4 ms·
No where, regardless if you think they are talented or not, clearly they are even if people don’t value that specific skill set they. They have a unique experi
by dogma1138 6y ago
No where, regardless if you think they are talented or not, clearly they are even if people don’t value that specific skill set they.
They have a unique experience that can’t be gained elsewhere, you can’t regulate an industry you don’t understand and you can’t understand the financial industry without working in it.
So people move back and forth between legislators/regulators and compliance/lobbying.
The only solution is to pay them more but not only it’s not possible it’s also not going to solve anything sometimes people just get bored and want to switch roles.
Cooldown periods might help but only a bit as you can’t generally prevent people from gaining employment and if you refuse to hire anyone who has had recent job experience in the financial industry your regulation would be ineffective.
- munk-a 6y agoI'm not certain what the precise solution is but what we have now isn't working. Remember that Standard Oil was broken up as a monopoly back in the day - the fact that it grew so large before action was taken isn't great but even once it had nearly unlimited lobbying strength the US still overcame it and managed to break it up - same with Bell. Industry experts will be in the pool of potential regulators - but that regulatory position used to be stable and lucrative enough to be the final destination as opposed to a stepping stone where scratching a few backs by relaxing some regulations could land you a future cushy job.
- PeterStuer 6y agoYou can not outpay greed. Cooldown periods might have helped if it were not for the simple fact that many of the position offered to past officials are in fact very well compensated board:committee seats that require very little activity. The implicit assumption by both parties is this is for services rendered during office.