Live data from Hacker News

Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

rootsofprogress.org

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Groups like the FDA are democratic institutions > deliberate misreading of the parent comment > Of course the FDA is not, itself, a democratic instution. Can't tell if doublethink or just motte-and-bailey.

What are we supposed to get out of your comment, or is this supposed to just be an unvarnished sneer?

As readers we are supposed to learn that we are being misled. One hopes GP commenter would learn they cannot always get away with this sort of deception.

What, if anything, are we supposed to get out of your comment, which seems to question the value of critical reading?

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#62
I find the arguments selective and entirely unconvincing. The examples he brings up are all selected to elicit an emotional response while not really investigating how regulations have prevented significant number of deaths (this is admittedly difficult).

Several of the arguments and sources given make only sense at first glance, e.g. the argument about the FDA would be more convincing if not for the fact that pharmaceuticals still spend as much on marketing (that's the conservative estimate) as on R&D (they even argue that giving away free samples should not count as marketing I kid you not https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/...).

The arguments that anesthesists give a good example for a liability model because of some improvements made in the 90s, maybe makes sense from a purely US point of view. The question is (and this was not investigated in the source) how did the improvements compare in countries without the same liability but regulations. So would (or have) the same improvements being made with regulation.

Similay he brings up nuclear power and argues that liability would be a better model. Apart from the fact that the cost of nuclear vs renewables is not primarily driven by regulation (there was an analysis here on HN a couple of months ago, which I can't find on mobile atm), liability would kill nuclear in its tracks because no insurance would or could cover the potential cost a nuclear disaster.

Finally, why not talk about the FCC, a regulation agency which has made flying the safest mode of travel in the world. In fact if the aviation industry was as lax as the medical we had planes falling out of the sky multiple times a day. They only recently come under flag, because they have been dropping the ball because they got too cosy with the industry. Largely in the desire to speed up the process, which also refutes the argument that there is not counter regulation pressure.

Another example of pressure to reduce regulations are financial regulations. Their reduction arguably gave us (or contributed) to the GFC.

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#64

>What areas of regulation have not fallen into these traps, or at least not as badly? For instance, building codes and restaurant health inspections seem to have helped create safety without killing their respective industries. Driver’s licenses seem to enforce minimal competence without preventing anyone who wants to from driving or imposing undue burden on them. Are there positive lessons we can learn from some of…

Yes, I built a cabin and I can tell you that building codes are pretty dumb. The county wanted me to put an outlet every six feet on a cabin that has no power!

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are we supposed to get out of your comment, or is this supposed to just be an unvarnished sneer?

As readers we are supposed to learn that we are being misled. One hopes GP commenter would learn they cannot always get away with this sort of deception. What, if anything, are we supposed to get out of your comment, which seems to question the value of critical reading?

If you disagree, you can reply as to why you disagree, or you can silently disagree and move on. You've added no reasoning beyond the disagreement that slavboj brought up, only that you think it's not just wrong but... misleading? Of what? Why is it motte-and-bailey? Why would it be doublethink? What are you adding to the disagreement? rt4mn clearly states what they disagree about, namely their belief that a non-votable institution with democratic oversight is a democratic institution. All you're doing is sneering, you're not actually offering a reason for disagreement.

Sneering without reason brings the quality of discussion down on this site. Either substantively disagree or move on.

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#66

I find the arguments selective and entirely unconvincing. The examples he brings up are all selected to elicit an emotional response while not really investigating how regulations have prevented significant number of deaths (this is admittedly difficult). Several of the arguments and sources given make only sense at first glance, e.g. the argument about the FDA would be more convincing if not for the fact that pharma…

> FCC, a regulation agency which has made flying the safest mode of travel in the world

FCC or FAA?

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#67
post #60

Do we just need better regulators? We could increase pay and hire larger regulatory staffs to move faster. It seems to work for Singapore.

This is a problem not only for regulators, but pretty much any profession we might want to improve.

Our labor pool is vast, but fixed. There is some fungibility among the individual workers... a welder can be re-trained as a teacher, or a miner can be re-trained to become a web developer. But it isn't perfectly fungible, the 45 yr taxi cab driver can't re-train to be an oncologist, and he certainly can't re-train to be a pharmaceutical engineer.

We might even say that they're not even mostly fungible... not for the professions we really want the most.

So how many "better regulators" do you need? Do you need two more, nationwide? We could probably find those. Do you need 24? A little more difficult, but as long as you are willing to wait 18 months or so, doable.

Do you need 300? 600? 800? Exactly how many at the FDA have to be superior regulators there? Worse still, even if the number is low...

What incentivizes someone who could be the superior regulator, but has chosen to be whatever-else-it-is-that-they-are? Do we need to offer more money? How much more? Million dollar salaries for one or two is feasible, but not for 800. Worse, even if we can afford it, offering that much money doesn't just attract them, it attracts many more inferior regulators.

Can you tell the difference? If three people show up for the $500,000/year regulator job, and two are schmoozing assholes, and the third is hyper-competent, what hiring system can you devise to reliably pass on the two and pick the other?

If the signal-to-noise ratio is too high there, it can likely overwhelm even a good hiring system.

And if it's bad for regulators, then this is simply a losing strategy for jobs like teachers, where we don't need a few dozen or a few dozen "better teachers", but hundreds of thousand of them. Police, etc.

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#68
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liability model has a big downside, though. Because sometimes people in charge are idiots, they ignore common sense and make risks. So they possibly get burned only when accident happens, which costs human health and lives. Regulation is intended to prevent human harm by setting and enforcing a safety standard.

That only applies to large rare risks. If a risk is common, anyone who ignores it quickly goes out of business from the liability, so anyone still in business is taking effective measures. If a risk is rare and has a low impact, ignoring it frequently is the right thing to do. You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare. But that kind of regulation is extraordin…

> You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare.

I know we're all trying to be moderate here, but I'm not very good at that:

1) It is irrational. The cost-benefits of aircraft safety make no sense. Planes are held to a standard that we don't hold buses and trains to. We should strive to make rational decisions as a matter of policy.

2) There is no reason to think the US regulators are any good at what they are doing. As the thread root comment points out, the incentives are terrible. US industrial policy over my life time has consistently led to Asian growth and US stagnation in ways that were predictable. The US has banned most of the avenues that it could grow by, and coincidentally growth has largely stopped. Very similar story in Europe too, big focus on banning stuff (plus a bit of redistribution) and small focus on how to achieve more prosperity.

The US is dedicating the lives of countless smart people to taking a thing that was going to fly through the air like a bird and ... not changing the outcome much. They could have been doing something else that was more useful, like competing with China for telecoms leadership.

I don't think the evidence is there for this "having" to be minimised. The big picture looks a lot like people are behaving emotionally, that is sometimes leading to irrational decisions and those irrational decisions have added up to cause real harm. People should be more accepting of other people taking reasonable risk.

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#69
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only applies to large rare risks. If a risk is common, anyone who ignores it quickly goes out of business from the liability, so anyone still in business is taking effective measures. If a risk is rare and has a low impact, ignoring it frequently is the right thing to do. You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare. But that kind of regulation is extraordin…

> You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare. I know we're all trying to be moderate here, but I'm not very good at that: 1) It is irrational. The cost-benefits of aircraft safety make no sense. Planes are held to a standard that we don't hold buses and trains to. We should strive to make rational decisions as a matter of policy. 2) There is no reason to think…

Thank you. We are nowhere close to the Pareto-efficient frontier for risk reduction. We could be safer, while sacrificing much less prosperity for that safety, if things were structured better.

(The optimal number of plane crashes is not zero, as the saying goes, and it’s probably more than we have now.)

Re: Who regulates the regulators? We need to go beyond review-and-approval

#70
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only applies to large rare risks. If a risk is common, anyone who ignores it quickly goes out of business from the liability, so anyone still in business is taking effective measures. If a risk is rare and has a low impact, ignoring it frequently is the right thing to do. You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare. But that kind of regulation is extraordin…

> You're left with things like plane crashes, which have to be minimized even if they're already rare. I know we're all trying to be moderate here, but I'm not very good at that: 1) It is irrational. The cost-benefits of aircraft safety make no sense. Planes are held to a standard that we don't hold buses and trains to. We should strive to make rational decisions as a matter of policy. 2) There is no reason to think…

> Planes are held to a standard that we don't hold buses and trains to. We should strive to make rational decisions as a matter of policy.

What are the poor ROI irrational decisions that the FAA makes on airline safety, how many lives do they save, and how many dollars do they add to the price of my ticket?

It's easy to say that things are not optimal. Let's say that's the case. What would you change?

> The US is dedicating the lives of countless smart people to taking a thing that was going to fly through the air like a bird and ... not changing the outcome much. They could have been doing something else that was more useful, like competing with China for telecoms leadership.

The US isn't a command economy, it can't redirect human effort like that, introducing subsidies into telecoms will distort the markets, and most of the country's intellect is wasted on financial innovation and adtech and middle management, anyways.

Post reply on HN