11 ms·

It does seem they've mistaken the general sentiment towards government regulation in europe, which is typically, "more, better". Since we have so many consumer

It does seem they've mistaken the general sentiment towards government regulation in europe, which is typically, "more, better". Since we have so many consumer protections, much of how we end up engaging with the law around business practices is to our benefit. We're always aware we can raise bad business practices with an ombudsman (etc.). So our lived experience of government regulation is, in large part, positive. The fringe american "all regulation is bad" is hyped up for certain media causes, but very alien to most in practice. It's essentially unimaginable to the ordinary european that large corporations would have a better social conscience than government.

pydry 3y ago
>It does seem they've mistaken the general sentiment towards government regulation in europe, which is typically, "more, better". The notion of regulation as being on a sliding scale where "more is worse" was a manufactured American meme created by the Kochs in the 1980s. It emerged from some of their epic fights with the environmental protection agency and their subsequent lobbying and public relations outreach efforts that followed. They set up and funded number of institutions dedicated to telling this story (and others, including that one about hairdresser licensing). The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute to name a few. If you think about it for a few seconds, dumbing down a complex system like laws or regulation to "more vs less" is quite stupid. It's like saying that some programmers believe in "more lines of code" and some believe in "fewer". Do you want more laws or fewer laws? The question doesn't make sense. You want the right kind of laws, right? Ones that are as simple as possible and no simpler. The same for code. I think it's important to put this type of thing in a historical context though. These ideas and stories don't emerge out of nowhere - there is usually money behind them. In this case, it was money from an oil and chemicals company that had a singular goal - to fight the EPA - so it could destroy the natural environment in America with absolute impunity.
- alipang 3y ago
  The idea that anyone who's opposed to narrow government regulations is somehow brainwashed by the Kochs is just an unsufferably smug attitude towards people you disagree with. It's like the "funded by George Soros therefore bad" you sometimes see on the right. I'm sure they've spent money on promoting this, but there's many reasons you'd come to this conclusion other than having it "manufactured" for you by billionaire conspiracies. You have to start by considering that your political opponents are capable of thinking for themselves if you want to ever do more than just preach to the choir. Declaring them idiots in the guise of "providing historical context" isn't helpful.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It is worthwhile contemplating who is benefiting from “my opponents are brain dead retards”.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    > Even on death’s doorstep, Trevor was not angry. In fact, he staunchly supported the stance promoted by his elected officials. “Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it,” he told me. “I would rather die.” When I asked him why he felt this way even as he faced severe illness, he explained: “We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.” https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying-whiteness/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying...
    - kbolino 3y ago
      There is nothing more smug than the point-and-laugh hit piece, where a journalist finds some ignorant rube for the college-educated to sneer at.
      - silverquiet 3y ago
        The author is not a journalist, but a doctor who studied public health issues.
        kbolino 3y ago
        I don't think the author's credentials alter the dynamic at play here.
        silverquiet 3y ago
        Would it be better if he just kept quiet and let the health issues he is seeing go unmentioned because otherwise it would make people look bad? Do you think his book is just an exercise in mockery because he enjoys it?
- voxic11 3y ago
  Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, I'm pretty sure people opposed excessive government regulation before the 1980s.
  - pydry 3y ago
    The idea of opposing excessive regulation isn't the same thing as this idea that regulation is a sliding scale with "more = worse" and "less = better". But yes, opposition to regulations did exist before. The former isn't a Koch thing, the latter is. Atlas Shrugged was more the manifestation of the wet dreams of snowflake industrialists who felt intimidated by union power and communism (which were significant in the 50s, hence the rise of the middle class).
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    As someone who lived through this time period (albeit as a child), there was a phase transition in the way mainstream America treated government regulation around this time. It was much more common for politicians of both parties to advocate micromanaged regulation before this; hell, Nixon imposed price controls on private business to fight inflation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20issued%20Executive%20Order%2011615,in%20order%20to%20counter%20inflation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20....
  - jfyi 3y ago
    Rand's work wasn't held in high regard... or any regard at all, really, until after her death in the 80's. I don't disagree with the general sentiment though.
- TheMagicHorsey 3y ago
  Spoken like someone who has never seen the waste, lack of reason, and counterproductive incentives of a highly regulated market such as healthcare and telecoms in the US. Also, if you are not selling in the EU you would never start a high tech company in the EU. Whereas people travel across the world to found high tech companies in the US that are not even selling product in the US.
  - pydry 3y ago
    I was trying to say that you can't boil the topic of regulations down to "more" vs "less". It appears that you were incapable of hearing this message and have responded as if I just said "MORE REGULATION! NOW!"
    - TheMagicHorsey 3y ago
      No. It seems you were incapable of understanding what I was saying ... which is MORE IS WORSE. In other words, the only people who think MORE IS WORSE is a meme are people who think the exceptions are the rule. Almost always more regulation doesn't work in complex markets. Incentives are very very difficult to get right ... the exceptions where the regulations work are extremely rare. And for the most part people don't get them right.
      - piva00 3y ago
        > Almost always more regulation doesn't work in complex markets. Incentives are very very difficult to get right As if the simple incentives of a deregulated market (aka: profit above all) do work in complex markets. That's OP's whole point, you want the right laws, not more or less, sometimes more regulation is needed due to the complexity of an industry, sometimes less is completely fine. That nuance is what's missing, and it's exactly the hard part of the whole system to be balanced. > the exceptions where the regulations work are extremely rare. And for the most part people don't get them right. For the most part, companies don't get it right either. Case in point: Boeing self-regulation, USA's finance industry self-regulation pre-2008, etc. Just let go of the dogma.
- kbolino 3y ago
  Given that the EPA was happy to watch American industry die on the vine while foreign competitors operating under different regulatory regimes swooped in, the "manufactured American meme" had some merit. Regulation has to be responsive. Of course, a lack of responsiveness, or even basic consideration for the average person, has defined the U.S. Government as a whole for the better part of several decades. Ever since industrial workers sided with Nixon, the government has become a class warfare tool where highly educated but not-that-well compensated professional managers have worked to denigrate and disenfranchise the rough-and-tumble bullies from their primary school days. This deep-seated resentment explains a lot more than money alone explains, especially since the government itself is in control of the money supply and thus not that beholden to monied interests.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >Given that the EPA was happy to watch American industry die on the vine while foreign competitors operating under different regulatory regimes swooped in You don't have to let foreign competitors that ruin the environment and oppress their employees compete directly with local competitors. You can slap them with tariffs or even prohibit their goods entirely. When the US is fighting to maintain influence in Eastern Europe it understands this logic and applies this lever. When the environment and labor rights are at stake though, it's like "what lever? I don't see a lever anywhere"
paulsutter 3y ago
Yes each time we see these cookie warnings, we admire a system that does so much to our benefit
- FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
  Just install some browser extension that automatically refuses them.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    The next step for the EU is Global Privacy Control, which is basically the old Do-Not_track header, but legally enforceable this time (the EU is not alone in this, it's already the law in California). If your browser sends that header, the website will have to not show you a cookie popup and treat it as a "Reject All" instead.
- troupo 3y ago
  Nothing in the law requires those cookie banners. If you don't agree, you can quote to me the exact passage in the GDPR where it talks about cookies, banners, or browsers. Or you can read what Github has to say about this: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
  - bengale 3y ago
    This is the exact problem though, noone really cares what the law says, they care that now they have annoying cookie banners. They don't blame the businesses for this; they blame the EU. The more of this they layer on the more ordinary people get irritated by the EU. This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more. If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it.
bengale 3y ago
> the general sentiment towards government regulation in europe, which is typically, "more, better". I'd need to be convinced that's true. More regulation was a huge part of the successful campaign to get the UK out of the EU. It seems to get effusive praise in places like this, but in daily business, I generally hear the term GDPR spat. Is anyone expecting the incoming car regulation around beeps and bongs every time you approach the speed limit to be received well by ordinary people? The USBC stuff that this article heaps praise on is a great example, techies love it, everyone else in everyday life I've only heard complain about it. Maybe it improves things long-term, but I can't remember hearing anyone say "more, better" about any of these things. I would say the overall sentiment I've heard is that there is a general suspicion that the reason European business lags so far behind the US is that we're held back. I don't think the handful of people that will be able to play Fortnite on their iPhones will change this. It certainly wont if they end up needing multiple app stores for their daily apps.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  > the successful campaign to get the UK out of the EU. Depending on your definition of success of course.
  - Ragnarork 3y ago
    Ah but the campaign was successful. The actual pullout and its consequences, on the other hand...
    - arethuza 3y ago
      Even the Daily Telegraph is having second thoughts about Brexit: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/28/uk-eu-are-being-pushed-back-together/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/28/uk-eu-are-be...
- mjburgess 3y ago
  note that since leaving the EU, UK regulators have been widely seen (by business and finance) to take a more risk-averse attitude on the EU across all new comptences brought in (eg, food standards, chemical standards, etc.). The 52% who voted to leave were not voting for a massive deregulated society. In most cases, actually the opposite: "bring back control"
immibis 3y ago
Nowhere is the general sentiment towards government regulation "more, better". The correct sentiment is both "more good ones, better" and "less bad ones, better"
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  But there is the general sentiment "less, better". And that's because it's right. That "good ones" is both subjective and a challenge tantamount to "write bug-free code". People aren't worthy of that kind of trust.
  - immibis 3y ago
    This comment explains it well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39609172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39609172 To summarize: Laws are like lines of code. Nobody in their right mind would put programs on a spectrum between "more lines" and "fewer lines". Lines of code that help do the necessary work are good, and unnecessary lines of code are bad. And so it is with regulations.
- hnben 3y ago
  "more, better" assumes that most regulations are perceived as good
weebull 3y ago
> So our lived experience of government regulation is, in large part, positive. I think I'd nuance it a bit. We see it as necessary. Necessary because otherwise powerful companies take advantage I think most can point to bad places in life for government regulations, but when the opposition is more powerful than most governments you need to fight with the most powerful thing you have.

pydry 3y ago

>It does seem they've mistaken the general sentiment towards government regulation in europe, which is typically, "more, better". The notion of regulation as being on a sliding scale where "more is worse" was a manufactured American meme created by the Kochs in the 1980s. It emerged from some of their epic fights with the environmental protection agency and their subsequent lobbying and public relations outreach efforts that followed. They set up and funded number of institutions dedicated to telling this story (and others, including that one about hairdresser licensing). The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute to name a few. If you think about it for a few seconds, dumbing down a complex system like laws or regulation to "more vs less" is quite stupid. It's like saying that some programmers believe in "more lines of code" and some believe in "fewer". Do you want more laws or fewer laws? The question doesn't make sense. You want the right kind of laws, right? Ones that are as simple as possible and no simpler. The same for code. I think it's important to put this type of thing in a historical context though. These ideas and stories don't emerge out of nowhere - there is usually money behind them. In this case, it was money from an oil and chemicals company that had a singular goal - to fight the EPA - so it could destroy the natural environment in America with absolute impunity.

alipang 3y ago
The idea that anyone who's opposed to narrow government regulations is somehow brainwashed by the Kochs is just an unsufferably smug attitude towards people you disagree with. It's like the "funded by George Soros therefore bad" you sometimes see on the right. I'm sure they've spent money on promoting this, but there's many reasons you'd come to this conclusion other than having it "manufactured" for you by billionaire conspiracies. You have to start by considering that your political opponents are capable of thinking for themselves if you want to ever do more than just preach to the choir. Declaring them idiots in the guise of "providing historical context" isn't helpful.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It is worthwhile contemplating who is benefiting from “my opponents are brain dead retards”.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  > Even on death’s doorstep, Trevor was not angry. In fact, he staunchly supported the stance promoted by his elected officials. “Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it,” he told me. “I would rather die.” When I asked him why he felt this way even as he faced severe illness, he explained: “We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.” https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying-whiteness/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying...
  - kbolino 3y ago
    There is nothing more smug than the point-and-laugh hit piece, where a journalist finds some ignorant rube for the college-educated to sneer at.
    - silverquiet 3y ago
      The author is not a journalist, but a doctor who studied public health issues.
      - kbolino 3y ago
        I don't think the author's credentials alter the dynamic at play here.
        silverquiet 3y ago
        Would it be better if he just kept quiet and let the health issues he is seeing go unmentioned because otherwise it would make people look bad? Do you think his book is just an exercise in mockery because he enjoys it?
voxic11 3y ago
Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, I'm pretty sure people opposed excessive government regulation before the 1980s.
- pydry 3y ago
  The idea of opposing excessive regulation isn't the same thing as this idea that regulation is a sliding scale with "more = worse" and "less = better". But yes, opposition to regulations did exist before. The former isn't a Koch thing, the latter is. Atlas Shrugged was more the manifestation of the wet dreams of snowflake industrialists who felt intimidated by union power and communism (which were significant in the 50s, hence the rise of the middle class).
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  As someone who lived through this time period (albeit as a child), there was a phase transition in the way mainstream America treated government regulation around this time. It was much more common for politicians of both parties to advocate micromanaged regulation before this; hell, Nixon imposed price controls on private business to fight inflation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20issued%20Executive%20Order%2011615,in%20order%20to%20counter%20inflation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#:~:text=Nixon%20....
- jfyi 3y ago
  Rand's work wasn't held in high regard... or any regard at all, really, until after her death in the 80's. I don't disagree with the general sentiment though.
TheMagicHorsey 3y ago
Spoken like someone who has never seen the waste, lack of reason, and counterproductive incentives of a highly regulated market such as healthcare and telecoms in the US. Also, if you are not selling in the EU you would never start a high tech company in the EU. Whereas people travel across the world to found high tech companies in the US that are not even selling product in the US.
- pydry 3y ago
  I was trying to say that you can't boil the topic of regulations down to "more" vs "less". It appears that you were incapable of hearing this message and have responded as if I just said "MORE REGULATION! NOW!"
  - TheMagicHorsey 3y ago
    No. It seems you were incapable of understanding what I was saying ... which is MORE IS WORSE. In other words, the only people who think MORE IS WORSE is a meme are people who think the exceptions are the rule. Almost always more regulation doesn't work in complex markets. Incentives are very very difficult to get right ... the exceptions where the regulations work are extremely rare. And for the most part people don't get them right.
    - piva00 3y ago
      > Almost always more regulation doesn't work in complex markets. Incentives are very very difficult to get right As if the simple incentives of a deregulated market (aka: profit above all) do work in complex markets. That's OP's whole point, you want the right laws, not more or less, sometimes more regulation is needed due to the complexity of an industry, sometimes less is completely fine. That nuance is what's missing, and it's exactly the hard part of the whole system to be balanced. > the exceptions where the regulations work are extremely rare. And for the most part people don't get them right. For the most part, companies don't get it right either. Case in point: Boeing self-regulation, USA's finance industry self-regulation pre-2008, etc. Just let go of the dogma.
kbolino 3y ago
Given that the EPA was happy to watch American industry die on the vine while foreign competitors operating under different regulatory regimes swooped in, the "manufactured American meme" had some merit. Regulation has to be responsive. Of course, a lack of responsiveness, or even basic consideration for the average person, has defined the U.S. Government as a whole for the better part of several decades. Ever since industrial workers sided with Nixon, the government has become a class warfare tool where highly educated but not-that-well compensated professional managers have worked to denigrate and disenfranchise the rough-and-tumble bullies from their primary school days. This deep-seated resentment explains a lot more than money alone explains, especially since the government itself is in control of the money supply and thus not that beholden to monied interests.
- pydry 3y ago
  >Given that the EPA was happy to watch American industry die on the vine while foreign competitors operating under different regulatory regimes swooped in You don't have to let foreign competitors that ruin the environment and oppress their employees compete directly with local competitors. You can slap them with tariffs or even prohibit their goods entirely. When the US is fighting to maintain influence in Eastern Europe it understands this logic and applies this lever. When the environment and labor rights are at stake though, it's like "what lever? I don't see a lever anywhere"

paulsutter 3y ago

Yes each time we see these cookie warnings, we admire a system that does so much to our benefit

FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
Just install some browser extension that automatically refuses them.
- fmajid 3y ago
  The next step for the EU is Global Privacy Control, which is basically the old Do-Not_track header, but legally enforceable this time (the EU is not alone in this, it's already the law in California). If your browser sends that header, the website will have to not show you a cookie popup and treat it as a "Reject All" instead.
troupo 3y ago
Nothing in the law requires those cookie banners. If you don't agree, you can quote to me the exact passage in the GDPR where it talks about cookies, banners, or browsers. Or you can read what Github has to say about this: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
- bengale 3y ago
  This is the exact problem though, noone really cares what the law says, they care that now they have annoying cookie banners. They don't blame the businesses for this; they blame the EU. The more of this they layer on the more ordinary people get irritated by the EU. This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more. If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it.

bengale 3y ago

> the general sentiment towards government regulation in europe, which is typically, "more, better". I'd need to be convinced that's true. More regulation was a huge part of the successful campaign to get the UK out of the EU. It seems to get effusive praise in places like this, but in daily business, I generally hear the term GDPR spat. Is anyone expecting the incoming car regulation around beeps and bongs every time you approach the speed limit to be received well by ordinary people? The USBC stuff that this article heaps praise on is a great example, techies love it, everyone else in everyday life I've only heard complain about it. Maybe it improves things long-term, but I can't remember hearing anyone say "more, better" about any of these things. I would say the overall sentiment I've heard is that there is a general suspicion that the reason European business lags so far behind the US is that we're held back. I don't think the handful of people that will be able to play Fortnite on their iPhones will change this. It certainly wont if they end up needing multiple app stores for their daily apps.

xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
> the successful campaign to get the UK out of the EU. Depending on your definition of success of course.
- Ragnarork 3y ago
  Ah but the campaign was successful. The actual pullout and its consequences, on the other hand...
  - arethuza 3y ago
    Even the Daily Telegraph is having second thoughts about Brexit: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/28/uk-eu-are-being-pushed-back-together/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/28/uk-eu-are-be...
mjburgess 3y ago
note that since leaving the EU, UK regulators have been widely seen (by business and finance) to take a more risk-averse attitude on the EU across all new comptences brought in (eg, food standards, chemical standards, etc.). The 52% who voted to leave were not voting for a massive deregulated society. In most cases, actually the opposite: "bring back control"

immibis 3y ago

Nowhere is the general sentiment towards government regulation "more, better". The correct sentiment is both "more good ones, better" and "less bad ones, better"

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
But there is the general sentiment "less, better". And that's because it's right. That "good ones" is both subjective and a challenge tantamount to "write bug-free code". People aren't worthy of that kind of trust.
- immibis 3y ago
  This comment explains it well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39609172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39609172 To summarize: Laws are like lines of code. Nobody in their right mind would put programs on a spectrum between "more lines" and "fewer lines". Lines of code that help do the necessary work are good, and unnecessary lines of code are bad. And so it is with regulations.
hnben 3y ago
"more, better" assumes that most regulations are perceived as good

weebull 3y ago

> So our lived experience of government regulation is, in large part, positive. I think I'd nuance it a bit. We see it as necessary. Necessary because otherwise powerful companies take advantage I think most can point to bad places in life for government regulations, but when the opposition is more powerful than most governments you need to fight with the most powerful thing you have.