(a) the universe OP is working in has the premise that creating efficient deals is why you should not regulate things
(b) people are being tricked by dealmakers
(c) regulating to stop people from being tricked does not deter efficient deals
you are saying “I’m not being tricked”—that’s a denial of assumption (b).
It may be true that there exist people who are not being tricked and who benefit from the existence of tricks.
On the other hand, that’s not the point. The point is that enough people ARE being tricked, to their detriment, that regulating the tricks will increase total welfare.
This is true regardless of whether or not you personally are being tricked.
OP also cited a paper discussing how tricks aren’t effected regularly by competition, so there is anecdotal evidence at least indicating that the government wouldn’t actually charge you $1 a month regardless.
A large part of your statement was addressing the factuality of (b) which is good, and I’m overall sympathetic to this objection, but you don’t seem fully aware of that being your point, and I disagree with the point in general.
The impression I got was that:
(a) the universe OP is working in has the premise that creating efficient deals is why you should not regulate things
(b) people are being tricked by dealmakers
(c) regulating to stop people from being tricked does not deter efficient deals
you are saying “I’m not being tricked”—that’s a denial of assumption (b).
It may be true that there exist people who are not being tricked and who benefit from the existence of tricks.
On the other hand, that’s not the point. The point is that enough people ARE being tricked, to their detriment, that regulating the tricks will increase total welfare.
This is true regardless of whether or not you personally are being tricked.
OP also cited a paper discussing how tricks aren’t effected regularly by competition, so there is anecdotal evidence at least indicating that the government wouldn’t actually charge you $1 a month regardless.
A large part of your statement was addressing the factuality of (b) which is good, and I’m overall sympathetic to this objection, but you don’t seem fully aware of that being your point, and I disagree with the point in general.