5 ms·

"Regulators are underfunded and outgunned by those whose massive profits rely on outsmarting them." That's a feature, not a bug, and generally true in any coun

by folbec 4y ago

"Regulators are underfunded and outgunned by those whose massive profits rely on outsmarting them." That's a feature, not a bug, and generally true in any country. If regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would have time to look into the shady dealings of the rich and powerfull. That will not do.

altacc 4y ago
Indeed. Corruption takes many forms and in most Western countries that like to think they don't have corruption, allowing the rich to set the rules, decide the referee and how to hobble them is a very popular and effective form of corruption.
- creakingstairs 4y ago
  > Corruption takes many forms and in most Western countries that like to think they don't have corruption Yes. Most of the corruption stats are measuring “perception” of corruption and they are also using the traditional, blatant meaning of corruption where money is exchanged for favours. But corruption in the West have evolved to be much more subtle and essentially impossible to catch (at least without major reforms). And as you said, they hold the power to fix this :)
  - justinclift 4y ago
    It's not really subtle at all though. It's just that it's been entrenched into "how things are done" to the point where most people don't take a step back to view things objectively, and realise.
    - hramrach 4y ago
      Isn't it the same in the countries that are looked down at because they have the 'overt' type of corruption? It's just the way things are done there, and it's so entrenched that people cannot step back and see it rationally. Unless they are, say, from a country where the corruption has taken on a different form, or from Mars.
  - riekus 4y ago
    So true, in Dutch parlement it is almost forbidden to say the word corruption. It has to be rphrased as 'mistakes'
moonchrome 4y ago
>If regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would have time to look into the shady dealings of the rich and powerfull. That will not do. Yea no - if they were more funded and staffed they would audit you and other small players - big players leverage connections to dodge stuff like this all the time.
- skrtskrt 4y ago
  It depends on their priorities. Prior to the cuts to the IRS in the Trump administration, their priorities were in auditing wealthier people and they had an excellent rate of return. Quite obviously even though rich people have lawyers to push back and more sophisticated tax hiding schemes, the payoff when you succeed is huge. And even though you need a well staffed, competent team, it’s still cheaper than the manpower clawing back a few thousand dollars each from tens of thousands of tiny audits. Are they catching the biggest Panama-paper level players? No those people have too much sway. But they can be very effective against the “ordinary” rich people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - donthellbanme 4y ago
nullc 4y ago
There is no strong reason that a regulator funded enough to go after every scam wouldn't instead spend much of the time chasing their own personal or political enemies. There is evidence that they wouldn't use the resources in the public interest: since we know that the NSA is well funded with a budget that isn't up to public inspection and it has used its surveillance powers for the fulfillment of its staff's prurient interests. "We just don't have a way to solve this via authority" is also a possible answer. It's fundamentally a question of scalability: Asking a regulator to protect everyone just doesn't scale, in anything but the most draconian police state there will always be more crooks than regulators (and in a police state the crooks become police). So the primary defense must always be an individual and personal responsibility, as irritating as that is. The regulator then exists to backstop people's personal protection, dealing with what slips through and helping to keep the personal costs tolerable. Doesn't mean that our regulators couldn't do better. I think they could. But there is only so much you can expect via regulator and law enforcement action.
renonce 4y ago
> If regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would have time to look into the shady dealings of the rich and powerfull. Once regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would become the rich and powerfull.
- dgfitz 4y ago
  Reminds me of the line in Watchmen: "Who watches the watchers?"

by folbec 4y ago

altacc 4y ago

Indeed. Corruption takes many forms and in most Western countries that like to think they don't have corruption, allowing the rich to set the rules, decide the referee and how to hobble them is a very popular and effective form of corruption.

creakingstairs 4y ago
> Corruption takes many forms and in most Western countries that like to think they don't have corruption Yes. Most of the corruption stats are measuring “perception” of corruption and they are also using the traditional, blatant meaning of corruption where money is exchanged for favours. But corruption in the West have evolved to be much more subtle and essentially impossible to catch (at least without major reforms). And as you said, they hold the power to fix this :)
- justinclift 4y ago
  It's not really subtle at all though. It's just that it's been entrenched into "how things are done" to the point where most people don't take a step back to view things objectively, and realise.
  - hramrach 4y ago
    Isn't it the same in the countries that are looked down at because they have the 'overt' type of corruption? It's just the way things are done there, and it's so entrenched that people cannot step back and see it rationally. Unless they are, say, from a country where the corruption has taken on a different form, or from Mars.
- riekus 4y ago
  So true, in Dutch parlement it is almost forbidden to say the word corruption. It has to be rphrased as 'mistakes'

moonchrome 4y ago

>If regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would have time to look into the shady dealings of the rich and powerfull. That will not do. Yea no - if they were more funded and staffed they would audit you and other small players - big players leverage connections to dodge stuff like this all the time.

skrtskrt 4y ago
It depends on their priorities. Prior to the cuts to the IRS in the Trump administration, their priorities were in auditing wealthier people and they had an excellent rate of return. Quite obviously even though rich people have lawyers to push back and more sophisticated tax hiding schemes, the payoff when you succeed is huge. And even though you need a well staffed, competent team, it’s still cheaper than the manpower clawing back a few thousand dollars each from tens of thousands of tiny audits. Are they catching the biggest Panama-paper level players? No those people have too much sway. But they can be very effective against the “ordinary” rich people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- donthellbanme 4y ago

nullc 4y ago

There is no strong reason that a regulator funded enough to go after every scam wouldn't instead spend much of the time chasing their own personal or political enemies. There is evidence that they wouldn't use the resources in the public interest: since we know that the NSA is well funded with a budget that isn't up to public inspection and it has used its surveillance powers for the fulfillment of its staff's prurient interests. "We just don't have a way to solve this via authority" is also a possible answer. It's fundamentally a question of scalability: Asking a regulator to protect everyone just doesn't scale, in anything but the most draconian police state there will always be more crooks than regulators (and in a police state the crooks become police). So the primary defense must always be an individual and personal responsibility, as irritating as that is. The regulator then exists to backstop people's personal protection, dealing with what slips through and helping to keep the personal costs tolerable. Doesn't mean that our regulators couldn't do better. I think they could. But there is only so much you can expect via regulator and law enforcement action.

renonce 4y ago

> If regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would have time to look into the shady dealings of the rich and powerfull. Once regulators were correctly funded and staffed, they would become the rich and powerfull.

dgfitz 4y ago
Reminds me of the line in Watchmen: "Who watches the watchers?"