Do you agree or disagree in order to help small businesses thrive government should play a minimal role in private business matters

While small companies have their own agendas, which is to maximize profit, it happens in a large part at the expense of customer’s safety, trust and resources. It is expedient therefore to establish certain guidelines to stave off any abuse and violations from the side of small companies. Conversely, many economists argue that heavy control and scrutiny of company’s business deeds may spur the company to move oversee. Indeed, while there is rigorous business policy in action, some establishments will face difficulties such as what the government expects us to produce and how. There is no surprise oftentimes that hands-off policy oversee attracts many prospective companies, inducing them to move away from the all-controlling hands of the government.
First-of-all, safety regulations are essential to protect customers’ safety, ensure conscientious and transparent manufacturing process and corresponding quality ranking of all commodity. If there were no such standards, small companies would have good stimuli to cross the line to increase profit through diminished and deceitful quality or even at the expense of customers’ health as it is shown in the following example. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was created for the sole purpose – to ensure the safety, efficacy and security of foodstuff and medicine. Thousands of violations have been considered by FDA and every one of them would have posed a threat to society had remained neglected. FDA has proved invaluable support for society through supervision of business’ matters. Thus, companies are forced to reconcile on real-time basis with a number of federal institutions in order to stay in business. In this case one can see that government must regulate private business.
However, the regulations by no means have to be severe, because otherwise, as it was mentioned before, there is a probability for companies to move business away. Where would a company rather expand its business – in a country where laissez-faire is in force, or elsewhere? Economic policy that is free from intervention and regulations is a getaway for capital investments, whereas the strict supervision and oppression of any attempts of business to push through its own agenda may preclude the growth of the business and economy in overall. Lower income as a result of foolish and blind regulations decrease competition between companies. Lack of competition goes against the preference of customers to have both qualitative and affordable goods. Thus, state bodies must not heavily confine business in its decision-making.
Thus, in reality business have both prospered and suffered from regulations depending on the very nature of such regulations. While it is important to prevent companies take advantage of a market, one should keep in mind that companies are part of it.