4 ms·

The power is checked by the voters, and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their part

by hnruss 6y ago

The power is checked by the voters, and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their party in power.

jimbob45 6y ago
??? I’m not sure that party affiliation has anything to do with the level of corruption. I would imagine that corruption tracks far more closely to regional GDP - more money, more backroom deals.
- hnruss 6y ago
  I agree that more money probably means more backroom deals. This seems simple to me: One party wants to regulate, the other de-regulate. Which of those platforms attracts the most money?
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Deregulate the environment and you will be drinking polluted water, and breathing polluted air. Your food will be likely exposed to pollution too. Deregulate labor and you'll have exploited workers working 100 hours per week, being constantly harassed by their employers, people being discriminated at the workplace, as well as people exposed to poor safety conditions where they can get injured or killed. Deregulate consumer rights and now anyone can scam you and sell you something that doesn't work with no right to a refund. Deregulate restaurants and now noone is liable if you end up with food poisoining or die from allergies due to poor hygiene and bad practices. And the list goes on and on. Regulations are not bad. Excessive regulations are bad. The opposite excess, no regulations, is equally bad.
    - hnruss 6y ago
      Yes, and my guess is that there is more money to be made off of deregulation than on regulation. Thus, more corruption related to the party that wants to deregulate.
      - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
        Why are you sure of it? Regulation often gives more backroom deal type of corruption and monopolies, deregulation on the other hand can give more anarchy. I don't think simple view of having one, regulation or deregulation, and itsa good thing is very intelligent thought.
        hnruss 6y ago
        In the states that I have lived, the voter information pamphlet lists who supports and opposes every initiative. Every time that a new regulation on the ballot would benefit the public at the expense of business, it’s always the same: on one side are Republicans and some multi-national corporations, the other side are Democrats and public-interest groups (environmentalists, etc). I don’t think that public-interest groups have as much money for backroom deals as multi-national corporations. So that’s why I’m pretty sure of it.
        refurb 6y ago
        Yet democrats are taking back room bribes to approve new construction. Huh! The regulation enables the corruption. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-public-director-mohammed-nuru-resigns-amid-corruption-scandal/2231324/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-publi...
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Would regulation with transparency be the best of both? Because it seems tax law changes so often and violating it so trivial I doubt it'd be better. IMO those in charge should be forced to drink/breath from whichever area tested most polluted on a regular basis, and as a public event. Once they can no longer hide or pass on the consequences they should take the problems more seriously.
        6y ago
    - refurb 6y ago
      You’re only looking at one side. Regulations can also encourage corruption - if I can’t even open my doors unless I get a permit, well, that’s plenty of incentive for whoever control that permit to ask for something to “sweeten the pie”.
      - hnruss 6y ago
        Is that form of corruption a systemic problem here in the U.S.? I don’t think that it is. On the other hand, campaign contributions are common, legal, and involve large sums of money (especially to PACs). Systemic corruption of elected officials, resulting in de-regulation in order to benefit wealthy shareholders at the expense of the public, is more concerning to me than the possibility of low-level officials seeking bribes.
        refurb 6y ago
        Your logic only makes sense if you equate legal fundraising to back room, illegal corruption. To me, someone funding raising through a legal, transparent PAC might not be desirable, but it’s far less insidious than backroom dealings that pervert the rule of law.
        hnruss 6y ago
        I’m suspicious of any large transfer of wealth from an individual or organization to a politician, whether that’s through campaign donations or some other means. It seems strange not to take the next logical step and conclude that there were some backroom dealings, especially if the politician later takes an action that is favorable to the donor.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      Regulation raises the barrier of entry for startups. Fewer startups means less competition. Less competition means less incentive for the incumbents to do "the right thing" in any field, be that hiring, ecological impact, consumer rights and so on. When it comes to the economy, we should legislate and tax externalities. For everything else regulation is uniformly bad.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        OK, fine. Let's remove all forms of regulation, shall we? Someone joins your company and starts leaking all your intellectual property. It is all good, though, because legislation related to that doesn't exist. A developer joins your company, and shortly after uploads your entire code base to github. That's OK due to lack of legislation saying otherwise. A sysadmin changes all the passwords and asks you for a ransom to unlock your production database. That's also OK. Your ISP randomly makes your internet 99% slower and then asks you for an exorbitant amount of money. That's also OK. The accountant forged your signature and stole all the money. That's also OK. Your customers randomly decide to not pay you. That's also OK. Your employees start dismantling the office and taking furniture and equipment home. That's OK. The mailman shows up wearing the company swag you ordered. Doesn't matter anymore. HR people upload a spreadsheet with everyone's personal information and salaries to the Internet. That's OK. Some larger company sends some gangsters to force you to sell the company for a fraction of its price. That's OK. As you can see, saying "regulation is bad" is nonsensical. Without certain guarantees, businesses cannot exist.
        nickpp 6y ago
        I believe you are confused. Nobody is disputing the rule of law (and especially contract law) and the role of government in upholding it. What you are describing is pretty much anarchy and nobody is arguing for that.
        paulryanrogers 6y ago
        I think the distinction between rule of law and regulation is fuzzy. Different people will draw the line in different places, with a heavy bias towards the current system for any given jurisdiction. (Devil you know.)
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > Deregulate consumer rights and now anyone can scam you and sell you something that doesn't work with no right to a refund. Is the right to refund really regulated? Or it's that exact case where competition and market forces do work for the mutual benefit of seller and consumer?
sumedh 6y ago
> and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. So some democrat can make it his core issue to stop corruption and the people can vote for him/her.

by hnruss 6y ago

The power is checked by the voters, and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their party in power.

jimbob45 6y ago

??? I’m not sure that party affiliation has anything to do with the level of corruption. I would imagine that corruption tracks far more closely to regional GDP - more money, more backroom deals.

hnruss 6y ago
I agree that more money probably means more backroom deals. This seems simple to me: One party wants to regulate, the other de-regulate. Which of those platforms attracts the most money?
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Deregulate the environment and you will be drinking polluted water, and breathing polluted air. Your food will be likely exposed to pollution too. Deregulate labor and you'll have exploited workers working 100 hours per week, being constantly harassed by their employers, people being discriminated at the workplace, as well as people exposed to poor safety conditions where they can get injured or killed. Deregulate consumer rights and now anyone can scam you and sell you something that doesn't work with no right to a refund. Deregulate restaurants and now noone is liable if you end up with food poisoining or die from allergies due to poor hygiene and bad practices. And the list goes on and on. Regulations are not bad. Excessive regulations are bad. The opposite excess, no regulations, is equally bad.
  - hnruss 6y ago
    Yes, and my guess is that there is more money to be made off of deregulation than on regulation. Thus, more corruption related to the party that wants to deregulate.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
      Why are you sure of it? Regulation often gives more backroom deal type of corruption and monopolies, deregulation on the other hand can give more anarchy. I don't think simple view of having one, regulation or deregulation, and itsa good thing is very intelligent thought.
      - hnruss 6y ago
        In the states that I have lived, the voter information pamphlet lists who supports and opposes every initiative. Every time that a new regulation on the ballot would benefit the public at the expense of business, it’s always the same: on one side are Republicans and some multi-national corporations, the other side are Democrats and public-interest groups (environmentalists, etc). I don’t think that public-interest groups have as much money for backroom deals as multi-national corporations. So that’s why I’m pretty sure of it.
        refurb 6y ago
        Yet democrats are taking back room bribes to approve new construction. Huh! The regulation enables the corruption. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-public-director-mohammed-nuru-resigns-amid-corruption-scandal/2231324/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-publi...
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Would regulation with transparency be the best of both? Because it seems tax law changes so often and violating it so trivial I doubt it'd be better. IMO those in charge should be forced to drink/breath from whichever area tested most polluted on a regular basis, and as a public event. Once they can no longer hide or pass on the consequences they should take the problems more seriously.
        6y ago
  - refurb 6y ago
    You’re only looking at one side. Regulations can also encourage corruption - if I can’t even open my doors unless I get a permit, well, that’s plenty of incentive for whoever control that permit to ask for something to “sweeten the pie”.
    - hnruss 6y ago
      Is that form of corruption a systemic problem here in the U.S.? I don’t think that it is. On the other hand, campaign contributions are common, legal, and involve large sums of money (especially to PACs). Systemic corruption of elected officials, resulting in de-regulation in order to benefit wealthy shareholders at the expense of the public, is more concerning to me than the possibility of low-level officials seeking bribes.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Your logic only makes sense if you equate legal fundraising to back room, illegal corruption. To me, someone funding raising through a legal, transparent PAC might not be desirable, but it’s far less insidious than backroom dealings that pervert the rule of law.
        hnruss 6y ago
        I’m suspicious of any large transfer of wealth from an individual or organization to a politician, whether that’s through campaign donations or some other means. It seems strange not to take the next logical step and conclude that there were some backroom dealings, especially if the politician later takes an action that is favorable to the donor.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Regulation raises the barrier of entry for startups. Fewer startups means less competition. Less competition means less incentive for the incumbents to do "the right thing" in any field, be that hiring, ecological impact, consumer rights and so on. When it comes to the economy, we should legislate and tax externalities. For everything else regulation is uniformly bad.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      OK, fine. Let's remove all forms of regulation, shall we? Someone joins your company and starts leaking all your intellectual property. It is all good, though, because legislation related to that doesn't exist. A developer joins your company, and shortly after uploads your entire code base to github. That's OK due to lack of legislation saying otherwise. A sysadmin changes all the passwords and asks you for a ransom to unlock your production database. That's also OK. Your ISP randomly makes your internet 99% slower and then asks you for an exorbitant amount of money. That's also OK. The accountant forged your signature and stole all the money. That's also OK. Your customers randomly decide to not pay you. That's also OK. Your employees start dismantling the office and taking furniture and equipment home. That's OK. The mailman shows up wearing the company swag you ordered. Doesn't matter anymore. HR people upload a spreadsheet with everyone's personal information and salaries to the Internet. That's OK. Some larger company sends some gangsters to force you to sell the company for a fraction of its price. That's OK. As you can see, saying "regulation is bad" is nonsensical. Without certain guarantees, businesses cannot exist.
      - nickpp 6y ago
        I believe you are confused. Nobody is disputing the rule of law (and especially contract law) and the role of government in upholding it. What you are describing is pretty much anarchy and nobody is arguing for that.
        paulryanrogers 6y ago
        I think the distinction between rule of law and regulation is fuzzy. Different people will draw the line in different places, with a heavy bias towards the current system for any given jurisdiction. (Devil you know.)
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    > Deregulate consumer rights and now anyone can scam you and sell you something that doesn't work with no right to a refund. Is the right to refund really regulated? Or it's that exact case where competition and market forces do work for the mutual benefit of seller and consumer?

sumedh 6y ago

> and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. So some democrat can make it his core issue to stop corruption and the people can vote for him/her.