331–340 of 364 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destroyed the pensions of many people, though.
Why are Americans invested in their own employer? It serms excessively correlated. My company pays my pension into index funds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach people things ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval. It looks like you ignored a lot of the text of the order, such as the citation of exemptions, and the limiting qualifier “postsecondsry” before education. > Could that be any more broad? Well, no, it would be harder for it to be more broad than your misc…
You're so called 'limiting qualifier' describes literally everyone who has graduated high school. If I got on the bad side of the government and they wanted to throw the book at me I could be fined for giving guitar lessons to my neighbor.
No, the applicable legal definition of “postsecondary education” is not as broad as you are painting it: I've directly quoted it, with citation to the Education Code, in another subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20559878
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about. It was a massive drag on the California economy while they existed. They were literally shutting the power system for millions of people down to jack the price.
That was more a failure of the artificially constructed electricity market. It didn't allow longterm contracts. Weirdly enough, cities that had their own power companies could have such contracts and didn't get rolling blackouts. I worked in Santa Clara at the time and lived in Sunnyvale. We never lost power at work but frequently found all the clocks flashing when I got home. Which sort of suggests that centralizati…
You seem to be looking to blame centralization to fit a preconceived normative view of economics rather than just acknowledging maybe markets were not effective or efficient in this particular instance and in fact suffered a massive distortion specifically because a decentralized profit motive allowed one party to abuse market making mechanisms and hijack the price setting function so crucial to efficiency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sox was passed in response to Enron. While that may have been a big failure, it had no effect on the wider economy. In fact Enrons scandal only came out after the 2001 recession ended... the economy grew during and after Enron’s failure.
What are you talking about. It was a massive drag on the California economy while they existed. They were literally shutting the power system for millions of people down to jack the price.
The CA blackouts predates the Enron fraud and accounting scandal by at least 6 months. At no time during the blackouts was anyone aware of Enrons fraud.
SOX was regulation to prevent that fraud. Notice, it does and says absolutely nothing about the energy market. That's because SOX was not designed to address the cause of the CA blackouts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I also wouldn't want my kids to grow up in a world where someone could exchange knowledge for money without a license, but this is ridiculous.
I do mean this completely naively, as I was not even aware that "exchanging knowledge for money" required a license before this, but why do you feel this way? I'm so shocked that this isn't simply about certification (aka, you can't give out some sort of officially accepted slip of paper without a license, which I would at least be able to come up with arguments for), that I am really curious as to how this is an iss…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about. It was a massive drag on the California economy while they existed. They were literally shutting the power system for millions of people down to jack the price.
That was more a failure of the artificially constructed electricity market. It didn't allow longterm contracts. Weirdly enough, cities that had their own power companies could have such contracts and didn't get rolling blackouts. I worked in Santa Clara at the time and lived in Sunnyvale. We never lost power at work but frequently found all the clocks flashing when I got home. Which sort of suggests that centralizati…
the market itself was a massively cool idea, it's just that Enron had a massive conflict of interest and played both sides. they should have stuck to being a market maker and spun off their trading arm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
25 lbs of paperwork to register an online school? Sounds less about protecting students and more towards protecting incumbents and cronies.
Have you ever tried to draft regulation? Even tried to capture everything that could possibly go wrong or be harmful, even unexpectedly and inadvertently? All while knowing that everything you forget will be a “loophole” for the thousands or millions of people coming under the regulations you drafted in the future. And worse if you leave loopholes people will be hurt and then blame the very government trying to creat…
Which to me shows that "the regulatory state" is not the right model.
Doesn't shock me one bit. I worked for General Assembly ~5 years ago, and they were really serious about getting and staying on top of all the state guidelines. I got the sense that we were the only school taking that seriously at the time. The only thing that shocks me is that we haven't seen such earlier. I don't have a strong opinion about if such things should be regulated or not, but I do know that there's a lot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since we're talking about human remains in dog food, there's already likely a litany of felonies involved in turning a person into dog food. The regulators just like to regulate.
> there's already likely a litany of felonies involved in turning a person into dog food yes, it's a felony because of regulation, made by... regulators
The reason we have inordinate amounts of regulations to fill out paperwork for is because “reason” doesn’t work the same way in law as it does in practicality. What’s absurdly stupid in layman’s situations is but a part of the game of legal chess in court.
We could have a law that says “Use common sense and don’t be an idiot”, which makes perfect sense in theory, and without very specific precedents will debated to hell in court with how common law cases work.
We end up with a lot of nonsense clauses and rules and requirements due to this, but it also is how chaos is supposed to be kept in check from erupting at the seams when people use lack of specific regulation as an incentive to find ways to screw other people over.