4 ms·

In any large enough group of people, you will statistically get bad actors. It's like trying to get rid of all memory corruption bugs in C++ with a culture of g

by mahyarm 12y ago

In any large enough group of people, you will statistically get bad actors. It's like trying to get rid of all memory corruption bugs in C++ with a culture of good programing. It's still going to happen. You need _infrastructure_ in place to make the bad actors irrelevant.

snowwrestler 12y ago
Agreed. At some point it becomes too expensive--either in direct costs or in opportunity costs--to engineer away every possible bad thing that can happen. The most productive systems are those that efficiently balance prevention against mitigation and recovery. As we look at regulation of the financial system, I would argue that we should not lose sight of the systems we already have for mitigation and recovery. When they were most needed, they worked well. The nature of a market economy is that people are free to make decisions, including accidentally bad and purposefully bad decisions. I don't think it's possible to eliminate the bad without also unintentionally limiting some of the future good.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
Memory bugs aren't intelligent. You never find one changing it's nature or behavior to avoid debugging (even if it feels that way sometimes). Bankers are humans, the most intelligent species we know of. They want to be bad actors, and they're constantly dreaming up ways to do it better. Any infrastructure or regulations will eventually (and probably soon) be co-opted. Furthermore, given the nature of regulations (that 1% are in control of them, and the other 99% are beholden), once co-opted they will be impossible to modify to repeal. Now they help the bad guys do bad things, and they're not going to let you take them away. It gets worse, because humans are intelligent. If they spent all that effort co-opting these regulations, might it not be better to write the regulations in the first place? Much less effort for something even more adapted for them to do bad things. And since the nature of legislatures is that 0.01% are on control of them, and the other 99.99% are beholden to them, once co-opted it's impossible to repair the damage. So no, we don't need infrastructure. We need that like we need a hole in the head.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  It gets worse, because humans are intelligent. If they spent all that effort co-opting these regulations, might it not be better to write the regulations in the first place? Much less effort for something even more adapted for them to do bad things. If the regulations raise the cost of malfeasance such that bad actors have to expend more to maintain their badness, then even fully captured regulations can still be a net positive. In other words, the bad actors are still bad, but there are fewer of them left, and they can't be quite as bad because it's more expensive to maintain the regulatory capture.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    They don't raise the cost. They raise expenditures, but the benefits of capturing banking regulations are so great that the net gain is astronomical. > In other words, the bad actors are still bad, but there are fewer of them left, No. They can recruit. Any personnel shortfalls are temporary.

by mahyarm 12y ago

snowwrestler 12y ago

Agreed. At some point it becomes too expensive--either in direct costs or in opportunity costs--to engineer away every possible bad thing that can happen. The most productive systems are those that efficiently balance prevention against mitigation and recovery. As we look at regulation of the financial system, I would argue that we should not lose sight of the systems we already have for mitigation and recovery. When they were most needed, they worked well. The nature of a market economy is that people are free to make decisions, including accidentally bad and purposefully bad decisions. I don't think it's possible to eliminate the bad without also unintentionally limiting some of the future good.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

Memory bugs aren't intelligent. You never find one changing it's nature or behavior to avoid debugging (even if it feels that way sometimes). Bankers are humans, the most intelligent species we know of. They want to be bad actors, and they're constantly dreaming up ways to do it better. Any infrastructure or regulations will eventually (and probably soon) be co-opted. Furthermore, given the nature of regulations (that 1% are in control of them, and the other 99% are beholden), once co-opted they will be impossible to modify to repeal. Now they help the bad guys do bad things, and they're not going to let you take them away. It gets worse, because humans are intelligent. If they spent all that effort co-opting these regulations, might it not be better to write the regulations in the first place? Much less effort for something even more adapted for them to do bad things. And since the nature of legislatures is that 0.01% are on control of them, and the other 99.99% are beholden to them, once co-opted it's impossible to repair the damage. So no, we don't need infrastructure. We need that like we need a hole in the head.

nitrogen 12y ago
It gets worse, because humans are intelligent. If they spent all that effort co-opting these regulations, might it not be better to write the regulations in the first place? Much less effort for something even more adapted for them to do bad things. If the regulations raise the cost of malfeasance such that bad actors have to expend more to maintain their badness, then even fully captured regulations can still be a net positive. In other words, the bad actors are still bad, but there are fewer of them left, and they can't be quite as bad because it's more expensive to maintain the regulatory capture.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  They don't raise the cost. They raise expenditures, but the benefits of capturing banking regulations are so great that the net gain is astronomical. > In other words, the bad actors are still bad, but there are fewer of them left, No. They can recruit. Any personnel shortfalls are temporary.