3 ms·

It’s a difficult problem to solve. There is a very sleazy revolving door between regulators and regulated industries. Industries will essentially send people to

It’s a difficult problem to solve. There is a very sleazy revolving door between regulators and regulated industries. Industries will essentially send people to work as regulators and represent the industries’ interests while in their government posts. These people then return to industry to command much higher salaries. In this way, government service is a stepping stone to a better private sector job. But it would be hard to shut this down because regulatory bodies need industry insiders working for them. You don’t want the agencies to be composed of people who couldn’t hack it in the private sector. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical when people reflexively suggest more government regulation as the solution to all problems.

smolder 3y ago
> But it would be hard to shut this down because regulatory bodies need industry insiders working for them. You don’t want the agencies to be composed of people who couldn’t hack it in the private sector. I think this problem (the need for industry players in regulatory bodies) is overstated by many. In particular, you don't need them in leadership roles, they can just consult. We could also write a law to close the door on their return to an industry after working as a regulator, but we don't. My conclusion is that the corrupt practices continue mainly because the corrupt people want them to.
- anon373839 3y ago
  I think you do need them to be providing significant input and direction, because otherwise you are likely to wind up with regulations that are divorced from reality. Focusing on a single issue in isolation -- even one as important as "safety" (as suggested by the sibling comment) causes a cascade of unforeseen consequences. As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts.
  - smolder 3y ago
    > As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts. This is an easier problem to solve than the one we started with: people not incentivized to do their jobs as regulators (and often they do the opposite, just creating a moat for the companies they regulate.) I don't think successfully leading a regulatory body is career suicide even if they can't go take a payout in industry afterwards, but even so there are lots of ways to balance out that disincentive to work in government that doesn't involve undermining the whole effort at regulation (as the status quo revolving door does.)
autoexec 3y ago
I'll agree that there are some cases where it'd be useful to have someone with familiarity with the industries they regulate on staff. This case in particular is one where in-depth insider knowledge or decades of industry experience shouldn't be an issue since setting "safe" levels of poison is entirely about the negative health impacts of heavy metals on the consumer and the specific means for reducing the levels of those poisons in the products themselves can be left entirely to the "experts" at the chocolate factory/cocoa farm. Regulators can just set a level deemed "safe" and it falls on the corporations to either offer a safe product or, if they are unable or unwilling to meet the standard, find a new way to make money that doesn't involve the mass poisoning of the American public. We could bring just about any random person in off the street and have them consult with medical experts to develop the standards. In fact, the farther away from the food industry that person is the better. I'd argue that the more a regulatory agency is focused on the health and safety of the consumer, the less important it is for the regulators to be intimately familiar with the industry being regulated. At least, when we're already aware of the health problems and know what to test for. Industry insiders may be able to help identify products or chemicals in cases where companies know they are selling dangerous products and are hiding that information from the public, but it seems that someone with close ties to the industry wouldn't be very likely to act as a whistleblower in those cases anyway.

smolder 3y ago

> But it would be hard to shut this down because regulatory bodies need industry insiders working for them. You don’t want the agencies to be composed of people who couldn’t hack it in the private sector. I think this problem (the need for industry players in regulatory bodies) is overstated by many. In particular, you don't need them in leadership roles, they can just consult. We could also write a law to close the door on their return to an industry after working as a regulator, but we don't. My conclusion is that the corrupt practices continue mainly because the corrupt people want them to.

anon373839 3y ago
I think you do need them to be providing significant input and direction, because otherwise you are likely to wind up with regulations that are divorced from reality. Focusing on a single issue in isolation -- even one as important as "safety" (as suggested by the sibling comment) causes a cascade of unforeseen consequences. As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts.
- smolder 3y ago
  > As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts. This is an easier problem to solve than the one we started with: people not incentivized to do their jobs as regulators (and often they do the opposite, just creating a moat for the companies they regulate.) I don't think successfully leading a regulatory body is career suicide even if they can't go take a payout in industry afterwards, but even so there are lots of ways to balance out that disincentive to work in government that doesn't involve undermining the whole effort at regulation (as the status quo revolving door does.)

autoexec 3y ago

I'll agree that there are some cases where it'd be useful to have someone with familiarity with the industries they regulate on staff. This case in particular is one where in-depth insider knowledge or decades of industry experience shouldn't be an issue since setting "safe" levels of poison is entirely about the negative health impacts of heavy metals on the consumer and the specific means for reducing the levels of those poisons in the products themselves can be left entirely to the "experts" at the chocolate factory/cocoa farm. Regulators can just set a level deemed "safe" and it falls on the corporations to either offer a safe product or, if they are unable or unwilling to meet the standard, find a new way to make money that doesn't involve the mass poisoning of the American public. We could bring just about any random person in off the street and have them consult with medical experts to develop the standards. In fact, the farther away from the food industry that person is the better. I'd argue that the more a regulatory agency is focused on the health and safety of the consumer, the less important it is for the regulators to be intimately familiar with the industry being regulated. At least, when we're already aware of the health problems and know what to test for. Industry insiders may be able to help identify products or chemicals in cases where companies know they are selling dangerous products and are hiding that information from the public, but it seems that someone with close ties to the industry wouldn't be very likely to act as a whistleblower in those cases anyway.