4 ms·

If the cup is half empty it's called bribing. Otherwise it's called lobbying. I don't know anything about the CFTC in particular but I'm familiar with the gene

If the cup is half empty it's called bribing. Otherwise it's called lobbying. I don't know anything about the CFTC in particular but I'm familiar with the general idea of lobbying and the role it plays in a representative government. Elected officials have to interface with basically every industry in the country. How is any specific representative in a legislature going to have the knowledge required to vote on a banking act? Or a bill pertaining to power plants? Or cryptocurrencies? Does it make sense to allow representatives from various industries access to members of the legislative branches of government? How else could Cynthia Lummis or Kirsten Gillibrand make an informed decision when writing federal laws related to cryptocurrencies? Should there be federal laws related to cryptocurrencies? Should legislatures have a government regulatory agency that enforces federal laws? Who is going to write those laws? Should there be a federal agency like the SEC, but specifically for cryptocurrency? Is that the CFTC? Who should make up the CFTC? Who should make up the SEC? Are the people who are qualified to work for industry more or less qualified to work in the agency that regulates the industry? Who is best qualified to lobby for the industry? For the people who work for the regulatory agencies or lobby for industry, are they owners or laborers in the regulated industry? What if everyone at least wrote their name down on a big public list and said who they worked for and published when they met and who from which government position they met with? Are there easy answers to these questions? How the hell has any of this ever worked?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Stranger43 4y ago
The problem is not with industry insiders leaving private enterprise to go work for the government, the problem is government regulators leaving the government to collect large paychecks from the companies they used to be tasked with regulating, i.e. that there is the appearance of personal benefits to regulate to the benefits of future employers rather then the general public. What's actually needed is government agencies staffed with industry insiders who knows that they will never ever work in the industry again and have nothing to loose from putting the general public first, but this is kind of hard to do when government work is not seen as something of particularly high status, where people go for self realization after a success career in the private sector.
- NickC25 4y ago
  >but this is kind of hard to do when government work is not seen as something of particularly high status, Super easy to solve for - pay them more. With the amount of money the government has (the DoD has a nearly 2 trillion dollar yearly budget), it should be relatively trivial to be able to outspend the private sector. I hate paying taxes, but if those taxes go towards paying an extremely competent professional who will prevent this sort of shit from happening (which would cost us more in taxes to fix), I'm more than happy to pay as much as the government would want me to.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    I'm not sure paying more will help. It looks like greed can be boundless, so as long as power converts to money malicious actors will keep abusing it. Perhaps we should make power unattractive to such types instead, making it not lucrative so that only crazy* individuals who are content with good enough clean salary seek it out of dumb* desire to make the world better. * In a good way, obviously.
    - danaris 4y ago
      I don't have the links at the moment, but there were some fairly well-researched articles I saw a year or two back about this. The gist was that while our Congresspeople are, indeed, paid quite well by normal-person standards, because of the things they're expected to do (for instance, keep both a home in their district and one in Washington, DC—one of the country's hottest real estate markets), the amount they are paid is low enough that it does lead to significant additional (mostly legalized) bribery. Making elected positions pay very little, rather than discouraging people who seek wealth, will limit them (even more) to people who are already wealthy, because they will be able to bankroll the expected lifestyle out of pocket. Furthermore, for those who go into politics looking for money (as opposed to those who go into it looking for power, which is a related, but separate, issue), the salary is peanuts compared to the kinds of money they can get from lobbyists, or as a lobbyist themselves once they leave office. So reducing the salary will have very little effect on that.
pjc50 4y ago
> Does it make sense to allow representatives from various industries access to members of the legislative branches of government? Yes. It does not make sense to allow those industries to influence elections or the decisions of those elected by making political donations, though. > Should there be federal laws related to cryptocurrencies? Increasingly I think prohibition is the only option. Even if it's very leaky. It's far worse a mind virus than, say, TikTok. At least if it's illegal there won't be superbowl adverts for frauds.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Stranger43 4y ago

The problem is not with industry insiders leaving private enterprise to go work for the government, the problem is government regulators leaving the government to collect large paychecks from the companies they used to be tasked with regulating, i.e. that there is the appearance of personal benefits to regulate to the benefits of future employers rather then the general public. What's actually needed is government agencies staffed with industry insiders who knows that they will never ever work in the industry again and have nothing to loose from putting the general public first, but this is kind of hard to do when government work is not seen as something of particularly high status, where people go for self realization after a success career in the private sector.

NickC25 4y ago
>but this is kind of hard to do when government work is not seen as something of particularly high status, Super easy to solve for - pay them more. With the amount of money the government has (the DoD has a nearly 2 trillion dollar yearly budget), it should be relatively trivial to be able to outspend the private sector. I hate paying taxes, but if those taxes go towards paying an extremely competent professional who will prevent this sort of shit from happening (which would cost us more in taxes to fix), I'm more than happy to pay as much as the government would want me to.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  I'm not sure paying more will help. It looks like greed can be boundless, so as long as power converts to money malicious actors will keep abusing it. Perhaps we should make power unattractive to such types instead, making it not lucrative so that only crazy* individuals who are content with good enough clean salary seek it out of dumb* desire to make the world better. * In a good way, obviously.
  - danaris 4y ago
    I don't have the links at the moment, but there were some fairly well-researched articles I saw a year or two back about this. The gist was that while our Congresspeople are, indeed, paid quite well by normal-person standards, because of the things they're expected to do (for instance, keep both a home in their district and one in Washington, DC—one of the country's hottest real estate markets), the amount they are paid is low enough that it does lead to significant additional (mostly legalized) bribery. Making elected positions pay very little, rather than discouraging people who seek wealth, will limit them (even more) to people who are already wealthy, because they will be able to bankroll the expected lifestyle out of pocket. Furthermore, for those who go into politics looking for money (as opposed to those who go into it looking for power, which is a related, but separate, issue), the salary is peanuts compared to the kinds of money they can get from lobbyists, or as a lobbyist themselves once they leave office. So reducing the salary will have very little effect on that.

pjc50 4y ago

> Does it make sense to allow representatives from various industries access to members of the legislative branches of government? Yes. It does not make sense to allow those industries to influence elections or the decisions of those elected by making political donations, though. > Should there be federal laws related to cryptocurrencies? Increasingly I think prohibition is the only option. Even if it's very leaky. It's far worse a mind virus than, say, TikTok. At least if it's illegal there won't be superbowl adverts for frauds.