4 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I mean, if the sidewalks outside your house were government c
by jvm___ 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
I mean, if the sidewalks outside your house were government controlled, the most likely people to try to take control of them would be people with an interest in making money from them (somehow). Most people don't enter government to be the "Minister of Forestry" without some previous industry experience, and a plan of what to do with the forests. The people with industry experience and a plan are usually ones frustrated by the limits of the regulations and therefore they have the desire to take over and change the rules to suit them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- user3939382 4y ago> The people with industry experience This is at the heart of the problem. You get these revolving doors between eg big positions at the FDA and big pharma staffed by the same individuals at different times in their careers, same with eg Wall St vs SEC. This extends to lobby group positions. One day Fred is the head of the FDA the next day he’s lobbying the FDA for Pfizer. This should be illegal. They mask the corruption this causes by saying “Hey we need someone with industry/regulatory experience” with no acknowledgement of the massive ($$) conflicts of interest inherent in that strategy.
- firstlink 4y agoWhat you're suggesting is that a political preference to put the experts in positions of power is actually bad?
- justinclift 4y agoPerhaps there's a difference between experts and lobbyists?
- user3939382 4y agoThe DEA is great at busting drug dealers without being drug dealers, neither are the cartels run by DEA agents. This wouldn't be an issue if creating a revolving door between industry and government didn't create huge conflicts of interest but it does.