3 ms·

> translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of my Union's interest' And you don't think the veto translates to som

> translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of my Union's interest' And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. > where the government uses double-speak to convince the people It was used to control the narrative/population, not convince people - everyone knew it's obvious BS. But there the government was implementing totalitarian system squashing opposition. Here, we've got agreement from majority of both the government and population and a veto from a single person higher up. It's almost the complete opposite of the book. > how shitty and unfulfilling life is that the government needs to invent make-work jobs like sitting in automated trucks Wait until you hear about mining and farming subsidies in lots of countries and how much voting weight those groups had around the time of increasing automation and phasing out coal. Or why corn is in everything in the US...

thereisnospork 3y ago
>And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. How precisely is not forcing an industry into an inefficient[0] mode of operation 'corrupt regulatory capture'? It's pretty literally the opposite of regulatory capture. (hence when removing the not the above sentence becomes regulatory capture, regardless of how double-speakily it is described). [0]A non-market derived solution.
- viraptor 3y ago
  There's a lot that we force the market to do that's not a market derived solution. Slaves are very market efficient. Racketeering can be too. You can make choices of long-term benefits of not choosing a purely free market solution. What I meant though is that the veto may be simple opposition to the idea, or it may come from having a special interests of tech corps influencing that decision - given popular acceptance of the proposed law, that would make it corrupt regulatory capture.

thereisnospork 3y ago

>And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. How precisely is not forcing an industry into an inefficient[0] mode of operation 'corrupt regulatory capture'? It's pretty literally the opposite of regulatory capture. (hence when removing the not the above sentence becomes regulatory capture, regardless of how double-speakily it is described). [0]A non-market derived solution.

viraptor 3y ago
There's a lot that we force the market to do that's not a market derived solution. Slaves are very market efficient. Racketeering can be too. You can make choices of long-term benefits of not choosing a purely free market solution. What I meant though is that the veto may be simple opposition to the idea, or it may come from having a special interests of tech corps influencing that decision - given popular acceptance of the proposed law, that would make it corrupt regulatory capture.