5 ms·
We had 8 years of Republicans curbing back regulatory oversight, increasing regulatory capture. The sitting President won on "draining the swamp" and proceeded
by cannonedhamster 8y ago
We had 8 years of Republicans curbing back regulatory oversight, increasing regulatory capture. The sitting President won on "draining the swamp" and proceeded to hire lobbyists to his staff because "they know how the system works" and yet there's been only further deregulation and destruction of government entities. If Americans want it to stop they will stop voting for people who literally base their party platform on destroying government oversight. There was literally an article yesterday about how when the IRS went after the wealthy for tax evasion, their budget was cut by Congress. The solution to this is a political one. Vote in people who believe differently if you want different outcomes. Otherwise quit complaining, you've got the government the people voted for.
- xfitm3 8y agoCan you not make this a political party issue?
- duxup 8y agoI'm not going to get into the details of his theory, but if he believes it is a political party issue, then he's not "making" it one.
- taeric 8y agoI have no doubt that democrats can and will do some stupid crap. Evidence is pretty heavy on the republicans being the main party pushing through this kind of policy for the relevant part of history. Now, if you don't think regulatory rollback is to blame, that is a different thing. Attack that. Attacking the detail that republicans have been the main ones rolling back? That is actually making it unnecessarily partisan. I say that as someone that agrees that the point is stronger without bringing up who did it.
- BeetleB 8y ago>We had 8 years of Republicans curbing back regulatory oversight What about the 8 years before that? Clinton did a fair amount of deregulation, and holds more of the blame for the financial meltdown: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288...
- mirimir 8y agoThat's because he was really a Republican, and just pretended to be a Democrat.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- steve76 8y agoBoeing gets 700 billion a year from the US Government, and they have permission to shoot a particle beam in orbit for missile defense. You will be much better served looking inward. Stop all the obvious signs of uncultured ignorance in your life, learn what they are doing, and you build.
- tengbretson 8y agoIf I were to increase regulatory capture while cutting back regulations how exactly would I do that?
- whatshisface 8y agoCut the good regulations, keep the bad ones.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago"subject to approval by $DEPARTMENT on the basis of $VAGUE_SUBJECTIVE_CRITERIA"
- wahern 8y agoEPA is a good example, but in any event regulatory capture doesn't imply more regulation, it's just descriptive about the manner in which a regulator behaves institutionally.
- mirimir 8y agoHuh? Regulatory capture (i.e., capture by whatever's being regulated) and cutting back regulations both have the same effect: weaker regulation.
- chris_t 8y agoSadly it is often not so simple. Complex regulations can advantage large incumbent firms by making it harder for newer entrants to their markets.
- Zarath 8y agoAjit Pai: Regulatory capture by serving corporate interests and destroying net neutrality. Also Ajit Pai: Destroy net neutrality, which was seen as a "regulation" in the way of a free market.
- mvc 8y agoI don't have an MBA but I imagine it involves hiring a few of the folks who currently regulate your operations while leaning on your political friends to cut regulation funding and spinning up an "independent" company prepared to shoulder the regulatory burden for a fraction of the cost. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/boeing-faa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/boeing-faa.ht...
- AntiTechTechie 8y agoImagine thinking that you could vote out the corruption in U.S. politics...