Talk:Regulatory capture

message: This just in from the department of not getting the irony:
The Editing of Wikipedia itself is an example of regulatory capture.
I'm not joking, and I'm not trolling, either.
: That's a funny point. I was just noting to myself how large the Talk section of this article is. Seems like there are a lot of "entities" who care about what this article says. So I'm inclined to agree with you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.244.201 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Editing of Wikipedia itself is an example of capture 

message: I've not put this in the article because its original research, but the fundamental problem with examples of regulatory capture is that it is always contentious (unless you can prove actual corruption, such as bribes):
* Lobbying by the regulated industry is perfectly legitimate; the agency must consider the impact of their decisions on the industry, and will therefore consult with the industry before making any decision.
* Political donations are a simple exercise of free speech.
* A revolving door is explained by the fact that the industry and the agency must necessarily hire from the same small pool of experts.
* Apparent disregard of the public interest in favour of industry interests is an illusion; the agency experts have the expertise and knowledge to make these judgments better than outsiders.
Thus any allegation of "regulatory capture" can be challenged as biased.
Rather than a list of examples, it might be better to have a list of mechanisms of regulatory capture. These can then be illustrated with concrete examples. For example revolving doors might be illustrated with an example of a head of a regulatory agency moving to a highly paid job as a consultant to a big company in the same industry. PaulJohnson (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to think that if regulatory capture is done the right way or for the right reasons, then it's not regulatory capture.71.65.244.201 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fundamental problem with examples 

message: After reading this fascinating article several times, and looking around, I've been wondering; What if regulatory capture gets even stronger?  What if instead of laws being attacked, nations themselves were? ...a full merger between State and Corporations?  We'd really be up Shit Creek. Corporatocracy? But what about when even the culture/society is assimilated? What if it becomes Orwellian?
 ....State capture is similar to regulatory capture but differs in the scale and variety of influenced areas and, unlike regulatory capture, the private influence is never overt.[5] The private influences cannot be discovered by lawful processes,[citation needed] since the legislative process, judiciary, electoral process, and/or executive powers have been subverted....
Nowhere in the article is State capture mentioned.  (But it does have a "See Also.") It should be described, at least to differentiate it from regulatory capture. That would also better define the dividing lines and powers of regulatory capture.
Nobel Prize winning economist George Stigler suggests capture will become the norm for any regulatory agency. Doesn't that include the Wiki monitors and bots, etc? Should that be in the article? (Who remembers what Winston Smith's job was?) Cheers! <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What you describe as corporatocracy is already the norm if you live in a 1st-world country. The idea of "3rd-world" countries as poor is a corporatecentric framing used to justify why we need to make these "poor" countries as overregulated as 1st-world countries. Meanwhile people in 1st-world countries push for higher wages because they don't quite understand that the very regulations promised to make them safer are actually a form of bureaucratic bloat that make everything more expensive and, when wages are artificially increased, causes the currency to inflate.71.65.244.201 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who "forgot" [[State capture]]?? 

message: Two users appear to be edit warring over the inclusion of a list of examples. I personally think it's quite clear that there are too many examples -- they make up over half the length of the article -- and that they are too US-centric are speculative, but I'd prefer to see a consensus form than to just join the edit warring. 
I'd like to see it cut down to five examples max. Thoughts? Smithereen (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the general spirit of the above comment (of 12 May 2021 at 23:48). Another idea: how about a new article on regulatory capture in the US?NYCJosh (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I also see this idea as a possible improvement, however it may be challenging to find consensus. Still, the potential for a much larger list of examples that span the globe doesn't sound uncalled for as long as there is a consensus of RS. DN (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring