3 ms·
No, you're attacking something without even reading it. The "bipartisan coalition" in the Senate is determined to spend $32 billion (just a downpayment, for su
by AlbertCory 2y ago
No, you're attacking something without even reading it.
The "bipartisan coalition" in the Senate is determined to spend $32 billion (just a downpayment, for sure) is not planning to do what you want. They want to hand out money to a lot of universities, NGO's, and bureaucrats. In your terms, they want to deliver the clean water.
A "regulatory framework" would be something like the Dodd-Frank bill, or Sarbanes-Oxley. Maybe that's what you want, but it's not what Schumer is pushing.
- phs318u 2y agoYes, something like SOX (although one can argue that SOX, which was born of Enron, didn't stop the GFC or Maddoff). I think there's also a place for government to perhaps 'accelerate' the market to encourage certain behaviours by either creating financial incentives/disincentives. This can be in the form of grants etc. In that case, giving money to researchers in the domain would make sense - on the basis that they are more likely to understand what's technically required than a government public servant. And to your point regarding beauracrats: someone has to manage and oversee regulatory frameworks. Voluntary frameworks with no oversight at all are a figleaf. We can argue about the number/cost but we shouldn't be arguing about the need, assuming we agree on the need for regulatory frameworks in the first place.