5 ms·

This is what fuels the revolving door. Regulations create a class of workers with previous experience in the regulatory and political system, that fetch an acce

This is what fuels the revolving door. Regulations create a class of workers with previous experience in the regulatory and political system, that fetch an access premium. Another example of this is members of Congress who become lobbyists seeing an average increase of 1,500% in their salary upon the career change.

bob_theslob646 9y ago
It should not be allowed.
nosuchthing 9y ago
Safeguards are put in place because people are prone to malice, fraud, violence, and financial fuckups in the past. Mandate penalties if insiders are abusing their responsibilities and hold people accountable.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>Safeguards are put in place because people are prone to malice, fraud, violence, and financial fuckups in the past. There's a difference between lawlessness and not having regulations that limit the range of contracts people are allowed to enter into. I'm not suggesting we should get rid of laws prohibiting violence, fraud, etc. I'm suggesting we should never violate the freedom to contract. >>Mandate penalties if insiders are abusing their responsibilities and hold people accountable. Yes we need to create a new regulatory agency that enforces these mandates. But then those who have worked in that agency will fetch a high price in the private sector. There is rampant exploitation of insider knowledge in Wall Street: https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21736561-one-study-suggests-insiders-profited-even-global-financial-crisis-another https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2173656... >>The paper examines conduct at 497 financial institutions between 2005 and 2011, paying particular attention to individuals who had previously worked in the federal government, in institutions including the Federal Reserve. In the two years prior to the TARP, these people’s trading gave no evidence of unusual insight. But in the nine months after the TARP was announced, they achieved particularly good results. The paper concludes that “politically connected insiders had a significant information advantage during the crisis and traded to exploit this advantage.” There is no practical way to police this. The only solution is to avoid measures that centralize control of the economy, chief among them government intervention in the market place.
rayiner 9y ago
Consider a different example: someone participates in adding threading to the C++ standard. They then get hired at a development tools company to help implement the standard. Anything unseemly there? Your characterization rests on the premise that the regulations are a priori negative. If you start from the premise that the regulations are good things, then there isn’t necessarily anything wrong or inconsistent about someone saying “I’m going to help create these rules which I think will be good for the industry” and “now I’m going to help companies implement and follow these rules.” I’m pretty skeptical of regulation myself so I can see where you’re coming from. I personally think we should let crypto currencies be complete anarchy as an experiment. But crypto currencies are a good illustration of how regulation and regulators arise naturally. Big bad government doesn’t come in and start regulating things people never complained about. First people lose a lot of money. Second, the industry welcomes some level of regulation, in order to reestablish trust with consumers that might otherwise be scared off. Third, regulation gets implemented on the premise that its good for both consumers and for the industry, because it allows the industry to overcome trust barriers.
- marnett 9y ago
  The typical practice of U.S. regulatory agencies is "I'm going to stall all efforts of change and push to repeal previously instated regulations." Then they go and get a massive salaried position at a firm they helped make more profitable - this is inherently bad, and this strategy is happening in nearly every regulatory agency under the current administration.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Well that’s the opposite of the scenario we’re talking about here, right? And I don’t think what you’re talking about is “inherently bad” either. Most deregulatory types also genuinely believe that deregulation will benefit consumers and the industry alike. If you participated in airline deregulation decades ago, and then went to go work for FedEx, whose business model was made possible by that deregulation, would that be bad? Even though deregulation massively reduced prices for consumers and helped foster the rise of near instant shipping and companies like Amazon who depend on it?

bob_theslob646 9y ago

It should not be allowed.

nosuchthing 9y ago

Safeguards are put in place because people are prone to malice, fraud, violence, and financial fuckups in the past. Mandate penalties if insiders are abusing their responsibilities and hold people accountable.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>Safeguards are put in place because people are prone to malice, fraud, violence, and financial fuckups in the past. There's a difference between lawlessness and not having regulations that limit the range of contracts people are allowed to enter into. I'm not suggesting we should get rid of laws prohibiting violence, fraud, etc. I'm suggesting we should never violate the freedom to contract. >>Mandate penalties if insiders are abusing their responsibilities and hold people accountable. Yes we need to create a new regulatory agency that enforces these mandates. But then those who have worked in that agency will fetch a high price in the private sector. There is rampant exploitation of insider knowledge in Wall Street: https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21736561-one-study-suggests-insiders-profited-even-global-financial-crisis-another https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2173656... >>The paper examines conduct at 497 financial institutions between 2005 and 2011, paying particular attention to individuals who had previously worked in the federal government, in institutions including the Federal Reserve. In the two years prior to the TARP, these people’s trading gave no evidence of unusual insight. But in the nine months after the TARP was announced, they achieved particularly good results. The paper concludes that “politically connected insiders had a significant information advantage during the crisis and traded to exploit this advantage.” There is no practical way to police this. The only solution is to avoid measures that centralize control of the economy, chief among them government intervention in the market place.

rayiner 9y ago

Consider a different example: someone participates in adding threading to the C++ standard. They then get hired at a development tools company to help implement the standard. Anything unseemly there? Your characterization rests on the premise that the regulations are a priori negative. If you start from the premise that the regulations are good things, then there isn’t necessarily anything wrong or inconsistent about someone saying “I’m going to help create these rules which I think will be good for the industry” and “now I’m going to help companies implement and follow these rules.” I’m pretty skeptical of regulation myself so I can see where you’re coming from. I personally think we should let crypto currencies be complete anarchy as an experiment. But crypto currencies are a good illustration of how regulation and regulators arise naturally. Big bad government doesn’t come in and start regulating things people never complained about. First people lose a lot of money. Second, the industry welcomes some level of regulation, in order to reestablish trust with consumers that might otherwise be scared off. Third, regulation gets implemented on the premise that its good for both consumers and for the industry, because it allows the industry to overcome trust barriers.

marnett 9y ago
The typical practice of U.S. regulatory agencies is "I'm going to stall all efforts of change and push to repeal previously instated regulations." Then they go and get a massive salaried position at a firm they helped make more profitable - this is inherently bad, and this strategy is happening in nearly every regulatory agency under the current administration.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Well that’s the opposite of the scenario we’re talking about here, right? And I don’t think what you’re talking about is “inherently bad” either. Most deregulatory types also genuinely believe that deregulation will benefit consumers and the industry alike. If you participated in airline deregulation decades ago, and then went to go work for FedEx, whose business model was made possible by that deregulation, would that be bad? Even though deregulation massively reduced prices for consumers and helped foster the rise of near instant shipping and companies like Amazon who depend on it?