3 ms·

Lobbyists don't do this. Regulators/lawmakers need to be corrupt and/or incompetent for lobbying to do this.

contravariant 2mo ago
So lobbyists did do it then?
teiferer 2mo ago
You need lobbyists to pull on one side and the general population to be too uninformed or too non-caring to not pull enough in the other direction.
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  That removes the culpability again from the people being lobbied, who are for paid by mandatory taxes, so they don't have to win work - their only job is expertise and honesty.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - teiferer 2mo ago
    I don't think it does. Of course they are culpable, that's the whole point. Them being in that position of power is not god given though, nor set in stone. Replacing them is a single election away. Still, people keep voting for them. So the ultimate responsibility is with the people who keep voting them into office.
    - philipallstar 2mo ago
      People don't vote regulators into office.
      - teiferer 2mo ago
        Last time I checked, regulators are part of governments which tend to be confirmed in one way or another in democracies. Different story on non-democratic forms of government. There the hate is justified. But just complaining about regulators relieves those in power (the voting populace) of their responsibilities. Tempting (and convenient) though for everybody part of that populace.
        philipallstar 2mo ago
        Where do you live that regulators are part of elected political parties?
        teiferer 2mo ago
        Elected representatives decide who is in charge. For example, in many countries they elect the government. To which the secretary of housing belongs which decides how housing policy is executed which is implemented by the bureaucrats in that department. It's all rooted in the democratic will, albeit some processes are slow to change (which is a feature too so that a crazy person can't trash your country too bad before you have a chance to course correct at the next election). If it were not then you would not be living in a democracy. Though it seems we are going in circles since the way you phrased it indicates that you are unwilling to even engage with my argument. Nobody claimed that the regulator is in the political party, (except for one-party states perhaps which are notoriously undemocratic). So, I'll disengage.
        philipallstar 2mo ago
        I think we agree then that given their eternal, apolitical nature, replacing regulators is not "an election away", even if people weren't already voting on a vast array of different issues and thus no one could determine from a vote that a particular regulator needed replacing.
makapuf 2mo ago
You need both, and both are responsible for the current state. To stop this, you need to try to stop both until one doesn't exists.
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  Lobbying is fine, though. Lobbying isn't bribery, although sometimes it probably looks like it. Lobbying is also an industry saying "please don't kill us; here's why that thing will kill us". The people making the decisions have the power (hence lobbyists need to exist) and they need to be better.
  - dolia 2mo ago
    I will treat this comment charitably and just say that it's yet another case of "definition of X sounds good, so X can't be bad". I believe in reality it's less about "please don't kill us" and more about getting officials to set up the "pleas profit us" situation. Yes, money don't change hands in an office, so it's TECHNICALLY not a bribery.
    - philipallstar 2mo ago
      Well, unlike regulators, companies die without profit. So they do indeed need profit. Smaller companies might want a system currently tilted against them to be changed. Larger companies might spend a fortune on regulation-following that has harmful outcomes, e.g. raising prices, for no benefit. Both of those motivations sound reasonable, and both getting their way may result in more profit for them. There's nothing wrong with profit. The only thing that can possibly be bad is the regulation-writer, or the regulation enforcer, behaving incompetently and/or corruptly, who decides or enforces bad rules.
  - lll-o-lll 2mo ago
    The revolving door between politician to made man (lobbyist) seems like a bit of a problem, no? These poor ex-politicians/staffers need to earn those mil+ salaries or they couldn’t effectively save these poor industries from demise? Perhaps the politician being asked to go easy on the regulations is potentially influenced by the ex-politicians rather lucrative position? Corruption does not need to be overt to be destructive. It’s absolutely pervasive.
radicalbyte 2mo ago
The lawmakers are: in the EU you have a block of right-wing parties. The large part are funded by large companies and make laws which favour them. Same thing as in the US. There are other right-wing (and left-wing) blocks who are funded by the Kremlin and Kremlin-supporters who just try to break things. At the EC they're not corrupt, they try their best, but they're often given bad advice and are themselves not experts. And their power is limited (they can nudge but not push).
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  > a block of right-wing parties. The large part are funded by large companies and make laws which favour them. Same thing as in the US. You need to be mad to think it's the right wing parties in the US who get the most funding. E.g. [0] > The Biden—now Harris—campaign committee raised $997.2 million and Trump’s campaign committee raised $388 million in total between Jan. 2023 and Oct. 16, 2024, the most recent date for which Federal Election Commission filings are available [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...
  - tovej 2mo ago
    Democrats are also right wing. A liberal is on the right. The DSA is the closest to a left wing party you have in the US. They would be center left in northern european countries.
    - philipallstar 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - radicalbyte 2mo ago
        Might want to take a look at the news channels you're following as none of them describe the Democrats, outside a bit of performative "socially left" things (like keeping the government out of bedrooms - though as a libertarian I don't consider it a "left" issue at all, more a basic freedom).
worik 2mo ago
> lawmakers need to be corrupt and/or incompetent for lobbying to do this. Not really Lobbyists get to talk into the ears of the powerful. It is literally their job. They make very sensible arguments for their point of view. So it seems very sensible, for the legislators, to make laws that aid the powerful and impede the weak. The legislators are very busy with pressures from all sides. The cognitive load of considering views that you do not hear is enormous. It is not "incompetent or corrupt" to fail. The system has the corruption baked in. It is one of the mechanisms, of many, that wealth and power concentrate in "democracies " I have seen this process from the inside, good people making terrible decisions
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  I'm sorry they're so busy, but everyone's busy. Not everyone gets to drag money out of people on threat of jail, not have to pay any corporation tax on it, and spend that money on offices and salaries, do a bad job, and have everyone solely blame other people for their failings. It's like if a judge blamed one side's legal representative for their terrible decisions. The legal representative is not paid to be neutral. They're paid to represent their client. The judge is paid to be neutral.

So lobbyists did do it then?

You need lobbyists to pull on one side and the general population to be too uninformed or too non-caring to not pull enough in the other direction.

philipallstar 2mo ago
That removes the culpability again from the people being lobbied, who are for paid by mandatory taxes, so they don't have to win work - their only job is expertise and honesty.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- teiferer 2mo ago
  I don't think it does. Of course they are culpable, that's the whole point. Them being in that position of power is not god given though, nor set in stone. Replacing them is a single election away. Still, people keep voting for them. So the ultimate responsibility is with the people who keep voting them into office.
  - philipallstar 2mo ago
    People don't vote regulators into office.
    - teiferer 2mo ago
      Last time I checked, regulators are part of governments which tend to be confirmed in one way or another in democracies. Different story on non-democratic forms of government. There the hate is justified. But just complaining about regulators relieves those in power (the voting populace) of their responsibilities. Tempting (and convenient) though for everybody part of that populace.
      - philipallstar 2mo ago
        Where do you live that regulators are part of elected political parties?
        teiferer 2mo ago
        Elected representatives decide who is in charge. For example, in many countries they elect the government. To which the secretary of housing belongs which decides how housing policy is executed which is implemented by the bureaucrats in that department. It's all rooted in the democratic will, albeit some processes are slow to change (which is a feature too so that a crazy person can't trash your country too bad before you have a chance to course correct at the next election). If it were not then you would not be living in a democracy. Though it seems we are going in circles since the way you phrased it indicates that you are unwilling to even engage with my argument. Nobody claimed that the regulator is in the political party, (except for one-party states perhaps which are notoriously undemocratic). So, I'll disengage.
        philipallstar 2mo ago
        I think we agree then that given their eternal, apolitical nature, replacing regulators is not "an election away", even if people weren't already voting on a vast array of different issues and thus no one could determine from a vote that a particular regulator needed replacing.

makapuf 2mo ago

You need both, and both are responsible for the current state. To stop this, you need to try to stop both until one doesn't exists.

philipallstar 2mo ago
Lobbying is fine, though. Lobbying isn't bribery, although sometimes it probably looks like it. Lobbying is also an industry saying "please don't kill us; here's why that thing will kill us". The people making the decisions have the power (hence lobbyists need to exist) and they need to be better.
- dolia 2mo ago
  I will treat this comment charitably and just say that it's yet another case of "definition of X sounds good, so X can't be bad". I believe in reality it's less about "please don't kill us" and more about getting officials to set up the "pleas profit us" situation. Yes, money don't change hands in an office, so it's TECHNICALLY not a bribery.
  - philipallstar 2mo ago
    Well, unlike regulators, companies die without profit. So they do indeed need profit. Smaller companies might want a system currently tilted against them to be changed. Larger companies might spend a fortune on regulation-following that has harmful outcomes, e.g. raising prices, for no benefit. Both of those motivations sound reasonable, and both getting their way may result in more profit for them. There's nothing wrong with profit. The only thing that can possibly be bad is the regulation-writer, or the regulation enforcer, behaving incompetently and/or corruptly, who decides or enforces bad rules.
- lll-o-lll 2mo ago
  The revolving door between politician to made man (lobbyist) seems like a bit of a problem, no? These poor ex-politicians/staffers need to earn those mil+ salaries or they couldn’t effectively save these poor industries from demise? Perhaps the politician being asked to go easy on the regulations is potentially influenced by the ex-politicians rather lucrative position? Corruption does not need to be overt to be destructive. It’s absolutely pervasive.

radicalbyte 2mo ago

The lawmakers are: in the EU you have a block of right-wing parties. The large part are funded by large companies and make laws which favour them. Same thing as in the US. There are other right-wing (and left-wing) blocks who are funded by the Kremlin and Kremlin-supporters who just try to break things. At the EC they're not corrupt, they try their best, but they're often given bad advice and are themselves not experts. And their power is limited (they can nudge but not push).

philipallstar 2mo ago
> a block of right-wing parties. The large part are funded by large companies and make laws which favour them. Same thing as in the US. You need to be mad to think it's the right wing parties in the US who get the most funding. E.g. [0] > The Biden—now Harris—campaign committee raised $997.2 million and Trump’s campaign committee raised $388 million in total between Jan. 2023 and Oct. 16, 2024, the most recent date for which Federal Election Commission filings are available [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...
- tovej 2mo ago
  Democrats are also right wing. A liberal is on the right. The DSA is the closest to a left wing party you have in the US. They would be center left in northern european countries.
  - philipallstar 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - radicalbyte 2mo ago
      Might want to take a look at the news channels you're following as none of them describe the Democrats, outside a bit of performative "socially left" things (like keeping the government out of bedrooms - though as a libertarian I don't consider it a "left" issue at all, more a basic freedom).

worik 2mo ago

> lawmakers need to be corrupt and/or incompetent for lobbying to do this. Not really Lobbyists get to talk into the ears of the powerful. It is literally their job. They make very sensible arguments for their point of view. So it seems very sensible, for the legislators, to make laws that aid the powerful and impede the weak. The legislators are very busy with pressures from all sides. The cognitive load of considering views that you do not hear is enormous. It is not "incompetent or corrupt" to fail. The system has the corruption baked in. It is one of the mechanisms, of many, that wealth and power concentrate in "democracies " I have seen this process from the inside, good people making terrible decisions

philipallstar 2mo ago
I'm sorry they're so busy, but everyone's busy. Not everyone gets to drag money out of people on threat of jail, not have to pay any corporation tax on it, and spend that money on offices and salaries, do a bad job, and have everyone solely blame other people for their failings. It's like if a judge blamed one side's legal representative for their terrible decisions. The legal representative is not paid to be neutral. They're paid to represent their client. The judge is paid to be neutral.