Ask HN: Can the US fix regulatory capture?
From the FCC to SEC to CDC lobbying and rotating door hiring practices, is it possible to engineer a legal framework to ensure public trust in our institutions?
14 comments
I like the point that you make that stopping corruption isn't just import to stop corruption, but by stopping corruption you bolster institutional legitimacy, which is necessary for the government to get people to do things they might not want to do.
(It's hard to get anybody in government to take the legitimacy problem seriously, however, because they don't get it that people legitimately think there is a legitimacy problem.)
(It's hard to get anybody in government to take the legitimacy problem seriously, however, because they don't get it that people legitimately think there is a legitimacy problem.)
So long as the government can basically pick the winners/losers in the marketplace, there's an incentive for corruption. Whatever checks and balances and regulations are instituted to defend against this just serve as a feedback mechanism to increase the price for crooked behavior.
The only solution to this are systems like free markets, or as close to this as you can get. Winners and losers have to be freely chosen by quality and price in the marketplace. Corruption can't exist if there's no ability to buy anything of value.
The only solution to this are systems like free markets, or as close to this as you can get. Winners and losers have to be freely chosen by quality and price in the marketplace. Corruption can't exist if there's no ability to buy anything of value.
I can't understand your comment any way other than: you can't have a corrupt government if you have no government.
If, absent regulation, markets result in monopolies, you just have the situation in which the powerful do as they will and every one else must suffer it, but without the possibility of legislative redress. Uncertain how to distinguish this end result from the current situation.
If, absent regulation, markets result in monopolies, you just have the situation in which the powerful do as they will and every one else must suffer it, but without the possibility of legislative redress. Uncertain how to distinguish this end result from the current situation.
But how can we have free markets if we have irrational actors?
eg: first hit on google on the subject: https://innovationprotocol.com/2018/10/18/humans-arent-ratio....
eg: first hit on google on the subject: https://innovationprotocol.com/2018/10/18/humans-arent-ratio....
> But how can we have free markets if we have irrational actors?
1. why can't we have free markets in the presence of irrational actors? A free market just means... a market free from government interference. Irrational actors don't prevent this. Maybe you talking about "efficient" markets?
2. I'm really tired of people using the "people aren't 100% rational" as some sort of checkmate against markets. Humans being sometimes irrational just means the markets aren't making the most optimal choices. It doesn't mean that we should throw out the idea of markets, or an government bureaucrat (also an irrational actor!) tasked with overriding the market is necessarily going to be better.
1. why can't we have free markets in the presence of irrational actors? A free market just means... a market free from government interference. Irrational actors don't prevent this. Maybe you talking about "efficient" markets?
2. I'm really tired of people using the "people aren't 100% rational" as some sort of checkmate against markets. Humans being sometimes irrational just means the markets aren't making the most optimal choices. It doesn't mean that we should throw out the idea of markets, or an government bureaucrat (also an irrational actor!) tasked with overriding the market is necessarily going to be better.
I don't think it is possible to fix corporate capture in a capitalist nation.
Let's take a look at IRS, IRS could bring in a lot more money, however, they simply do not have the funds to go after the big fish. Seems like its been getting gutted for a reason. While, politicians can continue screaming TAXES BAD, rich give you jobs. Article about the problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/sunday-review/tax-rich-ir...
FDA has its own problems. There have been a lot of issues with drugs making it the market with poor research and/or results. Article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-increasingly-approve...
Drug companies even have their hands in education. Here is an article about a lecture which discusses some of the issues: https://ethics.harvard.edu/event/drug-companies-and-medicine...
Money gives an individual/corporation power. If you are extremely wealthy individual you are a lot more likely to avoid punishment for doing things, which are illegal. Some large companies have more cash than whole countries. It is mind boggling.
We as individuals are generally NOT FREE at all. Doctors? Surgeons? Engineers? Youtubers? Researchers? We are just slaves of the system and we generally cannot express ourselves completely because making $200k doesn't mean we have financial freedom. It means we have a decent existence and nice things, then maybe one day we reach financial freedom. Therefore, people who write the checks have influence and that may affect our judgment.
I recently read about a physician that was reporting a drug was causing heart attacks. First he contacted the drug manufacturer, then the FDA, then the news because nobody cared. The drug maker funded a discrediting campaign. His bosses were having talks with him. He was concerned he would lose everything he has worked for.
I believe until we are truly free we will never be able to be completely honest. At that point money can just fund discredit campaigns and our voice wont matter to the general public.
Let's take a look at IRS, IRS could bring in a lot more money, however, they simply do not have the funds to go after the big fish. Seems like its been getting gutted for a reason. While, politicians can continue screaming TAXES BAD, rich give you jobs. Article about the problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/sunday-review/tax-rich-ir...
FDA has its own problems. There have been a lot of issues with drugs making it the market with poor research and/or results. Article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-increasingly-approve...
Drug companies even have their hands in education. Here is an article about a lecture which discusses some of the issues: https://ethics.harvard.edu/event/drug-companies-and-medicine...
Money gives an individual/corporation power. If you are extremely wealthy individual you are a lot more likely to avoid punishment for doing things, which are illegal. Some large companies have more cash than whole countries. It is mind boggling.
We as individuals are generally NOT FREE at all. Doctors? Surgeons? Engineers? Youtubers? Researchers? We are just slaves of the system and we generally cannot express ourselves completely because making $200k doesn't mean we have financial freedom. It means we have a decent existence and nice things, then maybe one day we reach financial freedom. Therefore, people who write the checks have influence and that may affect our judgment.
I recently read about a physician that was reporting a drug was causing heart attacks. First he contacted the drug manufacturer, then the FDA, then the news because nobody cared. The drug maker funded a discrediting campaign. His bosses were having talks with him. He was concerned he would lose everything he has worked for.
I believe until we are truly free we will never be able to be completely honest. At that point money can just fund discredit campaigns and our voice wont matter to the general public.
David Runciman's book, "How Democracy Ends", starts with an analysis of various coups in democratic countries (post WWII) and notes how it was important to quickly take control of mass media to establish the new regime. Turns out that today, taking control of media isn't so important, and it is not just because the internet is a thing now. Rather, it is exactly because it was discovered how effective "discrediting campaigns" are.
Your example was a microcosm. Consider environmental pollution, smoking, vehicle safety, or climate change. For every Silent Spring or Unsafe at Any Speed, opposed interests just produce enough counter-claims to make many people turn away from the whole issue. And of course, modern media loves a good conflict and so boosts unreliable signals.
Your example was a microcosm. Consider environmental pollution, smoking, vehicle safety, or climate change. For every Silent Spring or Unsafe at Any Speed, opposed interests just produce enough counter-claims to make many people turn away from the whole issue. And of course, modern media loves a good conflict and so boosts unreliable signals.
Watch this 10 minutes testimony of Maddie De Garay's mother testifying about her and her daughter's experience in Pfizer's 12-15 year old COVID mRNA treatment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ
1) The app provided to clinical trial participants was designed to highly limit what side effects/adverse events could be reported - with no area for free-form writing of symptoms. 2) Maddie's mother tried contacting the lead researcher of the clinical trial, the FDA, CDC, etc. during the trial - but they still haven't had a response from any of them.
The clinical trial results were manufactured for this trial.
And now we're seeing in part why as Pfizer was forced to release their data that they wanted to only release 75 years from now.
1) The app provided to clinical trial participants was designed to highly limit what side effects/adverse events could be reported - with no area for free-form writing of symptoms. 2) Maddie's mother tried contacting the lead researcher of the clinical trial, the FDA, CDC, etc. during the trial - but they still haven't had a response from any of them.
The clinical trial results were manufactured for this trial.
And now we're seeing in part why as Pfizer was forced to release their data that they wanted to only release 75 years from now.
It seems to me that to do something like this, you'd need the people who stand to benefit most financially to regulate against their own financial interests. The public interest should come first, but it rarely seems to.
I have no idea if this is true, but one story that I’ve read about Joseph Kennedy Sr. (JFK’s father), is that he took all the dirty tricks he learned on Wall Street (and on which he made his family fortune) and essentially traded that knowledge for political power becoming the first chairman of the SEC.
> The public interest should come first, but it rarely seems to.
"Should" is a wish, in this case by an outsider.
The "public interest" is not in the interest of any of the participants.
"Should" is a wish, in this case by an outsider.
The "public interest" is not in the interest of any of the participants.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Of course not. This was disproved ~3000 years ago.
Said another way: can the Constitution save your soul?
Said another way: can the Constitution save your soul?