Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You mean run it like a corporation?

No.

Wouldn't that require a "survival of the fittest" form of capitalism incompatible with how you say we should run a govt?

No.

Wouldn't that corrupt our blessed, sacred govt?

Not any more than paying government workers already does.

Wouldn't that would require firing others to cut costs?

Not necessarily.

Have you any experience with firing a federal empoloyee?

Thankfully, no. But you were the one pointed out that it's hard to get good people to stay because they can make more money elsewhere. So if you pay them more, they're likelier to stay, and then you have less of a problem with needing to fire them.

Or are you suggesting we just pay everyone in the govt a whole lot more. That would surely make it more efficient, wouldn't it?

If you are correct that low salaries make it hard for the government to retain good people, then -- all else equal -- it would tend to help.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be obtuse. Greed is greed. It's not a reaction to costs. It's a desire to make money.

And the problem is that unregulated Chinese companies dump melamine (as in furniture) as a filler in pet food to make it appear to have more protein. They then sell it here. Because these business activities are essentially unregulated, there or here, there is melamine-laced pet food killing pets all over the country.

Doubtless you'll try again to blame this on unions, instead of the predictable combination of greed and the lack of appropriate regulation.

Thank you. You just made my argument for me:

"Greed is greed. It's not a reaction to costs. It's a desire to make money."

What exactly are those "costs"? Why do you think American pet food companies buy the wholesale ingredients in China? Because the cost of manufacturing it in this country is too high. You want to know what those high costs involve? Have you had any employees lately? Priced a health plan recently? Bought worker's comp insurance?

Those blessed shysters every liberal seems to love are a real treat to deal with. Someone falls down the steps and suddenly the insurance company's jacking your rates through the ceiling. That's a different issue than regulations, but the folks like regs always seem to be the same folks who love trial lawyers. It's a cornucopia of fun folks who apply what I'd call a "cuttlefish" business model by abusing a well intentioned concept.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Er, I meant, judges...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381&page=1

This story quotes Philip Howard, the lawyer who wrote "The Death of Common Sense," possibly the greatest anti-abusurd-regulation book in history. You can call me a crank all you like, but please read this man's book. It is simply fucking amazing, and very evenhanded.

In fairness, I bet they were really nice pants.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Federal Judges or Magistrates are not at all indicative of the average federal employee and you clearly know that. You also know I'm not talking about them when I talk about the average bureaucrat.

Re Teddy, ha. Nice catch. I was off by a few years.

Ok. Scratch the courthouse people for the sake of argument - you're saying there's nobody worthwhile in the SEC, or the EPA? I know people who've served in both who don't fit the stereotype.

But whatever. No one is going to defend the indefensible absurdity of someone like that asshole with the pants abusing consumer protection laws and I hope the judge on that case, who already sounds pretty pissed with him, awards costs to the dry cleaners.

My point is that the very same things that make the private sector a Good Thing, e.g., focus on maximizing shareholder value in the near term, ability to introduce new products quickly, etc., make it congenitally incapable of regulating itself in any manner that would require significant sacrifice now in favor of the long-term (and necessarily speculative) well-being of people who are not shareholders or customers.

And we've seen unfettered American capitalism in full flight before -- in the 19th Century. And far from regulating themselves in a manner that would have made government intervention unnecessary and unpopular (which was clearly in their self interest), the best and the brightest and the richest managed to fuck things up so badly that people are still reading The Jungle 100 years later. I don't think human nature has changed enough to make that experiment worth repeating.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Federal Judges or Magistrates are not at all indicative of the average federal employee and you clearly know that. You also know I'm not talking about them when I talk about the average bureaucrat.

Re Teddy, ha. Nice catch. I was off by a few years.

Whatever. I work very closely with bureaucrats in the FDA, the CDC, CMS and a variety of other federal agencies (generally within DHHS, but I imagine the point stands in other arenas too). I also work with a number of people in the state, county and city health agencies as well as the state's AGs office and another very large state agency. All tend to be very dedicated professionals who know their shit. I don't run into the stereotypical DMV types at all in negotiating through the state and federal beauracracies, though I do tend to run into people who manage to perform a lot of miracles with little staff, little budget, and little time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
Ok. Scratch the courthouse people for the sake of argument - you're saying there's nobody worthwhile in the SEC, or the EPA? I know people who've served in both who don't fit the stereotype.

But whatever. No one is going to defend the indefensible absurdity of someone like that asshole with the pants abusing consumer protection laws and I hope the judge on that case, who already sounds pretty pissed with him, awards costs to the dry cleaners.

My point is that the very same things that make the private sector a Good Thing, e.g., focus on maximizing shareholder value in the near term, ability to introduce new products quickly, etc., make it congenitally incapable of regulating itself in any manner that would require significant sacrifice now in favor of the long-term (and necessarily speculative) well-being of people who are not shareholders or customers.

And we've seen unfettered American capitalism in full flight before -- in the 19th Century. And far from regulating themselves in a manner that would have made government intervention unnecessary and unpopular (which was clearly in their self interest), the best and the brightest and the richest managed to fuck things up so badly that people are still reading The Jungle 100 years later. I don't think human nature has changed enough to make that experiment worth repeating.

I do realize there will have to be some sort of regulation for exactly the reasons you cite. However, I think we should allow the market another run at doing what it does, and slapping its hand when it goes too far. What we have now is a proactive regulatory environment which is too much a tool of what it is supposed to regulate.

I think regulation should be reactive rather than preventative. I think that's the real crux of our dispute. On top of that is the difference we'd see in the amount of regulation that should ever be implemented.

I think the pendulum has swung way too far towatrd a Nanny State form of regulation and we need to swing it back. the only way is to allow the market more freedoms. I think the other solution is to stop creating faux fixes like SarBox, which only make everything worse and amount to corporate welfare for lawyers and accountants.

People who did what I did for a living should be very rare. You can't argue that when lawyers and accountants start filling most of the towers in the bigger cities and doctors' salaries are decreasing, we've come to a bad place. Even Wall St gives people something. I don't know what lawyers and accountants do for me except bill me and complicate what'd otherwise be simple.* We exist because of regulations, and we shouldn't. Kids should be aiming to do something better than getting paid an upper middle class income to work people through a Byzantine pile of pointless paper.

I've walked a bit beyond the scope of the original debate, but the issues are so symbiotically connected it seemed right. And why not?

* Except crim defense lawyers, who perform a service society needs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Whatever. I work very closely with bureaucrats in the FDA, the CDC, CMS and a variety of other federal agencies (generally within DHHS, but I imagine the point stands in other arenas too). I also work with a number of people in the state, county and city health agencies as well as the state's AGs office and another very large state agency. All tend to be very dedicated professionals who know their shit. I don't run into the stereotypical DMV types at all in negotiating through the state and federal beauracracies, though I do tend to run into people who manage to perform a lot of miracles with little staff, little budget, and little time.

I've represented people in debarment proceedings before the EPA. To call the agency reps I dealt with anything beyond "technically alive" is a stretch.

The state govt varieties I presently encounter on a regular basis are a complete comedy act. It's like I'm meeting with the Bluth family once a week.*

There are exceptions. Think about what "exceptions" means in the context of the size of the organizations I'm describing.

* BTW, I represented the state for three years. I went to lots of meetings and sent them loads of bills. Their litigation strategy, distilled to a graphic presentation, would look something like a Pollock. The waste and stupidity was breathtaking.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think regulation should be reactive rather than preventative.

That's when you get the worst kind of regulation imaginable.

Start with TSA. Why are all liquids banned? Because someone tried to make a bomb by mixing "shampoo" with "conditioner". Why do we have to take off our shoes? Because someone tried to blow up a plane with his sneaker. Does it make any sense whatsoever to spend all kinds of time focusing on those threats when any savvy person is coming up with some other way of smuggling on the contraband to a plane?

And, it's easy to go beyond TSA. Drug regulation--take if off the marke after it's killed people. OSHA regs are often misaimed at hazards that are particularly bad, but extremely rare. The list goes on, but inevitably risk regulation based on reactive approaches leads to terribly inefficient results.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's when you get the worst kind of regulation imaginable.

Start with TSA. Why are all liquids banned? Because someone tried to make a bomb by mixing "shampoo" with "conditioner". Why do we have to take off our shoes? Because someone tried to blow up a plane with his sneaker. Does it make any sense whatsoever to spend all kinds of time focusing on those threats when any savvy person is coming up with some other way of smuggling on the contraband to a plane?

And, it's easy to go beyond TSA. Drug regulation--take if off the marke after it's killed people. OSHA regs are often misaimed at hazards that are particularly bad, but extremely rare. The list goes on, but inevitably risk regulation based on reactive approaches leads to terribly inefficient results.

Insert the words "proportional, narrow and well reasoned" before "reactive."

I thought they were implied. I guess I lost track of the topic at hand for a second.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Thank you. You just made my argument for me:

"Greed is greed. It's not a reaction to costs. It's a desire to make money."

What exactly are those "costs"? Why do you think American pet food companies buy the wholesale ingredients in China? Because the cost of manufacturing it in this country is too high. You want to know what those high costs involve? Have you had any employees lately? Priced a health plan recently? Bought worker's comp insurance?

Those blessed shysters every liberal seems to love are a real treat to deal with. Someone falls down the steps and suddenly the insurance company's jacking your rates through the ceiling. That's a different issue than regulations, but the folks like regs always seem to be the same folks who love trial lawyers. It's a cornucopia of fun folks who apply what I'd call a "cuttlefish" business model by abusing a well intentioned concept.

I suppose it's those greedy trial lawyers who are responsible for doctor's malpractice insurance going up by 10% a few years back, notwithstanding a steady downward trend in the number of claims, successful claims, and settlements?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Insert the words "proportional, narrow and well reasoned" before "reactive."

I thought they were implied. I guess I lost track of the topic at hand for a second.

But if you insert those words before "preventative" aren't you even better off? Why let someone die before you decide to regulate? If you know something poses a risk, and you decide that it's worth eliminating/reducing that risk, why not do so before people are hurt/harmed?

I have no trouble with the argument that there's a lot of short-sighted regulation, but I wager that's more because it's often reactive than preventative. People get worried about worst cases, and decide it's necessary to spend gobs of money to avoid that worst case, even though it drains resources from other, more sensible places to spend it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I suppose it's those greedy trial lawyers who are responsible for doctor's malpractice insurance going up by 105 a few years back, notwithstanding a steady downward trend in the number of claims, successful claims, and settlements?

Yes. They are. Their avaraice and greed provided the perfect pretext for the insurance companies to blast up the rates.

The Ins Cos are every bit as culpable in that regard, but they needed a dance partner, and trial lawyers have always jumped at the opporunity to start their two step.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Trial lawyers love Ins Companies because they are their bogeymen and revenue sources. Ins Cos don't really mind trial lawyers because they allow them to gin up the rates.

But if the trial lawyers don't run around scumming any slight hint of negligence into a suit, the Ins Cos can't pull their scam.

Ever hear a defense lawyer say he wishes plaintiff's lawyers were put out of business? Of course not. They know what pays their salaries. They'll shake their heads about frivolous cases to their clients, but they fucking LOVE plaintiff's lawyers.

I've been both. When people ask me about the fields, I usually smile and say "Nobody buys a nice pad being completely honest. You've gotta be a shit for money. It's just a fact of life." My lawyer buddies get real fucking pissed when I say that shit in front of friends who someday might give them business.

It's a fake industry. Contrived and invented to give fat white men pocket money for golf betting.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But if you insert those words before "preventative" aren't you even better off? Why let someone die before you decide to regulate? If you know something poses a risk, and you decide that it's worth eliminating/reducing that risk, why not do so before people are hurt/harmed?

You stake a good position, between mine and Weed's. I have no response. You might be right. I'd hedge in the other direction, but I really can't say your hedge wouldn't work just as effectively.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You stake a good position, between mine and Weed's. I have no response. You might be right. I'd hedge in the other direction, but I really can't say your hedge wouldn't work just as effectively.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'd agree with you that it often is easier to identify the true scope of the risk after it has been allowed to have consequences first. It is easy to predict all kinds of horribles, and can often be the basis for misguided regulation. But your assumed words have taken care of that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

J