There is too much for a simple list. But the basics are wide spread anti-regulation and anti-union funding via academic, legislative, and judicial directions.
Anti-union is not always pro-corporation. The most powerful unions are in the public sector now. And anti-regulations is by no meams pro-corporation.
Many large corporations derive wealth from regulations and other forms of government intervention (e.g. a central bank designating large banks as primary dealers, and all of the other interventions that make that a valuable position).
While I agree with you that exceptions exist in both of those cases, I also believe that in the vast majority of the time anti-union and anti-regulation is pro-corporation - in particular when you look at Koch Industries predominantly natural resource extraction activities.
With respect to natural resource extraction and producing globally traded commodities, yes I think corporations generally benefit from fewer regulations, but much of the economy doesn't operate like these industries.
Regulations generally limit competition to regulated firms, and increase economies of scale advantages, by imposing fixed costs like lobbying and regulatory compliance.
The primary goal of regulations is to limit expansion/accumulation of worst-case market driven externalities - like widespread pollution, or car makers making blatantly unsafe vehicles in crashes (and claiming otherwise).
In areas where we as society agree that regulation needs to be supplied, there then is a set of secondary meta-concern such as of avoiding undue impacts on businesses and competition. But you seem to focus on the general elevation of a whole set of meta-concerns about regulation. I think you cannot use those secondary concerns to invalidate the primary goals and usage of regulation.
>>or car makers making blatantly unsafe vehicles in crashes (and claiming otherwise).
That's not an externality. That's just a bad quality product, and in the case of the safety performance not meeting the car maker's advertised claims, it's fraud.
>>But you seem to focus on the general elevation of a whole set of meta-concerns about regulation.
I think regulations are largely a consequence of what you term "meta-concerns", but which are actually the objective of the major forces that are pushing for them. If you look at the push for Airbnb regulations for example, you see a lot of rhetoric about affordable housing, but you see the groups funding the PR campaign are hotel industry groups.
This same pattern can be seen across various industries: incumbents using astroturfing and other PR tactics to convince the public that there is a public interest in creating new regulatory restrictions.
I believe another driver of regulations is basic ignorance about how a complex economy evolves to address inefficiencies. This blind spot leads to people assuming that problems need to be addressed with cookie-cutter rules that are politically imposed.
> That's not an externality. That's just a bad quality product, and in the case of the safety performance not meeting the car maker's advertised claims, it's fraud.
It's fraud, but a fraud that most consumers can't vet individually, so regulation in that case is the most efficient way to stamp out the fraud.
If you look at airbnb complaints there are also many neighbors who are impacted by added trash and traffic of airbnb encouraging the running commercial rentals in the midst of residential living spaces. This leads to a lot of inefficiency in the lives of full-time residents. Because some hotels have added to the push, doesn't mean all airbnb regulations should be invalidated. Getting the balance right between businesses is a metaconcern, it doesn't invalidate the primary need from people for the regulation.
>>It's fraud, but a fraud that most consumers can't vet individually, so regulation in that case is the most efficient way to stamp out the fraud.
So you agree with me: it's fraud. As for whether individuals can vet fraud without the government: they clearly can. Government organizations are not the only highly resourced parties that vetting can be delegated to, and government bureaucracies are not the only networks through which product/service information can propagate.
Governments can of course provide certification programs that consumers can rely on. There is no justification for limiting consumer choices to those products that the government has certified, which is what you're endorsing. People should be free to live their life as they wish, including in ways that impose risks on them.
>>If you look at airbnb complaints there are also many neighbors who are impacted by added trash and traffic of airbnb encouraging the running commercial rentals in the midst of residential living spaces.
This is an externality, and not specific to commercial use of property. Applying regulations exclusively to commmercial uses of property, like renting it out on Airbnb, is therefore a disingenuous attempt to control people's private property under the pretense of addressing externalities.
From what I've seen, like the fact that several major pieces of anti-Airbnb legislation followed concerted PR campaigns by the hotel industry, and the fact that the hotel industry association boasted the legislation as a result of its work, the primary cause of people's opposition to Airbnb, and support for restrictions on it, is special interest backed PR efforts, that have convinced the public that there is a pressing public interest need to stop Airbnb rentals.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Legislative_E...
Analysis: Koch brothers a force in anti-union effort
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wisconsin-koch-idUSTR...
Who's Behind Friedrichs?
http://prospect.org/article/whos-behind-friedrichs