4 ms·

That's not a good idea. The alternative is having regulations written by people who have no idea what they are regulating, which is the whole problem. You can

That's not a good idea. The alternative is having regulations written by people who have no idea what they are regulating, which is the whole problem. You can eliminate conflicts of interest via financial disclosures etc, without eliminating competence.

basseq 10y ago
I agree with you, but is this also a symptom of another problem? I'm thinking about it in the government-to-industry direction, and particularly where compensation is so high for these ex-govvies. Why are these people worth so much? Either because: 1. The regulations are so complex to get around that companies need to pay a premium for that knowledge. (Bad.) 2. The regulations have so many loopholes that I need to hire someone to help me do whatever it is I want to do, but legally. (Bad.) Both of these would appear to favor entrenched players who can afford this talent.
- grigjd3 10y ago
  People who used to be in government know the levers of power.
r00fus 10y ago
So you either choose a potentially adversarial actor who knows exactly what they're doing, or someone who has to figure stuff out but has not vested interest? For the past two Presidential elections where the incumbent was term-limited, we've chosen the outsider candidate twice. If these positions weren't appointed but elected - one could assume that the outsider would be preferred. If conflicts of interest could be eliminated (I'd say reduced) via financial disclosures, why aren't they happening? I can name several appointees in the current and past 2 administrations that had conflicts of interest.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Frondo 10y ago
"You can eliminate conflicts of interest via financial disclosures etc, ..." No, you can expose conflicts of interest that way, but merely disclosing who's on whose payroll does not actually eliminate any conflict of interest. And it's a false dichotomy that you either get industry insiders or "people who have no idea what they are regulating".

basseq 10y ago

I agree with you, but is this also a symptom of another problem? I'm thinking about it in the government-to-industry direction, and particularly where compensation is so high for these ex-govvies. Why are these people worth so much? Either because: 1. The regulations are so complex to get around that companies need to pay a premium for that knowledge. (Bad.) 2. The regulations have so many loopholes that I need to hire someone to help me do whatever it is I want to do, but legally. (Bad.) Both of these would appear to favor entrenched players who can afford this talent.

grigjd3 10y ago
People who used to be in government know the levers of power.

r00fus 10y ago

So you either choose a potentially adversarial actor who knows exactly what they're doing, or someone who has to figure stuff out but has not vested interest? For the past two Presidential elections where the incumbent was term-limited, we've chosen the outsider candidate twice. If these positions weren't appointed but elected - one could assume that the outsider would be preferred. If conflicts of interest could be eliminated (I'd say reduced) via financial disclosures, why aren't they happening? I can name several appointees in the current and past 2 administrations that had conflicts of interest.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Frondo 10y ago

"You can eliminate conflicts of interest via financial disclosures etc, ..." No, you can expose conflicts of interest that way, but merely disclosing who's on whose payroll does not actually eliminate any conflict of interest. And it's a false dichotomy that you either get industry insiders or "people who have no idea what they are regulating".