Why regulation fails

[d-ray657]

A terrific piece on the New Yorker discusses something that we have touched on here before. It is difficult to have efficient regulation when the political appointees to regulatory jobs don't agree with the mission of the agency. This would include the revolving door that regulators/oil company employees passed through at the MMS; banking insiders regulating banking; etc. A sad example was Clarence Thomas heading the EEOC when he did not believe in its mission. Staffing agencies with opponents of the agencies is even worse than starving the agencies that the anti-government folks don't have the votes to abolish.

The article is brief and worth a look: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/06/14/100614ta_talk_surowiecki

P.S. I'm not suggesting that the contains all of the points I made, but that it is relevant to the subject matter.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Good article. I tend to think that inneffective regulation is akin to no regulation at all, and that the belief that corporations will "self regulate" through the "free market" is one of the biggest absurities ever foisted upon mankind. Taking a backseat only to the other absurd extreme---Communism.

If it were up to me I would hire nothing but totally ruthless pr**ks who have nothing but absolute and utter hatred for corporate executives in their hearts to be my regulators. Papillons are cute, but they make useless attack dogs.
Then I would probably need less regulations and less regulators as the ones in my employ would have a passion for their work.:D

Dave

[djv8ga]

If it were up to me I would hire nothing but totally ruthless pr**ks who have nothing but absolute and utter hatred for corporate executives in their hearts to be my regulators. Papillons are cute, but they make useless attack dogs. .:D

Dave
Elliot Spitzer maybe?

[Charles]

Good article. I tend to think that inneffective regulation is akin to no regulation at all, and that the belief that corporations will "self regulate" through the "free market" is one of the biggest absurities ever foisted upon mankind. Taking a backseat only to the other absurd extreme---Communism.

If it were up to me I would hire nothing but totally ruthless pr**ks who have nothing but absolute and utter hatred for corporate executives in their hearts to be my regulators. Papillons are cute, but they make useless attack dogs.
Then I would probably need less regulations and less regulators as the ones in my employ would have a passion for their work.:D

Dave

Really.

If it were up to me, I would attempt to hire reasonable people capable of rational thought.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Really.

Define "reasonable".

Dave

[Charles]

Really.

Define "reasonable".

Dave

Just, fair, and agreeable.

In other words, someone who can end trouble instead of starting it.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

"Agreeable"?!

Just how "agreeable" should they be? A regulators job is to make them follow the law, not suck up to them. That's the problem.

[Charles]

"Agreeable"?!

Just how "agreeable" should they be? A regulators job is to make them follow the law, not suck up to them. That's the problem.

Reason is preferable to force.

Most people are pretty decent, there is no need to treat them as hardened criminals. I'm not a fan of the "Black Pajama" crowd.

Chas

[merrylander]

There was an article in WashPost a while back on that 'revolving door' and in just a brief look they identified well over 1400 people who had gone from government to the very industries they had 'regulated'.

In another thread what that nutcase in Oklahoma forgot about was good old fashioned greed.

[BlueStreak]

Reason is preferable to force.

Most people are pretty decent, there is no need to treat them as hardened criminals. I'm not a fan of the "Black Pajama" crowd.

Chas

And regulators that actually do their jobs are preferable to ones who accept fishing trips and prostitutes in exchange for their signature.:rolleyes:

Dave

[Charles]

And regulators that actually do their jobs are preferable to ones who accept fishing trips and prostitutes in exchange for their signature.:rolleyes:

Dave

It appears to me that we're not discussing the same issue.

Chas

[d-ray657]

It appears to me that we're not discussing the same issue.

Chas

The issue is what it takes to make sure that the regulators enforce the laws that they have been hired to enforce. That requires a particular resolve from the regulators, and a willingness to comply with the law with the parties subject to the regulations. One of the suggestions identified in the article was to recognize regulators as professionals with the knowledge and understanding necessary to understand the importance and application of the regulations, and to recruit and pay them accordingly. Elevate their positions to ones of sufficient status that: 1) those being regulated will recognize the regulators' authority and 2) the regulators will not be tempted to curry favor with the regulated in hopes of moving into a position that is better paid and holds a higher status.

This does not mean that the regulators must treat the regulated as criminals, but it does mean that they must hold sufficient authority that the regulated understand the importance of complying with the law. Walk softly and carry a big stick. :cool:

P.S. Good luck kicking the habit.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

The issue is what it takes to make sure that the regulators enforce the laws that they have been hired to enforce. That requires a particular resolve from the regulators, and a willingness to comply with the law with the parties subject to the regulations. One of the suggestions identified in the article was to recognize regulators as professionals with the knowledge and understanding necessary to understand the importance and application of the regulations, and to recruit and pay them accordingly. Elevate their positions to ones of sufficient status that: 1) those being regulated will recognize the regulators' authority and 2) the regulators will not be tempted to curry favor with the regulated in hopes of moving into a position that is better paid and holds a higher status.

This does not mean that the regulators must treat the regulated as criminals, but it does mean that they must hold sufficient authority that the regulated understand the importance of complying with the law. Walk softly and carry a big stick. :cool:

P.S. Good luck kicking the habit.

Regards,

D-Ray

That was what I gleaned from the article. What we were discussing was covered by your 2nd paragraph.

Was it this article which suggested making the regulators positions subject to civil service exams as opposed to political appointments?

Chas

[d-ray657]

That was what I gleaned from the article. What we were discussing was covered by your 2nd paragraph.

Was it this article which suggested making the regulators positions subject to civil service exams as opposed to political appointments?

Chas

I don't recall seeing civil service exams mentioned specifically, but one of the persons cited in the article advocated removing political appointments to most positions in the regulatory agencies - in order to give the agencies stability, continuity and a consistency of purpose.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

The Brookings Institute did an article, or White Paper on political appointments here and concluded that it is a disaster. An incoming President and his administration makes close to 8000 appointments, not all subject to advise and consent. This turnover simply roils the civil service. This gets to the point that it is not surprising that the goverment works poorly but the amazing part is that it works at all.

IMHO we should have a system where everyone below cabinet level is a professional civil servant.

[d-ray657]

The Brookings Institute did an article, or White Paper on political appointments here and concluded that it is a disaster. An incoming President and his administration makes close to 8000 appointments, not all subject to advise and consent. This turnover simply roils the civil service. This gets to the point that it is not surprising that the goverment works poorl but the amazing part is that it works at all.

IMHO we should have a system where everyone below cabinet level is a professional civil servant.

But Rob, that is is too practical.

Unfortunately, the spoils system is too deeply ingrained into our political process to have a realistic chance to overcome it. How else could candidates get all of those early commitments if wannabes weren't betting on the come.

Regards,

D-ray