3 ms·

I get a bit suspicious when I hear a scheme that boils down "given a society rotten with marketization schemes enriching a corrupt few, we'll use one more layer

I get a bit suspicious when I hear a scheme that boils down "given a society rotten with marketization schemes enriching a corrupt few, we'll use one more layer of marketization to stop the problem, what could possibly go wrong?" And thinking in more detail, substantial problems seem evident: * You want auditors who check everyone, not just the most likely or most "profitable" targets. * If the activity of a regulator depends on the fraud level, you will have people slacking off in times of little fraud, which will then give rise to times of much fraud. * This would make regulation more adversarial - companies would have an incentive to withhold information from a regulator to the extent a regulator would have an incentive to "spin" things in a profitable direction for them. Despite a strong pro-business ideology prevailing in the US, US regulation is already often more adversarial than in Europe. A US regulator is more oriented to catching wrong doers than to guiding companies into behaving correctly. This is visibly failing in all sort of large and small ways. The proposal would make this worse.

boxed 4y ago
> You want auditors who check everyone, not just the most likely or most "profitable" targets. Do you? Don't you in fact want the auditors to find the most fraud per hour worked? The problem the US has now is that for example IRS audits go after the poor because the rich have too annoying lawyers. This is the absolute worst.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  Do you? Don't you in fact want the auditors to find the most fraud per hour worked? For the last fifty years, the prevailing ideology in the US has been a straightforward system of bureaucracy is horrible compared to some chaotic, production optimizing startup. But if you compare now and fifty years ago, today's "running the government like a business" has produce a sea of corrupt inefficiency. For that reason, I think it's perfectly not to fixate on dubious metrics like "most fraud (found) per hour worked". Regulators should be neither low paid nor super high paid. They should be honest, even idealistic, people working to keep society honest rather than "entrepreneurs" looking for some kind of "score". The problem the US has now is that for example IRS audits go after the poor because the rich have too annoying lawyers. This is the absolute worst. Of course, this is a product of the bizarrely complex tax code and the legality of a whole variety of shady maneuvers. I'm not optimistic about this going away but if it goes away, it would require the state simplifying the tax code and outlawing the whole fabric of hidden financial maneuvers. Until something like that happens, you're not going to win the arms race. And in this situation, "incentivizing" the agents just means they'll figure out a way to go after a certain middle type - rich enough to have some money but too poor to defend it. Like I said, we've wound ourselves into a government of competitive proxy reaching pseudo-economies, we "Goodharted ourselves to death"[1]. But naturally people want to add one more spring to this clockwork nightmare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
  - boxed 4y ago
    > I think it's perfectly not to fixate on dubious metrics like "most fraud (found) per hour worked" 100% agreed. Financial incentives destroy honest work. Sweden has proved this multiple times by having financial incentives through the entire health care system.

boxed 4y ago

> You want auditors who check everyone, not just the most likely or most "profitable" targets. Do you? Don't you in fact want the auditors to find the most fraud per hour worked? The problem the US has now is that for example IRS audits go after the poor because the rich have too annoying lawyers. This is the absolute worst.

joe_the_user 4y ago
Do you? Don't you in fact want the auditors to find the most fraud per hour worked? For the last fifty years, the prevailing ideology in the US has been a straightforward system of bureaucracy is horrible compared to some chaotic, production optimizing startup. But if you compare now and fifty years ago, today's "running the government like a business" has produce a sea of corrupt inefficiency. For that reason, I think it's perfectly not to fixate on dubious metrics like "most fraud (found) per hour worked". Regulators should be neither low paid nor super high paid. They should be honest, even idealistic, people working to keep society honest rather than "entrepreneurs" looking for some kind of "score". The problem the US has now is that for example IRS audits go after the poor because the rich have too annoying lawyers. This is the absolute worst. Of course, this is a product of the bizarrely complex tax code and the legality of a whole variety of shady maneuvers. I'm not optimistic about this going away but if it goes away, it would require the state simplifying the tax code and outlawing the whole fabric of hidden financial maneuvers. Until something like that happens, you're not going to win the arms race. And in this situation, "incentivizing" the agents just means they'll figure out a way to go after a certain middle type - rich enough to have some money but too poor to defend it. Like I said, we've wound ourselves into a government of competitive proxy reaching pseudo-economies, we "Goodharted ourselves to death"[1]. But naturally people want to add one more spring to this clockwork nightmare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- boxed 4y ago
  > I think it's perfectly not to fixate on dubious metrics like "most fraud (found) per hour worked" 100% agreed. Financial incentives destroy honest work. Sweden has proved this multiple times by having financial incentives through the entire health care system.