7 ms·

Let's start by making revolving doors illegal.

by zouhair 5y ago

etrautmann 5y ago
Even if this is trolling, I don't understand? who doesn't like revolving doors?
- gurkendoktor 5y ago
  I guess it refers to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
pirate787 5y ago
Revolving doors -- when people work for companies and then that industry's regulators, and back -- are a symptom of the problem. The problem is the government is too large and engages in too many activities that pick winners and losers. The government should be a neutral referee. End corporate subsidies (including regulatory cross-subsidies) and flatten the tax code to reform this area. Also a ban is plainly unconstitutional, people have a right to free speech, free association, and to work for whom they choose.
- jrd259 5y ago
  Certainly they do, but the public also has a right to insist that its servants (regulators, in this case, but also the other branches of government) be free of conflict of interest. In the particular case, they should not hire directly from the very industry they regulate. Ensuring that the regulators have expertise will be a problem, but at least no conflict of interest
  - anthonygd 5y ago
    > In the particular case, they should not hire directly from the very industry they regulate. Ensuring that the regulators have expertise will be a problem, but at least no conflict of interest That feels like trading a problem for an even bigger problem. Everyone has greed but not everyone has competence. The world is in desperate need of more competence. Greed isn't necessarily a problem as long as it's regulated e.g., most people want nice stuff but don't burglarize their neighbors. We all have conflicts of interest.
    - zouhair 5y ago
      You don't need to be part of an industry to say if their product is safe for humans.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Profoundly disagree. If you have worked in an industry for a few years, you have internalized its rules and logic. An outside perspective is valuable. Technicalities rarely stops people from achieving a goal and it is the second step. You want competence for strategically sound decisions to achieve a goal, but setting it should be done with input of people that have not been groomed that advertising is a human necessity.
      - anthonygd 5y ago
        We might be talking about different things then. Or maybe not. You want people in government making long term strategic decisions that steer society. They should be listening to the will of the people as to what direction to steer it. I hope we can agree on that much. I think people forget that "regulators" though are really just large organizations that enforce/interpret laws. The obvious example is the SEC; it has 4200 employees and none of them create laws, their rules are an effort to enforce the laws created by congress using their technical competence in finance. > You want competence for strategically sound decisions to achieve a goal, but setting it should be done with input of people that have not been groomed that advertising is a human necessity. That's the world we live in. Congress has been completely incompetent when it comes to regulating finance and I'd expect them to be even worse when it comes to technology. There absolutely has to be a layer of industry specific competence (from "insiders") to make any sense of industry specific laws. I don't want insiders choosing direction though; I want congress to be less reprehensible idiots.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  The idea of making the government smaller is pretty much dead politically. The idea of choosing to inflict even small amounts of economic pain in order to correct gross social and political ills is too much for people. That boat has sailed. Those who aren't financially incentivized to push for ever more monetary easing are politically incentivized to push for it. We were one vote away from another $2 trillion of government spending and tomorrow the Fed is having an emergency meeting to address inflation. Like pouring gas on the fire while the fire department sets up the hoses.
- mushbino 5y ago
  So instead of banning revolving doors we should have fewer regulations on them? That somehow fixes the problem? Maybe allowing private money and politics to mix at all is the problem.
  - zouhair 5y ago
    That's what actually happened with the FDA literally. The oxycodon debacle happened because the funding of the FDA went from being public to private. Companies wanting a permit for some drugs have to pay fees which end up holding huge power over the FDA. Behind the Bastards had 2 good episodes about it.[0][1] [0]: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-the-food-and-drug-92316027/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... [1]: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-the-food-and-drug-92423951/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
- civilized 5y ago
  I support revolving door regulations, but I agree with you that a big cause of the problem is the extent and complexity of government regulation. At the same time, certain areas of regulation seem inevitably complex. Environmental regulations come to mind. There is an endless variety of environmental hazards and regulations must balance costs and benefits in light of the best available scientific evidence. It's hard to imagine how this can be anything but the province of elite experts. Politicians or the private sector handling it seems like a guaranteed nightmare (and was historically, that's why we have these agencies).
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  > The government should be a neutral referee Has this ever worked in any place on earth ? Also your very notion of having a referee means applying rules made by a higher entity, which is the gov itself ? Even assuming your vision of the gov just makes fewer simpler rules and don’t change them, we fall into what we are seeing right now with the Olympics: outdated rules that are as arbitrary as it can, and fall short at every corner of reality, gamed through every nook and cranny , with everything staying in place only because the main actors have never been the participants but the countries and corporations.
- zouhair 5y ago
  > Also a ban is plainly unconstitutional, people have a right to free speech, free association, and to work for whom they choose. You mean like a company who force an NDA on you or force you to not work with the competition? Also working at the FDA and be the one to approve a drug and then leave and work for the same company that made said drug, is just pure corruption.
  - omosubi 5y ago
    You can negotiate the terms of your contract or choose to work elsewhere - even if a lot of companies do this saying that they're forcing you is wrong
    - zouhair 5y ago
      Their tactic is worse than being compelled by the government. If you want the money you worked hard for you better sign, it's more akin to blackmail than anything else.
- tim333 5y ago
  No competes are thing. That wouldn't be so different from a no work in the industry you are regulating agreement to be signed on becoming a regulator.
shawnz 5y ago
You'd rather appoint regulators with no industry experience?
- zouhair 5y ago
  Of course. You don't need to be part of the industry to know if some food is safe for consumption.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    You sure? There have been a lot of misconceptions by laypeople about what is "safe for human consumption" through the years

Let's start by making revolving doors illegal.

etrautmann 5y ago

Even if this is trolling, I don't understand? who doesn't like revolving doors?

gurkendoktor 5y ago
I guess it refers to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

pirate787 5y ago

Revolving doors -- when people work for companies and then that industry's regulators, and back -- are a symptom of the problem. The problem is the government is too large and engages in too many activities that pick winners and losers. The government should be a neutral referee. End corporate subsidies (including regulatory cross-subsidies) and flatten the tax code to reform this area. Also a ban is plainly unconstitutional, people have a right to free speech, free association, and to work for whom they choose.

jrd259 5y ago
Certainly they do, but the public also has a right to insist that its servants (regulators, in this case, but also the other branches of government) be free of conflict of interest. In the particular case, they should not hire directly from the very industry they regulate. Ensuring that the regulators have expertise will be a problem, but at least no conflict of interest
- anthonygd 5y ago
  > In the particular case, they should not hire directly from the very industry they regulate. Ensuring that the regulators have expertise will be a problem, but at least no conflict of interest That feels like trading a problem for an even bigger problem. Everyone has greed but not everyone has competence. The world is in desperate need of more competence. Greed isn't necessarily a problem as long as it's regulated e.g., most people want nice stuff but don't burglarize their neighbors. We all have conflicts of interest.
  - zouhair 5y ago
    You don't need to be part of an industry to say if their product is safe for humans.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Profoundly disagree. If you have worked in an industry for a few years, you have internalized its rules and logic. An outside perspective is valuable. Technicalities rarely stops people from achieving a goal and it is the second step. You want competence for strategically sound decisions to achieve a goal, but setting it should be done with input of people that have not been groomed that advertising is a human necessity.
    - anthonygd 5y ago
      We might be talking about different things then. Or maybe not. You want people in government making long term strategic decisions that steer society. They should be listening to the will of the people as to what direction to steer it. I hope we can agree on that much. I think people forget that "regulators" though are really just large organizations that enforce/interpret laws. The obvious example is the SEC; it has 4200 employees and none of them create laws, their rules are an effort to enforce the laws created by congress using their technical competence in finance. > You want competence for strategically sound decisions to achieve a goal, but setting it should be done with input of people that have not been groomed that advertising is a human necessity. That's the world we live in. Congress has been completely incompetent when it comes to regulating finance and I'd expect them to be even worse when it comes to technology. There absolutely has to be a layer of industry specific competence (from "insiders") to make any sense of industry specific laws. I don't want insiders choosing direction though; I want congress to be less reprehensible idiots.
merpnderp 5y ago
The idea of making the government smaller is pretty much dead politically. The idea of choosing to inflict even small amounts of economic pain in order to correct gross social and political ills is too much for people. That boat has sailed. Those who aren't financially incentivized to push for ever more monetary easing are politically incentivized to push for it. We were one vote away from another $2 trillion of government spending and tomorrow the Fed is having an emergency meeting to address inflation. Like pouring gas on the fire while the fire department sets up the hoses.
mushbino 5y ago
So instead of banning revolving doors we should have fewer regulations on them? That somehow fixes the problem? Maybe allowing private money and politics to mix at all is the problem.
- zouhair 5y ago
  That's what actually happened with the FDA literally. The oxycodon debacle happened because the funding of the FDA went from being public to private. Companies wanting a permit for some drugs have to pay fees which end up holding huge power over the FDA. Behind the Bastards had 2 good episodes about it.[0][1] [0]: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-the-food-and-drug-92316027/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... [1]: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-the-food-and-drug-92423951/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
civilized 5y ago
I support revolving door regulations, but I agree with you that a big cause of the problem is the extent and complexity of government regulation. At the same time, certain areas of regulation seem inevitably complex. Environmental regulations come to mind. There is an endless variety of environmental hazards and regulations must balance costs and benefits in light of the best available scientific evidence. It's hard to imagine how this can be anything but the province of elite experts. Politicians or the private sector handling it seems like a guaranteed nightmare (and was historically, that's why we have these agencies).
makeitdouble 5y ago
> The government should be a neutral referee Has this ever worked in any place on earth ? Also your very notion of having a referee means applying rules made by a higher entity, which is the gov itself ? Even assuming your vision of the gov just makes fewer simpler rules and don’t change them, we fall into what we are seeing right now with the Olympics: outdated rules that are as arbitrary as it can, and fall short at every corner of reality, gamed through every nook and cranny , with everything staying in place only because the main actors have never been the participants but the countries and corporations.
zouhair 5y ago
> Also a ban is plainly unconstitutional, people have a right to free speech, free association, and to work for whom they choose. You mean like a company who force an NDA on you or force you to not work with the competition? Also working at the FDA and be the one to approve a drug and then leave and work for the same company that made said drug, is just pure corruption.
- omosubi 5y ago
  You can negotiate the terms of your contract or choose to work elsewhere - even if a lot of companies do this saying that they're forcing you is wrong
  - zouhair 5y ago
    Their tactic is worse than being compelled by the government. If you want the money you worked hard for you better sign, it's more akin to blackmail than anything else.
tim333 5y ago
No competes are thing. That wouldn't be so different from a no work in the industry you are regulating agreement to be signed on becoming a regulator.

shawnz 5y ago

You'd rather appoint regulators with no industry experience?

zouhair 5y ago
Of course. You don't need to be part of the industry to know if some food is safe for consumption.
- shawnz 5y ago
  You sure? There have been a lot of misconceptions by laypeople about what is "safe for human consumption" through the years