What’s the best way to explain the burden of red tape?

• I’ve periodically share aggregate cost estimates of regulation.
• And I sometimes highlight how red tapes causes sectoral damage.
• I even came up with a new word for describing red tape.
• For some columns, I share specific case studies.

For what it’s worth, making a compelling argument presumably involves all these approaches.

But there’s also a common theme. Compelling visuals matter. My contribution, for what it’s worth, is the regulatory obstacle course.

But that’s just based on theory.

Today’s column is going to focus on visuals that illustrate the real-world impact of regulation, and we’re going to expand on something I wrote last year.

That 2025 column noted that a new regulation to enrich unions had a negative impact on new housing.

Here’s a tweet with a graph that makes it very obvious. Look at the stunning difference between buildings with 99 or 100 units.

In France, by contrast, politicians wanted to enrich architects. So they mandated licensed architects for homes above a certain size.

What was the effect?

Here’s another tweet with another stunning discontinuity.

I’ll close by noting both regulations increase the cost of housing. I’ll also note that both examples of red tape were motivated by politicians wanting to give undeserved riches to special interest groups.

It’s almost as if we can conclude that government is a corrupt racket.