4 ms·
The most forgiving interpretation doesn't imply massive influence at all. US gov't needs help regulating banks. Employees with experience in finance will likel
by rtpg 10y ago
The most forgiving interpretation doesn't imply massive influence at all.
US gov't needs help regulating banks. Employees with experience in finance will likely have an easier time navigating things. Same argument for tech.
Is it really that shocking that you hire former finance people to regulate the finance industry? Experience in the domain means knowledge about how things work. It's the same argument as putting a technical person as PM for a technical project.
Of course, this doesn't work in the "regulation as punishment" mindset. But gov't regulators aren't looking to kill banks, they're looking to keep the economy healthy. Yes, that means working with banks to improve things (see regulators coordinating the purchase of failed banks by other ones).
Inversely, you are Goldman Sachs. You need help navigating regulation... a guy with regulation experience sounds good right?
Of course there are potential conflicts of interest to watch out for.
- adrianratnapala 10y agoBut regulation is supposed to provide an impartial set of rules that defines how people go about their buisness fairly. One of the great criticisms of regulation is that incumbents with access to government can influence the rules to favour themselves and avoid competition. Having employees of particular large companies work as beaurocrats encourages this, especially if they return to those companies. In it's early phase -- such as with these googlers in the US gov, the revolving door brings dynamism. But over time it brings stagnation because parties have an interest in making current practice the only thing allowed.