Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

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

#91

Post by frankfrankfrank »

lacker wrote: post #3

I think the core problem is the incentives of the regulators. Groups like the FDA are democratic institutions, but if their only goal is to have the approval of national politicians, the feedback they get is either negative if there's a bad product released, or neutral if there is no terrible product released. The FDA must have done something right - what have they done right? We don't even know. Their incentives are…

If you think the regulators are Democratic I have this wonderful bridge I would like to sell you as an investment. I’m old enough to remember that dictators also hold elections with the same kind of results as the DC presidential election results.

Rather ironically, your naive perspective is precisely why “democracy” is a self-evidently failed system and there are clear arguments that it is also a counterproductive, intrinsically unsustainable, and self-defeating system.

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

#92

Post by Camouflager »

doctor_eval wrote: post #80
Camouflager wrote: post #74

Regulations really don't work when you're dealing with adults. Anti-social behaviors cannot be regulated. That's actually the point of being anti-social. Throughout history, every time you start to count on regulations, the whole thing falls apart pretty quickly. LOOK ELSEWHERE. We didn't have this much regulations 30 years ago and things were great.

I don’t know what to say. 1993 was definitely not better than 2023. The world moves forwards, three steps forward and two steps back. Human rights have progressed enormously since 1993 and that’s largely due to regulation. Deaths from smoking have been reduced. Deaths from car accidents have declined. Incredible, life changing drugs have been developed. And, of course, things have become worse in other ways. Wealth i…

Well you have a good point, I'll give you that.

Although you don't seem to understand the real reason you're living a "better" life: Someone (you or others) pays for it. Lives don't get better by regulation, they get better by hard work. The real reason smoking are less is because nice hard working people reach a consensus that smoking is bad. Not a genius that imposes regulation on smoking. Actually, if you don't offer alternatives for a nicotine addict (like a good life), regulation only makes them resentful and anti-social. So get your priorities straight.

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

#93

Post by ETH_start »

cycomanic wrote: post #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 pharma…

You're so focused on reducing risk from the treatments/procedures themselves that you're not looking at the risks caused by the diseases that the treatments/procedures are not able to cure because they have not innovated fast enough.

This is the classic pro-centralization bias.

Cancer and heart treatment are still in the stone age, with whole-body toxification in chemotherapy, and cutting open people's chest for open heart surgery, still being mainstay treatments.

Costs are also not declining, making cutting edge treatments unaffordable and inaccessible.

Compare to less regulated sectors, where quality has improved orders of magnitude while costs have massively declined, and it's clear that medicine/pharmaceuticals are underpeforming.

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

#94

Post by doctor_eval »

Camouflager wrote: post #92
doctor_eval wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what to say. 1993 was definitely not better than 2023. The world moves forwards, three steps forward and two steps back. Human rights have progressed enormously since 1993 and that’s largely due to regulation. Deaths from smoking have been reduced. Deaths from car accidents have declined. Incredible, life changing drugs have been developed. And, of course, things have become worse in other ways. Wealth i…

Well you have a good point, I'll give you that. Although you don't seem to understand the real reason you're living a "better" life: Someone (you or others) pays for it. Lives don't get better by regulation, they get better by hard work. The real reason smoking are less is because nice hard working people reach a consensus that smoking is bad. Not a genius that imposes regulation on smoking. Actually, if you don't of…

This makes no sense to me. Lives get better through many factors. Better knowledge. Better medicine. Better education. Better products. Greater shared wealth. And, ideally, better regulation.

I do not vote for governments who allow companies to sell dangerous goods to unsuspecting people for profit.

By all means let them sell dangerous products to informed people who know and accept the risks (I’m looking at you, Blast Aqua Park :). But regulation is needed because shitty companies do shitty things to people who don’t deserve it, don’t expect it, and are “encouraged” to have no idea about it.

There are always going to be bad actors who make the world worse. And, because of those people, we need regulation.

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

#95

Post by actionablefiber »

roenxi wrote: post #68
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #13

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.

Or highway/pedestrian/cyclist safety, for that matter?

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

#97

Post by Camouflager »

doctor_eval wrote: post #94
Camouflager wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you have a good point, I'll give you that. Although you don't seem to understand the real reason you're living a "better" life: Someone (you or others) pays for it. Lives don't get better by regulation, they get better by hard work. The real reason smoking are less is because nice hard working people reach a consensus that smoking is bad. Not a genius that imposes regulation on smoking. Actually, if you don't of…

This makes no sense to me. Lives get better through many factors. Better knowledge. Better medicine. Better education. Better products. Greater shared wealth. And, ideally, better regulation. I do not vote for governments who allow companies to sell dangerous goods to unsuspecting people for profit. By all means let them sell dangerous products to informed people who know and accept the risks (I’m looking at you, Bla…

> Lives get better through many factors. Better knowledge. Better medicine. Better education. Better products. Greater shared wealth. And, ideally, better regulation.

Who pays for that? You don't sound like you're an active participant in producing any of that stuff. You sound like you're just an advocate for "more" regulation. How does that help? Don't you agree that bad regulations do more damage than a single bad actor? Like in Soviet Union?

Or it could just be that you're the bad actor in disguise, or you don't realise it yourself. Don't get me wrong here, but your mindset sounds like that of a young child, who wants to control everything, by "regulating" others' behaviour.

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

#98

Post by robertlagrant »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88
robertlagrant wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optimal by what measure? I don't know the saying.

You multiply the cost of prevention by the risk of a crash and see if it exceeds the cost of a crash. Some plane crashes can be prevented with a $0.30 warning light. Preventing those plane crashes is optimal. Some plane crashes can only be prevented by permanently grounding all planes, because they'll be caused by a confluence of improbable events. Trying to mitigate every implausible circumstance that could potentia…

Ah - so the measure is cost?

I suppose you could let the market decide, and just have airlines publish their failure rates, and more process means a higher ticket price. But it's a bit grisly.

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

#99

Post by doctor_eval »

Camouflager wrote: post #97
doctor_eval wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense to me. Lives get better through many factors. Better knowledge. Better medicine. Better education. Better products. Greater shared wealth. And, ideally, better regulation. I do not vote for governments who allow companies to sell dangerous goods to unsuspecting people for profit. By all means let them sell dangerous products to informed people who know and accept the risks (I’m looking at you, Bla…

> Lives get better through many factors. Better knowledge. Better medicine. Better education. Better products. Greater shared wealth. And, ideally, better regulation. Who pays for that? You don't sound like you're an active participant in producing any of that stuff. You sound like you're just an advocate for "more" regulation. How does that help? Don't you agree that bad regulations do more damage than a single bad…

[flagged]

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

#100

Post by Camouflager »

doctor_eval wrote: post #94
Camouflager wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you have a good point, I'll give you that. Although you don't seem to understand the real reason you're living a "better" life: Someone (you or others) pays for it. Lives don't get better by regulation, they get better by hard work. The real reason smoking are less is because nice hard working people reach a consensus that smoking is bad. Not a genius that imposes regulation on smoking. Actually, if you don't of…

This makes no sense to me. Lives get better through many factors. Better knowledge. Better medicine. Better education. Better products. Greater shared wealth. And, ideally, better regulation. I do not vote for governments who allow companies to sell dangerous goods to unsuspecting people for profit. By all means let them sell dangerous products to informed people who know and accept the risks (I’m looking at you, Bla…

Great, now I got flagged. Someone is trying to regulate my words, because they feel uncomfortable. Funny I just predicted exactly that. The comment became recursive. Just like the self-fulfilling recursive personality structure of a narcissist.
Post reply on HN