There is remarkable logic in government regulation of businesses. The first reasoning behind government regulation of businesses is the need to ensure existence of healthy competition among the players in the market. Business competition may sometime turn nasty as the rival companies start engaging in dangerous tactics all aimed at ensuring the competitor fails and closes operations. Therefore, there must be a reasonable arbiter whose intervention in the market will ensure the terms of competition are clearly set in form of regulations. The terms of competition set by the government create flat latitude for all competitors in the market to do their businesses and succeed. Government regulation of businesses is also predicated on the rationale that consumers must be protected from the possible unfair practices of firms. It is the reason there are regulations on price ceiling and floor for specific commodities. Unfair monopoly over provision of important goods is also eliminated through reasonable government regulation of businesses. Therefore, the business world cannot function properly without the intervention of the government through regulation. Lack of government regulation would make the business field a jungle, where only the fittest firms survive.
A federal regulation of business, which I support, is the Environmental Protection Agency laws. These particular EPA laws require that businesses invest in minimizing environmental pollution so that global warming and climate change can be avoided effectively. This regulation has seen non-compliant companies being closed down while complying ones spend money in installing measures aimed at reducing the release of harmful waste materials into the environment. The long-term benefits of the EPA laws are huge since avoidance of climate change implies many businesses will survive even in the future. Agro-businesses would be the victims of climate change if the EPA regulations were not in place.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
