8 ms·

The piece provides several examples of regulatory capture [1], where concentrated efforts by private interests overcome diffuse interests of the public for thei

by jal278 12y ago

The piece provides several examples of regulatory capture [1], where concentrated efforts by private interests overcome diffuse interests of the public for their own profit. The problem is that while a private interest group can focus all their efforts on one issue, the public has many diverse interests and has to be on guard against all the possible private interest groups at all times. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
endersshadow 12y ago
I wonder what could be done to help fight this. Not just for alcohol, but regulatory capture in general. Network neutrality is in the same boat. Other than having a generic consumer advocate lobbying group, what could be done?
- dublinben 12y ago
  Get the government out of these areas. You can't have regulatory capture without government regulation.
  - jal278 12y ago
    That's true -- but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. What about situations where government regulation is desirable or necessary (e.g. limitations on environmental pollution)?
    - dublinben 12y ago
      We have a long way to go before we have to worry about the small number of situations where regulation may be necessary. I think we should focus on all the obviously bad regulations (like those at issue in this story) before we start to tackle the more justifiable ones.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. Not exactly. What's implicit in that statement is that a structure with the physical ability to create and enforce regulations will probably create some effective regulations, and some ineffective regulations. Just like how a market will probably lead to some efficient outcomes, and some inefficient outcomes (i.e. market failures). So the question becomes which structure (government or markets) can do better overall, or if there's some way to combine the two such that you get "the best of both worlds" which is better than an all-or-nothing approach. My belief is that markets can do better overall than a pure command economy or a mixed economy, primarily because governments (at least modern republics) are, at the end of the day, somewhat subject to market forces in the form of elections, lobbying, personal incentives of government officials, etc., This makes the whole "let's use government to solve some common market failures" idea seem fairly silly to me. If we as a society can't aggregate our desires effectively enough to avoid a market failure (e.g. to fund a public good, like a highway system [0]), why should we expect to be able to aggregate our desires effectively enough to give legal authority to an organization to use violence to avoid a market failure? [0] Using the broader definition of "public good" that includes club goods, and assuming the highway system isn't so congested that it can be considered rivalrous.
      - warfangle 12y ago
        How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])? In a Free market, how does an individual litigate against a multinational oil company that spills 17-30 million gallons of oil into a major metropolitan area[1]? (Very slowly: litigation has been ongoing with nearly no developments in the last 9 years except to drop Chevron) In a Free market, who sues the coal plants when entire uninhabited ecosystems are poisoned with lead, mercury, and sulfuric acid? In a Free market, who do you sue when global temperatures rise by 5C and flood major metropolitan areas? What market forces are at work when an entity will be defunct by the time the repercussions of its actions come to light? [0]. http://www.wnyc.org/story/most-radioactive-site-new-york/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/most-radioactive-site-new-york/ [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill
- curun1r 12y ago
  Fix campaign financing laws to limit the power of money in politics. The only reason the politicians listen to the impassioned few over the apathetic many is because the impassioned few are willing to supply the money needed to get reelected. Fix that, and politicians will start representing the interests of the broadest swathe of the electorate or, gasp, voting with their conscience based on what seems like the right thing to do. Sadly, we seem to be going the opposite direction on this at the moment.
  - jal278 12y ago
    A recent and relevant approach to addressing campaign finance is Lawrence Lessig's MayDay [1] movement, which is sort of a SuperPAC virus (a SuperPAC to end SuperPACs). [1] https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  Create oversight bodies consisting of untouchables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) edit: why the downvote?

by jal278 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

endersshadow 12y ago

I wonder what could be done to help fight this. Not just for alcohol, but regulatory capture in general. Network neutrality is in the same boat. Other than having a generic consumer advocate lobbying group, what could be done?

dublinben 12y ago
Get the government out of these areas. You can't have regulatory capture without government regulation.
- jal278 12y ago
  That's true -- but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. What about situations where government regulation is desirable or necessary (e.g. limitations on environmental pollution)?
  - dublinben 12y ago
    We have a long way to go before we have to worry about the small number of situations where regulation may be necessary. I think we should focus on all the obviously bad regulations (like those at issue in this story) before we start to tackle the more justifiable ones.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. Not exactly. What's implicit in that statement is that a structure with the physical ability to create and enforce regulations will probably create some effective regulations, and some ineffective regulations. Just like how a market will probably lead to some efficient outcomes, and some inefficient outcomes (i.e. market failures). So the question becomes which structure (government or markets) can do better overall, or if there's some way to combine the two such that you get "the best of both worlds" which is better than an all-or-nothing approach. My belief is that markets can do better overall than a pure command economy or a mixed economy, primarily because governments (at least modern republics) are, at the end of the day, somewhat subject to market forces in the form of elections, lobbying, personal incentives of government officials, etc., This makes the whole "let's use government to solve some common market failures" idea seem fairly silly to me. If we as a society can't aggregate our desires effectively enough to avoid a market failure (e.g. to fund a public good, like a highway system [0]), why should we expect to be able to aggregate our desires effectively enough to give legal authority to an organization to use violence to avoid a market failure? [0] Using the broader definition of "public good" that includes club goods, and assuming the highway system isn't so congested that it can be considered rivalrous.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])? In a Free market, how does an individual litigate against a multinational oil company that spills 17-30 million gallons of oil into a major metropolitan area[1]? (Very slowly: litigation has been ongoing with nearly no developments in the last 9 years except to drop Chevron) In a Free market, who sues the coal plants when entire uninhabited ecosystems are poisoned with lead, mercury, and sulfuric acid? In a Free market, who do you sue when global temperatures rise by 5C and flood major metropolitan areas? What market forces are at work when an entity will be defunct by the time the repercussions of its actions come to light? [0]. http://www.wnyc.org/story/most-radioactive-site-new-york/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/most-radioactive-site-new-york/ [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill
curun1r 12y ago
Fix campaign financing laws to limit the power of money in politics. The only reason the politicians listen to the impassioned few over the apathetic many is because the impassioned few are willing to supply the money needed to get reelected. Fix that, and politicians will start representing the interests of the broadest swathe of the electorate or, gasp, voting with their conscience based on what seems like the right thing to do. Sadly, we seem to be going the opposite direction on this at the moment.
- jal278 12y ago
  A recent and relevant approach to addressing campaign finance is Lawrence Lessig's MayDay [1] movement, which is sort of a SuperPAC virus (a SuperPAC to end SuperPACs). [1] https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/
enraged_camel 12y ago
Create oversight bodies consisting of untouchables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) edit: why the downvote?