It's not the same regulation.
But in reality, good regulation is good, and bad regulation is bad.
It sounds silly written out because it's a tautology, but if more people internalized it we could have much more productive conversations. Instead of going back and forth on whether regulation is good or bad, we should try to figure out which regulations are good and which are bad, and then try to get rid of the bad ones and pass more of the good ones.
No one brick in the road to hell is bad. But you can definitely pave a road to hell with the accumulation of "positive" changes. People tend to define positive over too short a timeline or too narrowly.
They're just rules we make for ourselves. There's nothing special about them. Opinions like that are why we can't fix messes like this.
Perhaps its just low pay attracting low talent
The goal of the regulation is to increase prices (profit) while preventing other parties from competing on prices
Suppose I want to sell my product, and find a company willing to buy, a middle manager signs the contract. When the company recieved my product, it refuses to pay, says this person was not authorised to sign the contract on behalf of the company.
Must the company prove the purchase was unauthorised, or must I prove the employee was authorised? Suppose employee was unauthorised, is it my or the company's problem if this guy 'took initiative', who eats the loss?
What if they already used my product and only realised after the bill came due? What if the deal was overpriced like 10x from market average? What if the guy's title says 'Head of procurement' but the company swears their bylaws don't allow him to authorise purchases?
And I think you're talking about contract law, not regulations.