The Jungle, Regulatory Capture, and Self-Interest

[EMNofSeattle]

Providing employment for bureaucrats is certainly the main purpose of the US regulatory state. The positive effects of (a minority of) regulations aside.

This is true, and I don’t argue it, but this isn’t a fault of the regulatory state and bureaucracy in theory, merely in practice and given the fact that most major companies are staffed with people from the same social strata, the argument that the “Free market” will work far better is not a convincing one. There is no bureaucracy in the world which is not at least somewhat influenced by the industry being regulated.

What regulations a good government ought to have is a worthwhile theoretical question, but regulations that require good judgment on the part of the regulators are best left unimplemented given the regime that actually exists. There are exceptions, of course, but not many.

Again, granting all of this as true, the companies are staffed with the same kinds of people, and barring a major regime crisis, this will not change. So we’re talking about how to make a bad situation the least bad.

Part of my train of thought as a Christian is that the world is imperfect and necessarily unfair, so even the best possible governance cannot create the perfect world, we create a better one, but not a perfect one.

It’s like the union leader (Samuel Gompers) of the AFL, when asked what exactly he wanted for workers, he said “just a little more” this is a realistic viewpoint, the communist world view says man will be perfected on earth, but man will never be perfected, so whether there’s imperfection or injustice, all you can ask for is a little more

 

[aociswundumho]

This is true, and I don’t argue it, but this isn’t a fault of the regulatory state and bureaucracy in theory, merely in practice and given the fact that most major companies are staffed with people from the same social strata, the argument that the “Free market” will work far better is not a convincing one. There is no bureaucracy in the world which is not at least somewhat influenced by the industry being regulated.

Yes, corruption it built into the system right from the start. We finally agree on something.

 

[aociswundumho]

The free market wouldn’t make it cheaper because it would end in an oligopoly in drugs and those companies have higher interests to shareholders than customers.

No, that's what we have now with government regulation.

I guess you could allow open importation of drugs from Mexico, but there’s a variety of problems that come from that, like inability to regulate quality, the undercutting of American workers resulting in bankrupting of American businesses, while outsourcing all our capability abroad (which is why N95 masks and many fever reducing drugs weren’t available in America at the start of COVID because surprise surprise, the communist Chinese don’t listen to yammering libertarian fools and just impounded all the shipments of those products for themselves.

The error here is believing that the economy is a jobs program, and that it's the state's job to protect American businesses from competition.

So really the real solution is actual effective regulation from political leaders with the interests of different stakeholders in society being balanced appropriately.

1. Your beloved "political leaders" are just as greedy and as self-interested as anyone else.

2. These "political leaders" cannot "balance" the competing interests of 300 million people. Most of them can barely run their own lives.

This is not new, the oldest continually active consumer regulation in the world, the German beer purity law, was passed by the crown of Bavaria in the 15th century both to ensure beer wasn’t being adulterated with filler ingredients while also limiting the amount of wheat going to beer production to prevent bread shortages. The idea that the crown can step in and use their judgment to mediate between all aspects of society is as ancient as the Bible and Hammurabi’s code

You're just a bundle of logical fallacies, this time appeal to tradition.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, that's what we have now with government regulation.


The error here is believing that the economy is a jobs program, and that it's the state's job to protect American businesses from competition.

The economy is in part a jobs program, you really don’t want to live in a society where there is mass unemployment. “No crowd of starving peasants, you don’t have the right to use force to place my neck in the guillotine and seize my property no…”

1. Your beloved "political leaders" are just as greedy and as self-interested as anyone else.

Don’t start acting like tigerace

2. These "political leaders" cannot "balance" the competing interests of 300 million people. Most of them can barely run their own lives.

Well that’s a problem because that is their job, whether you like it or not

You're just a bundle of logical fallacies, this time appeal to tradition.

Tradition is not a fallacy. In any event you’re proposing an extreme quasi religious ideology which has never enacted in any human society

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes, corruption it built into the system right from the start. We finally agree on something.

This is not corruption by necessity

 

[aociswundumho]

The economy is in part a jobs program, you really don’t want to live in a society where there is mass unemployment. “No crowd of starving peasants, you don’t have the right to use force to place my neck in the guillotine and seize my property no…”

I'm going to be starting a separate thread on this ridiculous belief that make-work jobs benefit society.

Don’t start acting like tigerace

You're the leftist, not me.

Well that’s a problem because that is their job, whether you like it or not

The job is impossible for anyone to do. Why do you think central planning fails over and over?

Tradition is not a fallacy.

But appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

In any event you’re proposing an extreme quasi religious ideology which has never enacted in any human society

Just a few hundred years ago, which is just a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of human existence, the idea of our modern representative democracy seemed absurd.

It is indisputable that capitalism in the only economic system which has actually worked, whereas socialism, fascism, communism, etc are all total shit.

 

[aociswundumho]

This is not corruption by necessity

Sure it is. You've got two groups of people: the regulators and the regulated. Both groups quickly realize and understand that it would be mutually beneficial to work together, and that's exactly what happens.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm going to be starting a separate thread on this ridiculous belief that make-work jobs benefit society.

Make work jobs can benefit society and often do.

You're the leftist, not me.

No, you are expressing leftist economic thought. Neoliberalism is not conservative.

The job is impossible for anyone to do. Why do you think central planning fails over and over?

Central planning hasn’t failed over and over. Air traffic control is central planning, the interstate highways were centrally planned, a Ford car factory is centrally planned. The claim central planning never works is obviously false

But appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

No, it’s not, you’re just making this up so you can dismiss any historical example of successful regulation, you do this for two reasons, one because you have to stupidly assert any government action is liberal and if an example is brought up of kings in literal castles you know claiming leftism is stupid, and the second is you have to deny examples outright and cannot do that

Just a few hundred years ago, which is just a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of human existence, the idea of our modern representative democracy seemed absurd.

Representative government stems in the English tradition over a thousand years

It is indisputable that capitalism in the only economic system which has actually worked,

No, it’s not indisputable because your idea of capitalism is modern neoliberalism and any examples of where it doesn’t work is chalked up by you to “government”

whereas socialism, fascism, communism, etc are all total shit.

The fascist government of Italy was very effective.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Different countries have different systems and different problems, but most of the problems are caused by some sort of government intervention into the market.

Such bizarre nonsense. The success and stability of modern civilization and its markets depends on the regulation of capitalism.

 

[aociswundumho]

Make work jobs can benefit society and often do.

No, they don't, and that statement alone demonstrates your economic illiteracy.

No, you are expressing leftist economic thought. Neoliberalism is not conservative.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

By the 1970s, however, economic stagnation and increasing public debt prompted some economists to advocate a return to classical liberalism, which in its revived form came to be known as neoliberalism. The intellectual foundations of that revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek, who argued that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism, and of the American economist Milton Friedman, who rejected government fiscal policy as a means of influencing the business cycle (see also monetarism). Their views were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which achieved power with the lengthy administrations of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–90) and U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan (1981–89).

Britannica Money

neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often

www.britannica.com

Central planning hasn’t failed over and over. Air traffic control is central planning,

No, it isn't.

the interstate highways were centrally planned,

Yes, and we end up with too many roads where they are not needed, and too few where they are:

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/10-cities-with-the-worst-traffic-in-the-us

a Ford car factory is centrally planned.

No, the context is government central planning. You know, the one where the planners face no consequences when they get everything wrong.

The claim central planning never works is obviously false

No, it’s not, you’re just making this up so you can dismiss any historical example of successful regulation, you do this for two reasons, one because you have to stupidly assert any government action is liberal and if an example is brought up of kings in literal castles you know claiming leftism is stupid, and the second is you have to deny examples outright and cannot do that

Representative government stems in the English tradition over a thousand years

You are truly living in your own little fantasy world.

The fascist government of Italy was very effective.

Not at raising living standards, and that's what matters.

LIFE

LIFE Magazine is the treasured photographic magazine that chronicled the 20th Century. It now lives on at LIFE.com, the largest, most amazing collection of professional photography on the internet. Users can browse, search and view photos of today’s people and events. They have free access to...

books.google.com

 

[aociswundumho]

Such bizarre nonsense. The success and stability of modern civilization and its markets depends on the regulation of capitalism.

Yes, civilization depends on politicians and bureaucrats making deals with corporate lobbyists.

 

[AmNat]

This is true, and I don’t argue it, but this isn’t a fault of the regulatory state and bureaucracy in theory, merely in practice and given the fact that most major companies are staffed with people from the same social strata, the argument that the “Free market” will work far better is not a convincing one. There is no bureaucracy in the world which is not at least somewhat influenced by the industry being regulated.

Again, granting all of this as true, the companies are staffed with the same kinds of people, and barring a major regime crisis, this will not change. So we’re talking about how to make a bad situation the least bad.

Companies are staffed with the same type of people because the regulatory state and the companies they regulate are effectively different organs of the same system. It's reasonable to expect that regulations will (generally) have the effect of perpetuating the system (e.g. by making it harder for small businesses to compete against large corporations). If the system is bad, then reducing the power of regulators will (again, usually) make things less bad. And "regulate less" is a much easier dictum to impose on bureaucrats than "regulate in a manner that advances the common good", since the latter requires them to use their judgment to pursue goals they don't agree with.

 

[CLAX1911]

Probably the best argument against government regulation is the fact that the incentives facing individual government regulators are all backwards.

Consider two different government regulators who oversee large corporations. We'll call them Joe and Bob.

Joe doesn't make life easy for the corporations. He makes decisions based on what's best for society. He will receive zero recognition for this, and when he retires, he will have his government pension.

Bob does his job much differently. He chooses to "play ball" with the executives of the corporations he regulates, and in return, the big corporations provide cushy jobs for Bob's friends and family members. When Bob retires from "public service", he is given a lucrative consulting gig for one of the corporations he used to regulate. That's on top of his government pension.

In the real world, the Bobs outnumber the Joes 100 to 1.

With that in mind, let's go back over a hundred years.

For those of you who don't know, The Jungle was a muckraking novel written by a socialist named Upton Sinclair in 1906. His purpose was to expose the "exploitation" of workers in the meat packing industry, but his graphic description of the unsanitary conditions in the factories is what everyone who read the book focused on. As Sinclair himself put it: "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."

Progressive Teddy Roosevelt was president at the time, and letters were pouring in to him to "do something" about the meat packing industry.

From Sinclairs autobiography:



In other words, the USDA was totally corrupt over a hundred years ago, and government agencies get worse over time, not better.

As a result of The Jungle, the government passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

This was Sinclair's reaction to the law:



Of course, he was correct. Political regulation is a burden which is much, much easier for big corporations to comply with than for smaller firms, and big corporations can afford to lobby for the right kind of regulations while at the same time controlling the regulators who enforce them.

The progressive regulatory state really is the best friend a big corporation ever had.

Seems the divide between left and right is the left thinks the government is the solution to all problems and the right doesn't.

 

[AmNat]

I'm going to be starting a separate thread on this ridiculous belief that make-work jobs benefit society.

Make-work jobs, in the sense of paying people to do work that doesn't need to be done, aren't good for society. But restrictions on foreign trade or new technology don't lead to make-work jobs in that sense; any jobs they create/protect are directed toward goals for which there is real demand.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Make-work jobs, in the sense of paying people to do work that doesn't need to be done, aren't good for society. But restrictions on foreign trade or new technology don't lead to make-work jobs in that sense; any jobs they create/protect are directed toward goals for which there is real demand.

Aociswundumho has made posts and threads literally saying “job killing technology” and free trade is good for the Average American

 

[aociswundumho]

Aociswundumho has made posts and threads literally saying “job killing technology” and free trade is good for the Average American

That's correct. When technology kills a job, the person who used to do that job now has to go do something else. So while it is temporarily bad for those who lose their jobs, it is a net positive to society. "job killing technology" has been going on for hundreds of years, and the standard of living for the average American has only increased.

 

[GClevelandFan]

There's a reason many US food products are banned in Europe.

That reason is because of protectionism window dressed as safety.

 

[GClevelandFan]

Is today's right wing fantasy the deregulation of the food industry? I guess that would be ridiculous enough to qualify.

We've had to put up with steaming piles of excrement for 30 years: GMO hysteria, Polyphosphate hysteria, despite not a scrap of evidence.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That reason is because of protectionism window dressed as safety.

And because many of these products are in fact, bad for people’s health.