4 ms·
> The “Shame on You” Award goes to the EPA for weak enforcement. I had a laugh at this. Honestly, I'd love a world that the right wing is seeking with low regu
by godelski 10mo ago
> The “Shame on You” Award goes to the EPA for weak enforcement.
I had a laugh at this. Honestly, I'd love a world that the right wing is seeking with low regulation. The only problem is that these companies won't behave without regulatory bodies. So yeah, in a sense I agree with them that they are a waste of tax payer money. But the waste is from private industry. They're so unreliable we need a third party constantly checking them. The inefficiency of this third party is definitely an issue but the whole reason for their existence is that they willingly misbehave.
It makes me wonder, how much money is actually wasted by this? It also feels like violations should be the primary funding for these agencies. (Probably creates perverse incentives though)
- ryandrake 10mo agoYour second sentence is so incongruent with the rest of your post. Low regulation always, always, always leads to abuse and whatever-I-can-get-away-with behavior. Why would you love that world? If the EPA had 100X its current staff, 100X its funding, 100X the teeth, 100X the enforcement, and 100X the fines collected, we would probably live in a paradise.
- godelski 10mo ago> Why would you love that world? Because you missed the premise. The premise of "what if we lived in a world where that abuse didn't exist?" Where it naturally follows "how much would be saved if that abuse didn't exist?"