5 ms·

It's worth remembering the opposite of his example of "C" (the economist who pushed back against the water standards).. The faceless bureaucrats in these posit

It's worth remembering the opposite of his example of "C" (the economist who pushed back against the water standards).. The faceless bureaucrats in these positions have the ability to destroy livelihood, whole towns, and even industries with the stroke of a pen. And they suffer zero consequences as a result.

pjc50 10y ago
The stakes are rather high on both sides of this. The same chemist was responsible for both leaded petrol and CFCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. Safety regulations can wipe out businesses. Not having (or following!) regulations can wipe out lives on an enourmous scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster The point is not to say "regulation good" or "regulation bad", but that these decisions are important and should be taken seriously with submissions from those involved as well as experts. The process has to be sound, and we need to de-partisanise it where possible.
- cperciva 10y ago
  For all the environmental damage they caused, I'm not convinced that CFCs were a net negative. We have better alternatives now, but the refrigerants R12 replaced at the time were really really nasty; how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to avoid damaging the ozone layer?
  - jopsen 10y ago
    The question is how many lives were lost due to a damaged ozone layer? (increased risks of skin cancer, etc). The point is that regulation is important. Whether you have good regulation, bad regulation or no regulation it has impact and the discussion is important.
    - cperciva 10y ago
      Right. My point is just that people tend to condemn CFCs based on their costs while completely ignoring the benefits they brought at the time.
      - pyromine 10y ago
        I mean every narrative about the invention of CFCs is basically found a great thing, didn't realize the great thing has downsides.
AllegedWisdom 10y ago
In many cases (the water standard rule was one of them) the bureaucrats are acting on direct orders from Congress. Congress usually passes those laws demanding regulations to be written as a result of people asking the government to 'do something' about a problem that harmed an identifiable victim. Then the lobbyists get involved. Blaming bureaucrats for those regulations is like blaming coders for what happens after they get told to implement an incoherent design document.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
TuringTest 10y ago
> The faceless bureaucrats in these positions have the ability to destroy livelihood, whole towns, and even industries with the stroke of a pen. And they suffer zero consequences as a result. This is why every regulation should go through a period of public hearings before being approved. Even if they didn't have an economist on board, or she hadn't thought of that problem at the time, it would have been obvious to the people affected by it and could have been corrected in the second draft.
brownbat 10y ago
Yeah, to your point: The EPA was an obstacle for Marc Edwards during the DC water crisis, but then was one of his biggest advocates during Flint.[0] Examples like this are common enough. So it surprises me that most ideological debates are about whether government is good or harmful. It's both. There are failure modes both with it and without. Agencies are made up of people, who sometimes do great work and save lives, sometimes learn from past mistakes, and sometimes make new ones that are incredibly costly to society. I guess "We should study the areas where unintended consequences are most likely to dominate and limit government overreach in those areas, but recognize we still have real problems to solve where it might be the best tool for the job, so avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater" doesn't make a great bumper sticker. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edwards_(civil_engineering_professor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edwards_(civil_engineerin...
- JamesBarney 10y ago
  Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. A gross over simplification of the current party lines would look like this. Libertarians argue that government is always the problem, and never the solution. Conservatives argue that markets rarely fail, and the government is so terrible of a solution that most of the time the cure is worst than the disease. But is useful in some limited cases of market failure. Liberals argue that markets fail pretty often and so we need government a little more often than what conservatives suggest. Of course this ignores the building of the evangelical and populist branches of the Republican party which don't fall as neatly into the abstraction as the old guard business Republicans.
  - brownbat 10y ago
    > Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. You can always add more nuance. Ehrenreich had a great piece 20 years ago, "Confessions of a Recovering Statist" with arguments from the left for skepticism of government power. Some people follow that mold and consider themselves liberal-tarians. Some on the right are more hawks, nationalists, or law and order types who prefer strong state institutions. But speaking in broad swaths, the impression that I get is that most people have a pretty shallow understanding of political theory, and go with the simplest heuristic possible. No fault of their own, it doesn't interest them. They have lawns to mow and bills to pay. Given that, a better simplification of the current party lines might not drill down into subfactions of parties, but to capture most people, you could get away with something like "I'm on team red" vs. "I'm on team blue." Short of that, I'm not convinced pro-G / anti-G is that bad of a model for most people though.

pjc50 10y ago

The stakes are rather high on both sides of this. The same chemist was responsible for both leaded petrol and CFCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. Safety regulations can wipe out businesses. Not having (or following!) regulations can wipe out lives on an enourmous scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster The point is not to say "regulation good" or "regulation bad", but that these decisions are important and should be taken seriously with submissions from those involved as well as experts. The process has to be sound, and we need to de-partisanise it where possible.

cperciva 10y ago
For all the environmental damage they caused, I'm not convinced that CFCs were a net negative. We have better alternatives now, but the refrigerants R12 replaced at the time were really really nasty; how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to avoid damaging the ozone layer?
- jopsen 10y ago
  The question is how many lives were lost due to a damaged ozone layer? (increased risks of skin cancer, etc). The point is that regulation is important. Whether you have good regulation, bad regulation or no regulation it has impact and the discussion is important.
  - cperciva 10y ago
    Right. My point is just that people tend to condemn CFCs based on their costs while completely ignoring the benefits they brought at the time.
    - pyromine 10y ago
      I mean every narrative about the invention of CFCs is basically found a great thing, didn't realize the great thing has downsides.

AllegedWisdom 10y ago

In many cases (the water standard rule was one of them) the bureaucrats are acting on direct orders from Congress. Congress usually passes those laws demanding regulations to be written as a result of people asking the government to 'do something' about a problem that harmed an identifiable victim. Then the lobbyists get involved. Blaming bureaucrats for those regulations is like blaming coders for what happens after they get told to implement an incoherent design document.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

TuringTest 10y ago

> The faceless bureaucrats in these positions have the ability to destroy livelihood, whole towns, and even industries with the stroke of a pen. And they suffer zero consequences as a result. This is why every regulation should go through a period of public hearings before being approved. Even if they didn't have an economist on board, or she hadn't thought of that problem at the time, it would have been obvious to the people affected by it and could have been corrected in the second draft.

brownbat 10y ago

Yeah, to your point: The EPA was an obstacle for Marc Edwards during the DC water crisis, but then was one of his biggest advocates during Flint.[0] Examples like this are common enough. So it surprises me that most ideological debates are about whether government is good or harmful. It's both. There are failure modes both with it and without. Agencies are made up of people, who sometimes do great work and save lives, sometimes learn from past mistakes, and sometimes make new ones that are incredibly costly to society. I guess "We should study the areas where unintended consequences are most likely to dominate and limit government overreach in those areas, but recognize we still have real problems to solve where it might be the best tool for the job, so avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater" doesn't make a great bumper sticker. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edwards_(civil_engineering_professor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edwards_(civil_engineerin...

JamesBarney 10y ago
Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. A gross over simplification of the current party lines would look like this. Libertarians argue that government is always the problem, and never the solution. Conservatives argue that markets rarely fail, and the government is so terrible of a solution that most of the time the cure is worst than the disease. But is useful in some limited cases of market failure. Liberals argue that markets fail pretty often and so we need government a little more often than what conservatives suggest. Of course this ignores the building of the evangelical and populist branches of the Republican party which don't fall as neatly into the abstraction as the old guard business Republicans.
- brownbat 10y ago
  > Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. You can always add more nuance. Ehrenreich had a great piece 20 years ago, "Confessions of a Recovering Statist" with arguments from the left for skepticism of government power. Some people follow that mold and consider themselves liberal-tarians. Some on the right are more hawks, nationalists, or law and order types who prefer strong state institutions. But speaking in broad swaths, the impression that I get is that most people have a pretty shallow understanding of political theory, and go with the simplest heuristic possible. No fault of their own, it doesn't interest them. They have lawns to mow and bills to pay. Given that, a better simplification of the current party lines might not drill down into subfactions of parties, but to capture most people, you could get away with something like "I'm on team red" vs. "I'm on team blue." Short of that, I'm not convinced pro-G / anti-G is that bad of a model for most people though.