5 ms·
> The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. From documents I've seen (which I cannot find the links to now), it appears that the FAA let Boei
by cyberferret 8y ago
> The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this.
From documents I've seen (which I cannot find the links to now), it appears that the FAA let Boeing themselves do some of the certification work and sign offs.
Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, so to speak.
- nawtacawp 8y agoIf I recall, this boiled down to the FAA not having engineers who could properly test these systems.
- bonestamp2 8y agoAnd now whistleblowers have said that Boeing didn't have properly trained people to handle it either.
- BurningFrog 8y agoIt's called Regulatory Capture, and it happens to all regulatory agencies sooner or later. They become primarily concerned with the interests of the companies they're regulating, rather than the public interest they're in theory tasked with working for. Unfortunately, that is just how a regulated society works.
- objektif 8y agoHow do you arrive at such a conclusion? Have you researched regulatory agencies in EU? For example they just blocked a meeger between two massive train manufacturer. Your argument sounds like a weak libertarian talking point.
- testpostpls 8y agoI owned a Volkswagen. Why wouldn’t regulatory capture be a thing everywhere?
- objektif 8y agoWhy is corruption in some countries is more than others? I dont know the answer but it is.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoIf anything corruption seems more common in countries with fewer regulations, if anything (not that I have any data to back this up).
- BurningFrog 8y agoMany - not all, but perhaps most - of those who get corrupted are regulators. So without regulations, there are fewer people to corrupt.
- nikofeyn 8y agoregulatory capture is an event, threshold, inflection point, or whatever else you want to call it. it isn’t something that just poofs into existence as soon as a regulatory body is created. however, it does seem to be an end state or at least an evolutionary state of many agencies. for example, the faa in this case or the fcc. just because a regulatory agency did its job by protecting the pulic’s interest doesn’t mean it will always work that way. so your example doesn’t negate the existence of regulatory capture, which is an actual thing and not some political propaganda.
- objektif 8y agoMy point is reverse also holds true just because some regulatory agencies was taken over or was allowed to be taken over corporations doe not mean that it is the end state of some sorts. Whe it becomes political propoganda is when you accept that it is the inevitable end state.
- BurningFrog 8y agoIt's not something I've dreamed up personally. Economists have done a lot of work in this area (Public Choice Theory) in the last 60 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice Of course, my post above is sharpened and overgeneralized to fit in an online forum. There are more nuances. A current example in the news is Facebook asking congress to be regulated. This makes little sense from a conventional perspective. From the Regulatory Capture perspective it's an obvious play. Government regulation will be very costly to comply with, and only FB and a few other giants will be able to afford it, thus cementing FBs monopoly position for the foreseeable future. https://www.insidesources.com/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-asks-for-more-regulation-but-is-he-genuine/ https://www.insidesources.com/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-asks...
- objektif 8y agoIt sounds like you are dreaming of it tough. To make such a strong statement. It is like saying all corporations end up like Theranos or Enron eventually. Economists do a lot of research and disagree with each other violently. So I will not take your links as any proof that regulatory capture is an inevitable end. Yes it is concerning that it happens but there is absolutely no reason to believe it is the fate of all.
- BurningFrog 8y agoEconomists don't disagree on most things, but people who don't like to adjust their beliefs according to Economic science often like to think that. To be fair, Public Choice theory is certainly on the more controversial half of the subfields. And of course you shouldn't blindly take some random post on this forum as complete proof of how the world works. That would be a foolish gullibility. Then again, completely rejecting it isn't the wisest thing either. At least that's my view :)
- ionised 8y ago'Economic science'? When has economics ever been a science?
- dredmorbius 8y agoRegulatoy capture is a prblem, but not an inevitable one. Private enterprise has an analogue: principle-agent problem.
- mnm1 8y agoThis is deregulation in action. This is what people clamor for when they say they want "small government." This is in no way a fringe position. It is deliberate and desired by an entire political party in the US. And it's hardly limited to the FAA. The meat and coal industries are just some other examples of this deregulation in action. People die and will die because of this philosophy. It may not be as dramatic in other industries as it is in aviation, but death is death. We should remember that when politicians and their supporters start throwing about phrases like "deregulation" and "small government." This kind of tragedy is what those phrases mean.