Curious, I found the economist's (Alex Tabarrok) response to the article about himself:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/04/ec...

The concluding paragraph is important:

----

"Let me conclude on a lighter note. There are many reasons why regulation could be costly outside of its effects on dynamism. Thus, for my friends who think that I have gone all-squishy, n.b.: 'Not that Tabarrok himself has become a booster for regulation. He doesn’t think much of government’s ability to spark innovation through setting standards; the first thing he did when he last bought a new shower head, he said, was remove its federally mandated flow restrictor.'"

The dilemma is that heavy regulation tends to lend itself to monopolies and more government control which even the article admits hampers dynamism. The consequences of not following regulatory practice can be burdensome to new ideas, newcomers, and most importantly -- speed. Corporations know that federal regulations can be a tool to make it harder on its competitors. So I still think its better to err on the side of less regulation.