(2/2) For weekly data-driven contrarian perspectives, Subscribe here:

ep.ft.com/newsletters/...

...or, if you're a Standard subscriber, upgrade to Premium here:

ft.com/manage/subsc...

(2/2) For weekly data-driven contrarian perspectives, Subscribe here:

ep.ft.com/newsletters/...

...or, if you're a Standard subscriber, upgrade to Premium here:

ft.com/manage/subsc...

The article isn't framed as the west vs. china. Its about China's own goals for innovation and productivity growth.

(2/2) For weekly data-driven contrarian perspectives, Subscribe here:

ep.ft.com/newsletters/56………

...or, if you're a Standard subscriber, upgrade to Premium here:

ft.com/manage/subscri…

I hope that's a good thing!

(2/2) For weekly data-driven contrarian perspectives, subscribe here: ep.ft.com/newsletters/...
if you're a standard subscriber, upgrade to premium here: ft.com/manage/subsc...

I not sure what you mean. Its possible for both the burden of regulation to be rising, and for regulators to be playing catch up for failed regulation before. The article runs through 3 reasons why the supposed rise in paperload. There are several drivers, and I agree Adam that yours is one factor.

Yes, that is part of my argument....in my write up

im not the one compelling what language you use or misrepresenting your argument, youve done that. the article simply says edcessive regulation is bad, and its caused some sort of meltdown among some here.

surely that only means i have a clearer experience and knowledge about the risks of businesses calling for regulations...not sure how calling out large businesses for creating anti competitive legislation is "capitalist bollocks".

Ok. My assumption then is that you dont think redtape, regulation or whatever other synonym one might use is a significant problem. We can disagree.

Ok, I won't use the word "red tape" or complain anymore. Any further diktats?

so a high amount of bureacuracy doesnt hurt small businesses and poor people?

"Seems to have forgotten"....the conclusion says that big cuts, aimlessly make things worse. Does everyone see a headline, then assume the writer's motive and politics, and then type their hot take here?

Thanks for your advice. But not everyone is triggered by that word equally. Some, clearly on this platform are. But most aren't. So, as a writer, I also need to play the odds. Otherwise one will find it impossible to write anything given the plethora of words people get triggered by.

Yes but we know its it rammed with random reliefs, thresholds and carve outs created by lobby groups....that arent to do with the economic complexity point.

Right the difference is that I believe it can be simplified without causing widespread harm, and that it can in fact create benefits. The complexity hurts smaller companies, and indeed households that can't afford the tax help.

So I should not be allowed to use the word "red tape" in my articles?

If it helps, individual sectors in the west can be submerged in bad regulation too, including those that are promoted by large companies lobbying to keep small companies out of the market. do you not agree with that?