6 ms·

Unrelated to the trailer issue, but everyday we should thank our lucky stars that there's no such thing as "stupid private sector bureaucrats exerting their pet

Unrelated to the trailer issue, but everyday we should thank our lucky stars that there's no such thing as "stupid private sector bureaucrats exerting their petty, ignorant power like the Gods they think they are."

ncmncm 5y ago
You appear to be unfamiliar with the phenomenon of oil companies. Or power utilities. PGE is considered directly responsible for >$40B in fire damage in California.
- no-s 5y ago
 PGE is considered directly responsible for >$40B in fire damage in California. That (officially sanctioned) conclusion was in complete disregard of the state and federal gov’t contribution. But I would agree with you that it’s an example of similar phenomena. Probably not for the same reasons. IMHO regulation, the phenomena of regulatory capture, and the implementation of regulatory compliance bureaucracy within PG&E resulted in private sector bureaucrats drunk on power imposing government-supported misfeasance with unintended consequence...With a organization like PG&E it’s difficult to discern the boundary between the state and the corporation. Modern government enthusiasts dream of ways to impose more perfect order using the power of government, not realizing the emergent imperfection is a consequence of such aggrandizement.
 - ncmncm 5y ago
 Regulatory capture operates to eliminate the power of government to enforce responsible behavior in regulated industries. Pretending otherwise is libertarian fantasy absolutely opposite to the objective facts.
 - no-s 5y ago
 Regulatory capture blurs the line between government and industry. There’s no fantasy about it. The power is suborned, not eliminated. However I was pointing out the phenomenon as a precursor to enabling petty corporate bureaucracy empowered with government authority. With respect to your comment, are we supposing regulatory capture is never a responsible corporate behavior? I’m not sure how we must conclude that responsible corporate behavior necessarily follows from and is solely dependent upon the exercise of regulatory power.
 - ncmncm 5y ago
 The rest of us have no reason to follow you on your flight into fantasyland. Have fun there.
 no-s 5y ago
 You had the opportunity to take the high road...I mean, is that all you got? Seriously?
 - ncmncm 5y ago
 OK, let's try again. It is clearly possible, in principle, for a corporation to behave responsibly if its officers really want to and its board permits it. A corporation whose management wants it to do something responsible doesn't need a regulator to tell it that must. They can just do it. What else, then, would lead it to choose to capture a regulator? To force its competitors to behave responsibly too? To force its future self to behave responsibly? Can you identify any single instance of either ever occurring? Whatever may be possible, what we have seen over and over again is, instead, corporations capturing regulators and then hamstringing every effort to enforce any sort of responsible behavior. Automobile manufacturers fought tooth and nail against requirements that they provide seatbelts, and then airbags, and then pollution controls, and then crash safety. Tobacco companies fought tooth and nail against labeling requirements, and restrictions on sales and advertising to children. Boeing management lately had the FAA approve their deathtrap 737-Max, at ultimately ruinous expense to their own stockholders and to airlines suckered into buying them. The least harmful examples I know of have been to raise barriers to entry for their industry by imposing expenses that they, but not new entrants or smaller competitors, could afford, in the form of requirements on reporting, or fabrication materials, or quality standards, or occasionally even restrictions on effluents. We see in many states a Dairy Council that has got itself delegated authority to assess their own taxes, spent then on billboards promoting dairy products, or buying up and destroying "excess" production, invariably favoring the biggest dairies and making smaller ones less competitive. Medical, dental, legal, hairdressing, and other "associations" are allowed to maintain licensing regimes to limit competition that, sometimes, act to establish a minimum required level of competency or education, but more reliably guarantee captive income for schools and exam boards.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
 only by people who don’t understand the science of fires. Fires need three things: fuel, oxygen, heat, and two are effected by humans. Heat: PGE, Lightning, Vehicle fires etc. all statistically provide opportunities for heat. Fuel: There is an order of magnitude more fuel than a century ago.
 - ncmncm 5y ago
 We went decades without PGE systems routinely causing fires. Conditions now are somewhat different, but not that different. The important difference is PGE's maintenance policies. They abandoned that responsibility in order to deliver a dividend. They were ordered to resume, but there is a huge backlog of work.
- CRConrad 5y ago
 Idunno, to me it appeared more like perhaps you were unfamiliar with the phenomenon of sarcasm.

ncmncm 5y ago

You appear to be unfamiliar with the phenomenon of oil companies. Or power utilities. PGE is considered directly responsible for >$40B in fire damage in California.

no-s 5y ago
PGE is considered directly responsible for >$40B in fire damage in California. That (officially sanctioned) conclusion was in complete disregard of the state and federal gov’t contribution. But I would agree with you that it’s an example of similar phenomena. Probably not for the same reasons. IMHO regulation, the phenomena of regulatory capture, and the implementation of regulatory compliance bureaucracy within PG&E resulted in private sector bureaucrats drunk on power imposing government-supported misfeasance with unintended consequence...With a organization like PG&E it’s difficult to discern the boundary between the state and the corporation. Modern government enthusiasts dream of ways to impose more perfect order using the power of government, not realizing the emergent imperfection is a consequence of such aggrandizement.
- ncmncm 5y ago
 Regulatory capture operates to eliminate the power of government to enforce responsible behavior in regulated industries. Pretending otherwise is libertarian fantasy absolutely opposite to the objective facts.
 - no-s 5y ago
 Regulatory capture blurs the line between government and industry. There’s no fantasy about it. The power is suborned, not eliminated. However I was pointing out the phenomenon as a precursor to enabling petty corporate bureaucracy empowered with government authority. With respect to your comment, are we supposing regulatory capture is never a responsible corporate behavior? I’m not sure how we must conclude that responsible corporate behavior necessarily follows from and is solely dependent upon the exercise of regulatory power.
 - ncmncm 5y ago
 The rest of us have no reason to follow you on your flight into fantasyland. Have fun there.
 - no-s 5y ago
 You had the opportunity to take the high road...I mean, is that all you got? Seriously?
 - ncmncm 5y ago
 OK, let's try again. It is clearly possible, in principle, for a corporation to behave responsibly if its officers really want to and its board permits it. A corporation whose management wants it to do something responsible doesn't need a regulator to tell it that must. They can just do it. What else, then, would lead it to choose to capture a regulator? To force its competitors to behave responsibly too? To force its future self to behave responsibly? Can you identify any single instance of either ever occurring? Whatever may be possible, what we have seen over and over again is, instead, corporations capturing regulators and then hamstringing every effort to enforce any sort of responsible behavior. Automobile manufacturers fought tooth and nail against requirements that they provide seatbelts, and then airbags, and then pollution controls, and then crash safety. Tobacco companies fought tooth and nail against labeling requirements, and restrictions on sales and advertising to children. Boeing management lately had the FAA approve their deathtrap 737-Max, at ultimately ruinous expense to their own stockholders and to airlines suckered into buying them. The least harmful examples I know of have been to raise barriers to entry for their industry by imposing expenses that they, but not new entrants or smaller competitors, could afford, in the form of requirements on reporting, or fabrication materials, or quality standards, or occasionally even restrictions on effluents. We see in many states a Dairy Council that has got itself delegated authority to assess their own taxes, spent then on billboards promoting dairy products, or buying up and destroying "excess" production, invariably favoring the biggest dairies and making smaller ones less competitive. Medical, dental, legal, hairdressing, and other "associations" are allowed to maintain licensing regimes to limit competition that, sometimes, act to establish a minimum required level of competency or education, but more reliably guarantee captive income for schools and exam boards.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
only by people who don’t understand the science of fires. Fires need three things: fuel, oxygen, heat, and two are effected by humans. Heat: PGE, Lightning, Vehicle fires etc. all statistically provide opportunities for heat. Fuel: There is an order of magnitude more fuel than a century ago.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We went decades without PGE systems routinely causing fires. Conditions now are somewhat different, but not that different. The important difference is PGE's maintenance policies. They abandoned that responsibility in order to deliver a dividend. They were ordered to resume, but there is a huge backlog of work.
CRConrad 5y ago
Idunno, to me it appeared more like perhaps you were unfamiliar with the phenomenon of sarcasm.