3 ms·

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 r

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.)