely legal. They had the means to live and die in the free markets. In contrast, the public at large was excluded on the grounds of public safety, from the moral hazards of gambling, deceit and tax evasion. This brings about a dilemma: How does someone play the game, crash, and subsequently learn from their mistakes when the mechanics of a free market are gated?

In a world of abundant information, cryptocurrencies and the advances of artificial intelligence, it is perhaps surprising that regulations have increased and not decreased. What is not surprising is that the asymmetry of power continues to grow; the weaponization of data itself and more surveillance, more friction, more fees.

Let us consider the incentives of data capture. Social platforms, for example, have creators and advertisers and both sides seek real, highly accurate demographics. Data is sourced from multiple places, cross-referenced, new information is extracted using the latest AI tools and then shared globally. This data is captured invisibly through websites, apps and real world infrastructure. It is seamless and continuous.

When the outcomes of these systems are measured honestly, the predatory machinery of financial control does not eradicate risks, it simply keeps freedom at the top while extracting rent to use your money and data. This is not an argument for lawless deregulation as fraud and systemic recklessness still demand consequence. Rather, it is a recognition that the current architecture trades public safety for cartel protectionism.

It is perhaps apt and timely that cryptocurrencies were born. For the first time in history, anyone with a phone or computer could entirely bypass banking. Suddenly, everyone could have a fully decentralized off-shore bank account in their pocket without seeking permission.

The revolving door of regulation refers to a life cycle, where politicians are serving in public office and later become absorbed into the private sector where they become consultants or lobby for more favorable regulations.

Net Zero is one such example; it was a global response to climate change where “net” was intended to mean a balance sheet, where total emissions minus total removals equals zero. Incentives were laid for the private sector to produce carbon trading but regulators allowed phantom credit offsets. For example, building a solar farm with zero emissions and zero reductions in carbon from the atmosphere while claiming it replaces coal emissions.

This is not a failure of the private sector, for they were directed and failed by regulators. This is more an example where words and targets are redefined while keeping the existing language intact. We shall cover climate change in a later chapter.