4 ms·
Making rules that avoid triggering irrational behavior is rather hopeless by definition though. For all we know a regulator once dated someone who worked at a c
by JamesianP 4y ago
Making rules that avoid triggering irrational behavior is rather hopeless by definition though. For all we know a regulator once dated someone who worked at a company and the bad breakup makes them spiteful against the whole organization.
The solution there has to be oversight to identify when a regulator is misbehaving.
Though I'm fine with limiting their ownership to zero for purely rational reasons. A few thousand bucks worth of loss/gain might still sway small borderline decisions.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoI don't seriously propose that regulators looking at Apple should be forbidden from owning Apple devices; that's too impractical even though it would otherwise be a good idea. For practical reasons I'd give a pass to indirect investment through mutual funds/etc too. But forbidden them from buying any amount of AAPL directly? I think that's very reasonable.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> forbidden them from buying any amount of AAPL directly? Once the investigation starts, absolutely. But forcing a regulator to sell their $10k stake in Apple prior to investigating them creates its own weird incentives.
- iudqnolq 4y ago"You must do something with personal financial consequences if you want to start investigating Apple" isn't a workable improvement.
- JamesianP 4y agoyes I was referring to stock ownership too, and only rational behavior. A phone probably won't change measurably in value from a regulatory decision, but $15k of stock certainly could.
- yibberish 4y agowe certianly need some way to separate the role of the regulator, from the person doing that job.