tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post6372540724771739970..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: D**khead bureaucratsEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-21256827261285668892015-05-05T12:57:53.590+12:002015-05-05T12:57:53.590+12:00So write some new rules to control the people enfo...So write some new rules to control the people enforcing some other rules you wrote?<br /><br /><br />Rules on rules on rules. Its rules, all the way down. Keep making rules until you attain the perfect set of rules,<br /><br /><br />OR write the original rules in such a way that the power of individuals to exploit them is minimised. Have an ombudsman whose job it is to stop people being dickheads, and let the potential dickheads worry about THEIR job.Kimblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-58220761556520320092015-05-05T12:13:24.292+12:002015-05-05T12:13:24.292+12:00OK, what is wrong with the following? The optimal...OK, what is wrong with the following? The optimal amount of wealth is lower than if we knew all wealth was deployed in a perfectly rational way, and so we should constrain wealth creation more than otherwise.<br />How can we be confident that ombudsmen won't be d*ckheads? If there is an anti-d*ckhead mechanism that can make us confident that ombudsmen will always be wise and fair, why not apply it directly to regulators?<br />What I am trying to get at here is, why not tackle the cause of the failure directly - ie, deal with some regulators' attitudinal problems through better training for regulators - rather than indirect means which are likely to carry unforeseen consequences.Elinor_Dashwoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-11104965850975343532015-05-05T09:01:09.911+12:002015-05-05T09:01:09.911+12:00It means for starters that the optimal amount of r...It means for starters that the optimal amount of regulation is lower than if we knew all the enforcers were perfect and that we should regulate less than otherwise. <br /><br /><br />Can also suggest moves toward principles-based regulation with decent ombudsman provisions for getting around officiousness constraints.Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-13363714178409232702015-05-05T08:42:40.664+12:002015-05-05T08:42:40.664+12:00How could a regulation be made d*ckhead-proof thro...How could a regulation be made d*ckhead-proof through its wording though? <br />You would have to give enforcers/inspectors absolutely no discretion, meaning that either there would have to be one clear, simple rule to apply and be enforced in all circumstances (regardless of the specifics of the individual case), or millions of different rules - one for every conceivable individual circumstance. <br />Not clear that either would be an improvement on leaving some latitude for individual discretion and the application of common sense, accepting that yes, in some cases some people will use that latitude in ways that some others don't like. Just like when they smoke, or drink, or eat foods with too much salt, or sugar, or both, in them.Elinor_Dashwoodnoreply@blogger.com