5 ms·

The state of regulatory capture in this country makes corrupt Latin American dictatorships look like bastions of ethics and accountability by comparison. edit:

The state of regulatory capture in this country makes corrupt Latin American dictatorships look like bastions of ethics and accountability by comparison. edit: Downvote away. At least in Latin America, everyone accepted the corruption was going on. Here we pretend the revolving door between policy enforcement and well-paid private sector jobs in the enforced-upon industries is totally fine and not at all subject to conflicts of interest. Fuck, man, one of the people who approved the NBC/Comcast acquisition later took a very cushy job with... Well, I'll leave it to you to guess. Spoiler: she didn't join a consumer advocacy nonprofit.

Spyro7 15y ago
I didn't down-vote you (I think that its lame to ninja down-vote - it defeats the purpose of conversation), but I think that your initial comment was just a bit hyperbolic. I disagree with your edit too though. Who here in the US is pretending that there is no revolving door? I don't think that anyone is ignoring the problem. I just think that most ordinary people are completely ignorant of the problem. Big media has very little interest in reporting on the extent of the problem (for obvious reasons), and most people don't read the kind of news sites that discuss the issue openly. For most ordinary people, the issue isn't ignored so much as it is out of site, out of mind. The problem is that ordinary people make up the majority of the population. It is a real problem, even when the revolving door is a huge issue[1] it is hard to keep the interest of the general public. The general public is kind of like my cat; intent on stalking something for a few seconds then off scampering around after the latest amusements. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html
- danilocampos 15y ago
  > I don't think that anyone is ignoring the problem. I just think that most ordinary people are completely ignorant of the problem. This is fair – but I've honestly heard apologia for the issue by people who believe this is acceptable. "Only insiders understand the issues at play!" goes the cry. The ignorance is ever more damning, I suppose. Which is more ripe for corruption – apathy or ignorance? Apathy strikes me as the much more mutable of the two. If people know nothing about the potential for corruption, it spreads unchecked. Whether the American people are too lazy or too ignorant, the result is the same. An enormous power can be hijacked by anyone with a big enough bank account.
  - Spyro7 15y ago
    Thinking about the issue some more - maybe I was wrong to disagree with your edited initial comment. I really do think that the American public is both apathetic and ignorant, and the majority of the country's current problems derive from these failings. They are apathetic, but they are not apathetic towards any specific issue. No, they are apathetic to anything that would seem to distract them from the normal course of their daily schedule. I do not think that it would be difficult for "ordinary" people to take a few minutes and become informed about what is going on. If I know, you know, and (probably) most of the people on Hacker News know - well, it can't be impossible to find out. I think that, well, most people content themselves that party affiliation and straight-ticket voting are all that is necessary to ensure a functioning democracy. It just seems strange to me, that in a country where so many people pride themselves on being patriotic, there is so little intellectual curiosity with regards to how it functions. The tyranny of the majority is usually used to refer to the potential for the opinion of the many to disenfranchise the rights of the few. I wonder if there is something more insidious than this though. What could be the side effects of the self-selected nonchalance of the many? I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss. How do you get the majority of people to be interested in something that does not provide immediate economic benefits (without resorting to indoctrination)?
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      > I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss. I raise my glass to you, as we've arrived to the same place. I don't know, either. The old trope goes that we get the government we deserve. And here it sits. It makes me so angry and frustrated because it's one problem I can identify regularly in my world that I am powerless to address. The issues are too large, too systemic, and too self-perpetuating. Another trope: to enslave a man, convince him he is free. Fearing a powerful government, ours was too feeble to prevent the rise of corporate power with influence on all, accountable to none. I fear something must break first. I'm sadly reminded of Brave New World – everyone doped up on whatever meager pleasures they've been convinced matter. Until people lose their cable TV, their Doritos, their strip mall shopping centers, they can get fucked but still convince themselves of their prosperity. And perhaps they have it, relative to history, and relative to the rest of the world. But at what cost? How many choices are no longer theirs? How much information can they no longer trust? How much of their potential is capped because of opportunities denied to them by corporate interest?
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  "ignorant" and "ignoring" are different forms of the same word ("ignore"). One describes a person that regularly ignores something ("ignorant") and the other describes the act of ignore ("ignoring"). So, to say that people aren't ignoring the issue, they're just ignorant, is the same thing. Perhaps you mean that people aren't aware of the issue. This is closely related to being ignorant, as one who is paying attention (i.e., not ignoring things) will realize the problem fairly early, but not quite the same. Well, people aren't aware because they choose to ignore important matters for trivial distraction. When it boils down to it, the blame for any long-standing regime can only be placed on the populous that lives under its control. Kings and sovereigns cannot govern without at least the implicit consent of obedience from their subjects. We can make excuses but it isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to become serious about the issues in our government and move to correct them, with the knowledge that people do not sacrifice the tokens of earthly prominence easily.
  - sorbus 15y ago
    > "ignorant" and "ignoring" are different forms of the same word ("ignore"). One describes a person that regularly ignores something ("ignorant") and the other describes the act of ignore ("ignoring"). So, to say that people aren't ignoring the issue, they're just ignorant, is the same thing. "Ignorant" means "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated" not "a person that regularly ignores something" - ignorance has nothing to do with ignoring things. Seriously, if you're going to try to make an argument that hinges on definitions, at least make the effort of checking if the definitions you're claiming are correct or not.
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      Dictionaries are just some pencil pusher's opinion. ;)
      - sorbus 15y ago
        Very true. However, they're also a very useful way to make sure that we're all using the same definitions. Since, as you can see, when we have our own definitions we get into long arguments about which one is correct or not, and we try to use our own definitions to refute people who are using different definitions. It becomes quite confusing. Anyways, it's seems pretty clear (to me, at least!) that Spyro7 was using "Ignore" to mean something like "push out of mind, actively suppress the knowledge of" and "Ignorant" to mean "not aware of, not knowledgeable of", which are the common usages, at least in my experience. That also fits the classic difference between ignorance and stupidity - ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is refusing to know something (or at least refusing to act on the knowledge). You can have the last word, if you want. Either way, enjoy the Perseids - watching meteor showers is probably a better use of time than arguing, no matter how fun it can be. EDIT: Corrected overuse of the word "Anyways".

Spyro7 15y ago

I didn't down-vote you (I think that its lame to ninja down-vote - it defeats the purpose of conversation), but I think that your initial comment was just a bit hyperbolic. I disagree with your edit too though. Who here in the US is pretending that there is no revolving door? I don't think that anyone is ignoring the problem. I just think that most ordinary people are completely ignorant of the problem. Big media has very little interest in reporting on the extent of the problem (for obvious reasons), and most people don't read the kind of news sites that discuss the issue openly. For most ordinary people, the issue isn't ignored so much as it is out of site, out of mind. The problem is that ordinary people make up the majority of the population. It is a real problem, even when the revolving door is a huge issue[1] it is hard to keep the interest of the general public. The general public is kind of like my cat; intent on stalking something for a few seconds then off scampering around after the latest amusements. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html

danilocampos 15y ago
> I don't think that anyone is ignoring the problem. I just think that most ordinary people are completely ignorant of the problem. This is fair – but I've honestly heard apologia for the issue by people who believe this is acceptable. "Only insiders understand the issues at play!" goes the cry. The ignorance is ever more damning, I suppose. Which is more ripe for corruption – apathy or ignorance? Apathy strikes me as the much more mutable of the two. If people know nothing about the potential for corruption, it spreads unchecked. Whether the American people are too lazy or too ignorant, the result is the same. An enormous power can be hijacked by anyone with a big enough bank account.
- Spyro7 15y ago
  Thinking about the issue some more - maybe I was wrong to disagree with your edited initial comment. I really do think that the American public is both apathetic and ignorant, and the majority of the country's current problems derive from these failings. They are apathetic, but they are not apathetic towards any specific issue. No, they are apathetic to anything that would seem to distract them from the normal course of their daily schedule. I do not think that it would be difficult for "ordinary" people to take a few minutes and become informed about what is going on. If I know, you know, and (probably) most of the people on Hacker News know - well, it can't be impossible to find out. I think that, well, most people content themselves that party affiliation and straight-ticket voting are all that is necessary to ensure a functioning democracy. It just seems strange to me, that in a country where so many people pride themselves on being patriotic, there is so little intellectual curiosity with regards to how it functions. The tyranny of the majority is usually used to refer to the potential for the opinion of the many to disenfranchise the rights of the few. I wonder if there is something more insidious than this though. What could be the side effects of the self-selected nonchalance of the many? I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss. How do you get the majority of people to be interested in something that does not provide immediate economic benefits (without resorting to indoctrination)?
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    > I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss. I raise my glass to you, as we've arrived to the same place. I don't know, either. The old trope goes that we get the government we deserve. And here it sits. It makes me so angry and frustrated because it's one problem I can identify regularly in my world that I am powerless to address. The issues are too large, too systemic, and too self-perpetuating. Another trope: to enslave a man, convince him he is free. Fearing a powerful government, ours was too feeble to prevent the rise of corporate power with influence on all, accountable to none. I fear something must break first. I'm sadly reminded of Brave New World – everyone doped up on whatever meager pleasures they've been convinced matter. Until people lose their cable TV, their Doritos, their strip mall shopping centers, they can get fucked but still convince themselves of their prosperity. And perhaps they have it, relative to history, and relative to the rest of the world. But at what cost? How many choices are no longer theirs? How much information can they no longer trust? How much of their potential is capped because of opportunities denied to them by corporate interest?
cookiecaper 15y ago
"ignorant" and "ignoring" are different forms of the same word ("ignore"). One describes a person that regularly ignores something ("ignorant") and the other describes the act of ignore ("ignoring"). So, to say that people aren't ignoring the issue, they're just ignorant, is the same thing. Perhaps you mean that people aren't aware of the issue. This is closely related to being ignorant, as one who is paying attention (i.e., not ignoring things) will realize the problem fairly early, but not quite the same. Well, people aren't aware because they choose to ignore important matters for trivial distraction. When it boils down to it, the blame for any long-standing regime can only be placed on the populous that lives under its control. Kings and sovereigns cannot govern without at least the implicit consent of obedience from their subjects. We can make excuses but it isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to become serious about the issues in our government and move to correct them, with the knowledge that people do not sacrifice the tokens of earthly prominence easily.
- sorbus 15y ago
  > "ignorant" and "ignoring" are different forms of the same word ("ignore"). One describes a person that regularly ignores something ("ignorant") and the other describes the act of ignore ("ignoring"). So, to say that people aren't ignoring the issue, they're just ignorant, is the same thing. "Ignorant" means "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated" not "a person that regularly ignores something" - ignorance has nothing to do with ignoring things. Seriously, if you're going to try to make an argument that hinges on definitions, at least make the effort of checking if the definitions you're claiming are correct or not.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    Dictionaries are just some pencil pusher's opinion. ;)
    - sorbus 15y ago
      Very true. However, they're also a very useful way to make sure that we're all using the same definitions. Since, as you can see, when we have our own definitions we get into long arguments about which one is correct or not, and we try to use our own definitions to refute people who are using different definitions. It becomes quite confusing. Anyways, it's seems pretty clear (to me, at least!) that Spyro7 was using "Ignore" to mean something like "push out of mind, actively suppress the knowledge of" and "Ignorant" to mean "not aware of, not knowledgeable of", which are the common usages, at least in my experience. That also fits the classic difference between ignorance and stupidity - ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is refusing to know something (or at least refusing to act on the knowledge). You can have the last word, if you want. Either way, enjoy the Perseids - watching meteor showers is probably a better use of time than arguing, no matter how fun it can be. EDIT: Corrected overuse of the word "Anyways".