3 ms·

And yet highly logical people on HN will simultaneously argue that the government and its bureaucracy is a great thing and we should increase regulation and rul

And yet highly logical people on HN will simultaneously argue that the government and its bureaucracy is a great thing and we should increase regulation and rules in all facets of the tech industry. The security side is literally the only part of tech that is remotely “regulated”. Self-policing organizations created their own standards and private firms conduct the audits. Yet it’s obviously bullshit and box ticking. Do you not realize this is how everything in society works? It’s endless make-work where highly credentialed know-nothings check boxes in order to fulfill some bureaucratic process they didn’t invent and don’t care / aren’t capable of improving. This is the end result of bureaucracy.

bawolff 4y ago
Some regulations are good, some are bad. Some just have purposes different from what people assume. Saying its impossible to regulate anything is just as stupid as saying its possible to regulate everything.
- seibelj 4y ago
  Yet there is an extreme aversion to “de-regulation” as if all regulation is good and any attempt at reforming bad regulation is reactionary and evil. The regulatory state is ever-expanding and contracts only rarely in very isolated instances.
  - gsk22 4y ago
    Isn't an expanding regulatory state an inevitability as population growth explodes and companies gain ever-greater power? More people and more powerful companies means more abuses of power, which we solve (or try to solve) with regulations. And deregulation is often a simple power grab by unscrupulous companies with the help of crony politicians. These aren't universal truths, but I think it does start to explain why regulations expand more than they contract.
    - seibelj 4y ago
      That is a very generous take. My alternative explanation is that the incentives of government agencies are misaligned with helping society. A government leader is judged based on the size of their budget and the number of employees. They will not get rewarded by shrinking their budget and head count, even if decades of advancement in technology and understanding have made that the optimal choice for society. Contrast that with private business which is forced to adapt to change. They always strive to increase productivity by increasing value while decreasing costs. The exact opposite incentive exists in the government. I do have a solution to this conundrum - I think we should give leaders a bonus that is a percentage of savings. For example, if an agency has $200 million budget, give the director 10% of all money saved every year. So if they successfully shrink their budget by $10 million, give them a $1 million bonus. But as it exists today there is no amount of budget that can satisfy the needs of the state.
      - gsk22 4y ago
        > I do have a solution to this conundrum - I think we should give leaders a bonus that is a percentage of savings. For example, if an agency has $200 million budget, give the director 10% of all money saved every year. So if they successfully shrink their budget by $10 million, give them a $1 million bonus. Wouldn't that just incentivize individuals to gut their agencies for personal profit? The day after a rule like that was put in place, the FDA would stop regulating every drug just so the director would get a $30m payout. Also, with inflation (especially high as it is now), why would we ever expect an agency's budget to shrink a meaningful amount? Surely we would expect an 8% increase in every agency's budget just to maintain the status quo.

bawolff 4y ago

Some regulations are good, some are bad. Some just have purposes different from what people assume. Saying its impossible to regulate anything is just as stupid as saying its possible to regulate everything.

seibelj 4y ago
Yet there is an extreme aversion to “de-regulation” as if all regulation is good and any attempt at reforming bad regulation is reactionary and evil. The regulatory state is ever-expanding and contracts only rarely in very isolated instances.
- gsk22 4y ago
  Isn't an expanding regulatory state an inevitability as population growth explodes and companies gain ever-greater power? More people and more powerful companies means more abuses of power, which we solve (or try to solve) with regulations. And deregulation is often a simple power grab by unscrupulous companies with the help of crony politicians. These aren't universal truths, but I think it does start to explain why regulations expand more than they contract.
  - seibelj 4y ago
    That is a very generous take. My alternative explanation is that the incentives of government agencies are misaligned with helping society. A government leader is judged based on the size of their budget and the number of employees. They will not get rewarded by shrinking their budget and head count, even if decades of advancement in technology and understanding have made that the optimal choice for society. Contrast that with private business which is forced to adapt to change. They always strive to increase productivity by increasing value while decreasing costs. The exact opposite incentive exists in the government. I do have a solution to this conundrum - I think we should give leaders a bonus that is a percentage of savings. For example, if an agency has $200 million budget, give the director 10% of all money saved every year. So if they successfully shrink their budget by $10 million, give them a $1 million bonus. But as it exists today there is no amount of budget that can satisfy the needs of the state.
    - gsk22 4y ago
      > I do have a solution to this conundrum - I think we should give leaders a bonus that is a percentage of savings. For example, if an agency has $200 million budget, give the director 10% of all money saved every year. So if they successfully shrink their budget by $10 million, give them a $1 million bonus. Wouldn't that just incentivize individuals to gut their agencies for personal profit? The day after a rule like that was put in place, the FDA would stop regulating every drug just so the director would get a $30m payout. Also, with inflation (especially high as it is now), why would we ever expect an agency's budget to shrink a meaningful amount? Surely we would expect an 8% increase in every agency's budget just to maintain the status quo.