3 ms·
Your (very naive sounding and almost certainly wrong) assumption here is that Danielson wrote this law without ever sourcing input from people who do understand
by joshuamorton 5y ago
Your (very naive sounding and almost certainly wrong) assumption here is that Danielson wrote this law without ever sourcing input from people who do understand the market. Generally speaking, that's how politics works. She may ultimately have sided with experts who disagree with you about how the market will/would/should function (as I'm sure some do), but like the idea that she sat down and typed out this bill is ridiculous.
If you applied this ideal generally, you get a really counterintuitive legislative system ("you must elect a medical doctor before any laws regarding medicine can be passed", "only Google and Facebook and Amazon are experts in consumer advertising, so only elected ex-employees can propose consumer privacy legislation"), so it's probably not a very good one.
- sokoloff 5y ago> Generally speaking, that's how politics works. Based on many of the outputs of the system, I can believe that. However, based on context of your post, I think you intended to include a negating word in that sentence.