I'm in charge (the responsibility is shared, but I have a large role in it) of the regulation of a billion dollar industry.
To me, the idea that "regulations are bad" is indistinguishable from saying "laws are bad". Having some set of written rules that everyone follows is necessary to have a functioning society - regulations are just laws that go more deeply into the details.
We need smarter regulations, not less. Disagree?
Other urls found in this thread:
mises.org
epa.gov
academic.oup.com
academic.oup.com
aeaweb.org
aeaweb.org
igmchicago.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
tandfonline.com
mainlymacro.blogspot.nl
thesis.eur.nl
papers.ssrn.com
recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com
econfaculty.gmu.edu
realcurrencies.wordpress.com
hallingblog.com
reddit.com
jstor.org
econlib.org
colorado.edu
reddit.com
quora.com
link.springer.com
openstax.org
marginalrevolution.com
uneasymoney.com
reddit.com
econlog.econlib.org
twitter.com
agree in general, I think its the whole bureaucracy that develops and can get out of hand that annoys people the most
In code and in mathematics there is a concept of brevity, simplicity, and beauty.
Even in engineering there's such a thing as overengineering.
When your foundations are a mess, so will everything else you build on top of it.
More regulations create more problems.
The problem should always be solved on the individual level. Enforce good education and self discipline and the rest falls into place nicely.
Absolutely OP
EPA nigger?
Regulations are not voted on or contented to by the governed and are therefore illegitimate.
Q: Did every of the 4000 new regulations Obama passed help? how many were written by industry as a barrier to entry to protect monopolies?
We need the exact number of regulations to ensure a functioning, safe, clean economy/environment and not one single more
>We need the exact number of regulations to ensure a functioning, safe, clean economy/environment and not one single more
That number of regulations is zero. What you need is a functional common law legal system that compensates injured parties for harms done to them.
It's only libertarian cucks that parrot this shit, everyone with two working brain cells knows that deregulating, say,the food industry wont make food magically safer, but the other way around
totally agree. Thing is, the MSM "regulations are all bad" is always pushed by people who seemingly just don't like some particular regulation that they aren't personally benefiting from (but still have legitimate purpose). This meme has gotten way out of hand and now stands in the way of an orderly society.
agree with the first three, and well-functioning laws and regs follow this.
The last two are simply unworkable. "The tragedy of the commons" is a simple explanation of one reason (among many) that this philosophy is bunk. Some problems are social problems, and some social problems can only be effectively fixed by social rules.
nope, and no need to share because I want to keep this about the topic generally, rather than specific policies
regulations are in fact voted on; the legislative body authorizes them and the executive body develops them. The legislature is always 100% above the regulatory agency and can and will change, prevent, and eliminate regulations according to the will of the people. Sometimes there's direct oversight through a reporting system.
The reason these things don't go into the laws directly is that sort of system becomes quickly unworkable as it is not flexible enough to adapt to real situations. Sort of like how the constitution doesn't spell out the definition of every word within it.
>my livelihood is based on x
>let me tell you why x is the best
Nobody who is being intellectually honest would say "regulations are bad" so you are arguing against nobody. Even lolbertarians would say that industry is being regulated by certain physical and market realities. The only entity that is not regulated is ZOG controlled government.
Daily reminder that there are no libertarians here. Sup Forums is a natSoc board. If you want to argue against libertarians, go to your local Boomer Rotary club. Sage .
Fuck off commie, I don't believe that you're in charge of anything at all. You likely live with your parents.
Its not regulation in its self thats bad. Its over regulation. When you have 10k pages of laws and regs to follow and failing to follow them all results in fibes and legal issues that limits profitability not to mention raises costs. This in turn is passed on to the consumer in the form of poor service and higher prices. Shit have you ever dealt with Osha or epa regs. Its impossable to follow them all and get anything done in a timely or efficent manner. Then realize those are only two agencys and there are others all with enormous books of regs for you to follow and all with their hands in your pockets.
Hayek himself stated some regulations are needed, e.g., to protect the wellbeing of the consumer, and undo monopolies
Only gone-full-retard libertarians think otherwise
as much freedom as possible, as much regulation as necessary sounds like a good rule of thumb to me
>Its over regulation
as much a under regulation.
>regulations are in fact voted on;
The legislature handing off it's duties to an unelected bureaucracy is not the same as being voted on. For example there is a broad consensus on murder, so the government can use force to stop/punish murder, however you don't have this same consensus with regulations so government force should not be used.
The cost for using the court systems for this function is prohibitive. And - I have strong doubts as to the ability of a network of individual judges creating fair and consistent interpretations.
>every day on the news
It's pushed heavily by the MSM, the president has made it a major goal, etc. It's not just the libertarian/anarchists.
no of course not - the corruption of the process by industry is a major problem. Public participation when you get into the weeds like this falls off very strongly. But there are a lot of public watchdog groups out there that participate (and in my experience are relatively effective, although it varies by how much the public gives a shit about the subject).
The tragedy of the commons problem is a lie sold to you by the ruthless capitalist forces that have driven your world and worldview.
A self sustained society doesn't have that problem if it achieves a balance.
I think the government should be highly regulated but individuals, families and small businesses, not at all.
What constitutes smarter regulations?
The EPA has forced out HCFCs and now the standard HFC used in residential air has a higher GWP yet is allowed to be handled to a degree by those without a 608 (which is a joke anyways because so many retards just pay someone to take their 608 for them). The higher SEER demands in the South East (where SEER means fuck all anyways) have forced a more expensive unrefined product on home owners and the HCFC phase out has forced premature replacements costing customers a fuck load. While these regulations have been great for business there isn't a single skilled HVAC service tech that does not scoff at them and proceed to conclude that over regulation is a very real thing. While some government funded assholes may think they are making "smart" regulations in reality they are just fucking shit up.
LEAVE MY CRYPTO ALONE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>The cost for using the court systems for this function is prohibitive. And - I have strong doubts as to the ability of a network of individual judges creating fair and consistent interpretations.
I did say we needed a functional common law court system, which we don't have. T would be easier to fix that then regulate everything.
The bigger an industry gets the more they need to rely on the government to inpede any competition. The big established billion dollar corps can afford all those regulations but a new start up will never be able to. So revelutionary innovation can never be achieved.
We really only need a regulatory framework that has been designed with the Murphy's law in mind, ie. whatever opportunity for corruption the system entails will inevitably be abused by someone. Though implementing such a system will likely fail because of the corruption that already exists.
> The successful use of competition does not preclude some types
of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours,
to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive
system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation
of competition. There are, too, certain fi elds where the system of
competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of
deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confi ned to the
owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort
to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper
working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we
should suppress competition where it can be made to function.
To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as
possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies
– these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned fi eld for state activity.
> Planning and competition can be combined only by planning
for competition, not by planning against competition. The
planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the
planning against competition.
mises.org
page 46
You need to have concise, simple, and efficient regulations. Don't make regulations that go over other regulations. Make it as efficient and elegant as possible and enforce the hell out of it.
And how will that society achieve that balance? Feelings and a sense of duty? That doesn't work, humans take advantage of whatever system is found
Politicians don't know anything about the regulations they put into place. Case in point: Gun control.
Shoulder thing that goes up.
Agreed.
But I put it in the option field cause you pic was unrelated.
if you're going that route, then why do the police get to determine when there's reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed? Why does the prosecutor get discretion in determining whether or not to pursue a case? Reality is messy, and laws can't cover every possible situation clearly enough to just "vote" on every detail.
I think you're not understanding the system very clearly.
go down to your local dog park and tell me how many people pick up their dog shit. A few are clean, sure - but that's the exception, not the rule. People are assholes if they think they can get away with it; otherwise there would be no need for laws in the first place.
>When you have 10k pages of laws and regs to follow
agreed in principle; getting there in reality is often a lot harder. I consider it part of my job to be as concise and clear as possible.
>what constitutes smarter regulations
An eternal question. There's no clear answer, and everyone will have a different opinion. I guess that's why we (currently) choose it through democratic and public-participation processes.
>To me, the idea that "regulations are bad" is indistinguishable from saying "laws are bad".
For the most part, laws are bad, and should only be used to the absolute minimum extent possible to restrain the greater evils of violence and theft.
Virtually no regulations on business are valuable enough to society to justify using the coercive power of the state to enforce them.
can you elaborate? This is an interesting concept.
No, non-homogeneous societies have humans that take advantage. Take a look at Japan to see that you don't need a constant capitalistic driving force to achieve progress.
What you need is strong education and discipline set into the people at an early age. Possibly through agoge or militaristic means.
When the individual feels responsibility and contributes to the community in that way, the government no longer has to bloat their legal system with regulations.
But when you have individuals with conflicting world views living in the same society, you are bound to have problems with abuse of the system and traitors. That's why it's important to enforce homogeneity wherever it may be found, up to and including race.
Smart people create
Dumb people regulate
>if you're going that route, then why do the police get to determine when there's reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed? Why does the prosecutor get discretion in determining whether or not to pursue a case? Reality is messy, and laws can't cover every possible situation clearly enough to just "vote" on every detail.
>I think you're not understanding the system very clearly.
This is actually exactly how juries work.
Here in North America because the education system is so shit. There are good communities and good educational institutions of course that still pump out good people. Unfortunately the crap overwhelmingly outweighs the good.
Go to Japan to see how clean their dog parks are.
You Jews love to confound the issues....
It's not regulation in general it is the confusing, contradicting, and asinine regulations that are passed by fools for reasons of greed and lust for power and control while suppressing and oppressing the people.
If you weren't such a moronic morally bankrupt arrogant fuck and actually looked at what people were saying instead of Googling "top 10 copy and paste arguments you don't really understand but will help you look smart on the internet" you would fucking get this.
Kill yourself before we drag you into the streets and do it for you.
>and everyone will have a different opinion. I guess that's why we (currently) choose it through democratic and public-participation processes.
We don't though.
I have no say in EPA regulations and I know no one who actually has to deal with these regulations did either. No one would have tossed R22 out if they were in the field and the grounds of the regulations are speculation at best. What's the difference between us dumping Chlorine in water and a pool guy doing it? I talk about this every time I see environment thread and no one says fuck all so I'm pretty sure I'm the only guy on Sup Forums that actually deals with fucktarded regulations on a day to day basis.
>We need smarter regulations, not less. Disagree?
Also it's fewer and part of being "smarter" is getting rid of stupid regulations or redundant contradicting regulations. As a result of being "smarter" you will fewer regulations over the same areas/industries.
Another problem with regulations is that the regulators are not in fact the experts they claim to be in making said regulations, so naturally some are going to be terrible. Since regulators are uninterested third parties who are legally insulated from the consequences of their bad regulations, ie you can't sue the regulator personally if he makes a bad regulation that harms you, then regulations are naturally going to be poorly managed like we have today.
>No clear answer [on smarter regulations]... choose it through democratic... processes.
So if a majority of people want a regulation, that makes it a good regulation? So if I can convince 51% of the population that niggers are subhuman and deserve to be kept in zoos or deported back to Africa, that would constitute a good policy?
child labor? producing products that harm the consumer? anti-corruption mechanisms? ensuring quality of a good or service that the public is purchasing from the private business?
two things: a jury is not the same as voting on something, and these are not situations that the jury gets to decide on in the first place. The prosecutor doesn't need a jury to decline to pursue a case, a cop doesn't need a jury to arrest you. Or am I misunderstanding you?
that's the meme, dude. I didn't create it, and I'm saying exactly the same shit you are.
You have the opportunity if you pay attention. The EPA takes public comment as they are required to, by law. If you were really motivated you can go comment on what they have going right now:
epa.gov
>The EPA takes public comment as they are required to, by law.
They are required to listen, not to act. So name me a time when the EPA did something a non-insider member of the public asked them to in a public comment. These public comments are just a farce to give you the illusion of control, when you in fact have none.
>two things: a jury is not the same as voting on something, and these are not situations that the jury gets to decide on in the first place. The prosecutor doesn't need a jury to decline to pursue a case, a cop doesn't need a jury to arrest you. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Probably deliberately. I was referring to the last part of "Reality is messy, and laws can't cover every possible situation clearly enough to just "vote" on every detail" with the jury comment and you chose to instead apply it to the first part where it would make no sense.
laissez faire, you """public servant""" parasite
>the smoke of factories cannot be confi ned to the
>owner of the property in question
This is one perfect example where one does not need regulation but working legal system.
If you cannot confine your factory output (and that includes smoke, noise and soil pollution, then affected parties should sue you until you are bankrupt and in prison. But this needs removing the limited liability protections from owners - something that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
>You have the opportunity if you pay attention. The EPA takes public comment as they are required to, by law. If you were really motivated you can go comment on what they have going right now:
I'm sure you didn't even bother with this post.
>This page is a work in progress!
I literally can't comment on anything related to my industry.
Regardless I know plenty of people in pretty high positions (congress, high ranking generals, etc) and know my opinion alone means fuck all.
This is a meme thread, you know fuck all and are absolutely not a major player in a multi billion dollar industry.
>This is one perfect example where one does not need regulation but working legal system.
>If you cannot confine your factory output (and that includes smoke, noise and soil pollution, then affected parties should sue you until you are bankrupt and in prison. But this needs removing the limited liability protections from owners - something that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
In America you cannot sue the factory owner because he is following EPA regulations. So here is a situation where regulations actually harm the very people they claim to be protecting. You'd have to either be the worlds biggest liar or the world's most ignorant fool to be a regulator and claim to be doing the public good.
Unironically yes
austrian economics debunked (redpill overdose)
TRIGGER WARNING: FACTS AHEAD!!
tl;dr
>gold standard is unstable and not a viable currency, susceptible to fraud and dependent upon mining
>they are openly anti-scientific, rely on "praxeology", they are philosopher at best
>dumb ideology funded by koch brothers think tanks to convince ignorant armchair economists
>every prediction they had is proven wrong
>they business cycle theory is wrong
>they don't use scientific method, no maths, no statistics, nothing, just speculation
>only used as political rhetoric by ron paul to rile up his gadsen-flag hillbilly voterbase
>all of peter schiff's predictions are wrong, he has been preaching doomsday for decades
>mainstream economics agrees with less than half of their policy
>literally no respects austrian economists today, abandoned as early as 1950's
>only good thing to come out of it was Hayek, who wasn't even Austrian since he rejects praxeology. He contributed to price theory, and added to the socialist calculation problem. Also his philosophy is superior and way more nuanced compared to mises/rothbard.
Can't have any kind of system without rules. The corollary is that the rules greatly affect how the game is played. Witness the salt over the '16 election or how slight changes in football rules change the way it's played.
top global econ journals, ZERO positive austrian results, all negative! outdated! wrong! pseudoscience!
academic.oup.com
academic.oup.com
aeaweb.org
aeaweb.org
igmchicago.org
en.wikipedia.org
ien.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
tandfonline.com
mainlymacro.blogspot.nl
thesis.eur.nl
papers.ssrn.com
recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com
econfaculty.gmu.edu
realcurrencies.wordpress.com
hallingblog.com
reddit.com
jstor.org
econlib.org
colorado.edu
reddit.com
quora.com
link.springer.com
want to learn REAL economics? no problem, open source PDF book
openstax.org
Blogs (neurtal-center right)
marginalrevolution.com
uneasymoney.com
reddit.com
econlog.econlib.org
As opposed to "all regulations are good"?
Regulations have always been some amorphous concept.
Not what I'm saying. Just pointing out that is our current system, for better or worse.
fair enough, but the private sector are often not experts as well - or if they are, they are focused only on their own personal goals rather than balancing the goals of the system as a whole.
speaking directly for myself and my organization, we do take public comment and use it. In fact, we're required by law to respond individually to every public comment, and we will be sued if we dismiss it for "arbitrary and capricious" reasons. I imagine it's the same for the EPA.
Now, if you're saying that takes a lot of time and effort, and most people don't have the time or resources to do it - I agree. But there is a control built into the system to make it responsive.
Sup Forums runs fast and I'm used to having a long time to carefully consider input. don't be a nigger about it. Again though, juries aren't the same as public voting so I'm not sure how "but juries" is an answer here. Show your work. I'll also caution you with a popular adage that "hard cases make bad law".
>my opinions are great but nobody listens, therefore it's the system that's wrong
believe what you want, but I will take comments from individuals and incorporate them (usually I then take that idea to the larger group of stakeholders to see their reaction and to refine the idea). Yes, the system swings towards doing what larger groups of individuals agree on, but that seems appropriate for a democratic system.
the best way to achieve "smarter regulations" is to have the industry write the regulations. but then ofc that is like letting the wolf guard the hen house. particularly in industries/businesses that lack competition.
regulations are often written by bureaucrats who either don't know what they are doing, do things for political expediency, or get bribed into doing things they ought not.
Then ofc, you have the noble bureaucrat who does what is correct, but from this often comes moral ambiguity from perspective. example, noble bureaucrat A decides it's in the best interest to regulate a niche market to open up competition for budding entreprenuers. but what happens is prices go up due to his regulations which harm the poor and middle classes inordinately. So upon review noble bureaucrat A decides to stifle competition in favor of a few "monopoly-like" companies so prices can remain low.
This isn't an, "i'm a guy who knows x, we should do y" thing, b/c its far more complicated than that.
go read the very toppity-top post of this thread, moron
>believe what you want, but I will take comments from individuals and incorporate them (usually I then take that idea to the larger group of stakeholders to see their reaction and to refine the idea). Yes, the system swings towards doing what larger groups of individuals agree on, but that seems appropriate for a democratic system.
The large group of individuals do not hold a 608 and do not fucking work in the industry; as I said every serious hvac service tech holds my opinion and we aren't exactly shy about it. The fact that we have to do calculations engineers are supposed to do (and the engineers are fucking terrible at) is fucking insane. This industry is a fucking joke thanks to the EPA and faggots who make these regs.
What industry are you in?
you're hitting the nail of the problem on the head, good post.
Really, the system needs a lot more public participation by consumers who have the time, intellect, and perspective to have a sustained and collaborative role in the creation of the regs. Public interest groups fill this function somewhat (e.g., the ACLU for criminal justice rules, Mothers Against Drunk Driving for DUI rules, etc etc) but it's underrepresented.
>regulates of a billion dollar industry
>begins argument with straw man
We need fewer and smarter regulations.
The idea is basically to take the perspective of systems science to model a regulatory system where the incentives to act in favor of third-party interests were minimized and strict protocols would be enforced in the areas that are difficult to incentivize properly.
Sounds like an argument for a system of "elites" creating the rules, if I'm understanding you right. I have no idea the details of what your complaint is or what a "608" really involves (though I googled it quickly), but the underlying problem (disagreement about who really is the expert) is a common one.
What would the engineers in your example tell you? Can you give a specific example of what the calculations disagreement is?
as I said, them's just the memes bro. I don't agree with them.
fascinating - can you point me in the direction of some resources on this?
Too much of a good thing is bad.
>fair enough, but the private sector are often not experts as well - or if they are, they are focused only on their own personal goals rather than balancing the goals of the system as a whole.
But these private experts are only in control of their own private business and not in control of the system as a whole. Nobody is, it is too complex, but at least the damage they do is limited to their own private business, unlike regulators who have no skin in the game and mess up everybody's business.
>Again though, juries aren't the same as public voting so I'm not sure how "but juries" is an answer here.
The public votes on the broad principles as law and the areas where "laws can't cover every possible situation clearly enough to just "vote" on every detail." These are voted on by 12 people on a jury. I'd trust a random group of 12 to make the right decision over some government bureaucratic committee.
>Sounds like an argument for a system of "elites" creating the rules
I'm in favor of the people who have to do the work have a say in the regulations.
>I have no idea the details of what your complaint is or what a "608" really involves
It's the license to handle refrigerants.
> but the underlying problem (disagreement about who really is the expert) is a common one.
Very much so.
>What would the engineers in your example tell you?
Depending on resi or commercial it will differ. In resi we are expected to be proficient in manual D, J, and S, which are intended for engineers.I can't tell you how many manual Js and Ds got approved through nepotism by shitty fucking hvac engineers that don't their ass from a hole in the ground I've seen. It's disgusting and tarnishes the industry. On the commercial end you need almost every major repair affirmed by an hvac engineer that usually knows fuck all and misdiagnoses wasting weeks of a commercial businesses time and costing them an insane amount. You think a restaurant makes money when their dining areas are 100+ degrees in 100% humidity?
smaller industries to regulate would be preferable. 'smarter regulations' is just sort of hoping that a regulatory capture doesn't come, which it will.
its defensive.
this is the advantage of integrated state capitalism
What the system needs is a lot more public participation by citizens who have the time, intellect, and perspective to drag you people out of your marble palaces into the streets where you will be hung from lamp posts kicking, frothing at the mouth and shitting your two thousand dollar suits and your bodies left as an example to others who think they have the right to "regulate society and everybody in it".
>I'm in charge (the responsibility is shared, but I have a large role in it) of the regulation of a billion dollar industry.
Regulatory affairs manager for pharma here. Go fuck yourself. You are the problem.
In the ideal environment, there would be no government regulatory oversight. Regulatory oversight would naturally arise in the form of private independent consumer safety group "seal of approval"s and brand reputation.
In fact, we are already seeing how useless government regulation with the rise of the "Platform business model" (AirBnB, Uber) which are essentially branded regulatory frameworks that skirt the monopolized government regulation. These are 10x better models than the government's criminal monopoly on regulations.
Once again, go fuck yourself.
The day of the rope is coming for these people soon, my friend.
Fuck you faggot. Anything you "produce" and I say that lightly because (you) don't produce shit, would be better handled by the black market.
You're a welfare queen and I would stomp your face in in real life.
>We need smarter regulations, not less. Disagree?
No. markets need rules of exchange for exchange to occur. If you want no rules, you can go to somalia.
To political partisans, it's black and white- either regulations or no regulations. They don't understand the simple reality that there can be effective regulations that assist the function of a system or harmful regulations that prevent the function of a system.
...
>regulations are just laws that go more deeply into the details.
So are all laws good then, user? How do you decide whether a regulation is smart? Should I just trust (((you)))?
Regulations are like software code- there are good regulations that function properly and there are bad regulations which require additional regulations to prevent the effect of bad regulations, which themselves require more regulations to. . . you smell what I'm stepping in.
>fascinating - can you point me in the direction of some resources on this?
I would recommend you start from the general systems theory to get the basic concept. It's more of a tool set that can be applied to a lot of things than a blueprint to build something, so I wouldn't necessarily go into the specifics with any hurry.
The laws aren't "voted" on by the jury - they're simply judging what the truth of the circumstances are. No jury votes to determine what the law itself says. And of course, 12 people isn't an analogue to full public voting in any sense.
Again, I don't think you really understand how the system works.
sounds like the problem is shitty people within the system, not necessarily the regulations. This is a common problem. If the engineers in your industry really do such a shitty job that it has this bad of an effect, all you need to do is track the problem with data (use your industry organizations), go to your legislators, and have the requirement that engineers do the approval removed. Easier said than done, of course - part of the problem.
that's democracy, dude. You're just espousing tyranny through anarchic violence instead.
>private independent consumer safety group "seal of approval"s and brand reputation.
marketing exists precisely to obfuscate these things, false "seal of approval" groups exist, consumer information is often low, and private independent consumer safety groups are just as (if not more) susceptible to corrupting influence than public democratic governments where the public actually has a vote in the matter.
fully agreed.
By no means. I do think it boils down to "who do you trust", though.
>sounds like the problem is shitty people within the system, not necessarily the regulations. This is a common problem. If the engineers in your industry really do such a shitty job that it has this bad of an effect, all you need to do is track the problem with data (use your industry organizations), go to your legislators, and have the requirement that engineers do the approval removed.
My local legislators get minimal say when it comes to the fucking EPA (as I said I know congressmen). Furthermore the engineers have BEEN fucking up, I don't need to track it. There was a huge issue with the 09-12 TXVs clogging up which caused the industry to switch TXVs left and right (TXVs only being needed as it was an easy way for HVAC Engineers to make the 14 seer minimum) which ended up being due to copeland's anti rusting agent in their compressors which they now PAY us to run renew through.
You're a fuck boy and know shit about regulations. My clients are apart of the system and even they know it can't be easily changed.
kys retard
>and have the requirement that engineers do the approval removed.
We don't even have that requirement. Engineers are expected to do manual J, S, and D but any submission is considered fine by the state. They are books intended for engineers though and the engineers do a shit job. You don't get that we shouldn't have either the regulations or engineers involved at this point but thank god scientist and engineers started getting state funded to set laws.
>Furthermore the engineers have BEEN fucking up, I don't need to track it.
So you're saying you don't need data to back it up, and everyone should just trust you?
>fuckboy
I literally just explicitly said it wasn't that easy to do. If you can't be bothered to actually collect data and provide proof, why should anyone else in the industry believe you? Why's your word better than the engineer's? You say every HVAC tech agrees with you (which I'm inclined to believe you on), so it should be easy as fuck to get the entire group on the same page. Democracy loves consensus, bud, take that and push it through the system.
If this is just about "I don't want to do the effort to make change happen" then you're in for a rough ride. If this is about "just do what I say because I say it" then you're worse than the current process.
>don't have that requirement
What exactly is it that you're trying to get to, then?
>So you're saying you don't need data to back it up, and everyone should just trust you?
You want to look at lawsuits do to bad evap coils for every major brand? These were due to the 14 seer HFC push. Go ahead and google any manufacturer you can think of, they have a class action against them.
>I literally just explicitly said it wasn't that easy to do. If you can't be bothered to actually collect data and provide proof, why should anyone else in the industry believe you? Why's your word better than the engineer's? You say every HVAC tech agrees with you (which I'm inclined to believe you on), so it should be easy as fuck to get the entire group on the same page. Democracy loves consensus, bud, take that and push it through the system.
The data is already out there, some published by the EPA itself, it's not my job to play scientist or engineer.
>What exactly is it that you're trying to get to, then?
You can not be an engineer and submit the manuals but you actually have to be right, meanwhile engineers can be wrong and get shit approved.
>do
Obviously mean due
> it's not my job
well there you go. If fixing this shit isn't your job and you're not willing to work to make it better then your complaints about the system not working are less than useless. You haven't even tried to do it. Go actually make it happen instead of raising a stink on Sup Forums and masturbating about how much smarter you are than everyone else.
>tons of class action suits
good counterpoint to whoever it was above that said that the court system would fix it.
>You can not be an engineer and submit the manuals but you actually have to be right, meanwhile engineers can be wrong and get shit approved.
That's the easiest imaginable fix: make the standard whether or not you get it right, not just the degree you have. If you have data to back up that engineers consistently fuck this part up, it'll be very hard to argue against this. Go make it happen you lazy faggot.
You're in charge, and that simple? Regulations are only as good as the individuals enforcing them so your industry is fucked
>well there you go. If fixing this shit isn't your job and you're not willing to work to make it better then your complaints about the system not working are less than useless. You haven't even tried to do it. Go actually make it happen instead of raising a stink on Sup Forums and masturbating about how much smarter you are than everyone else.
You much like the lawmakers don't know the industry.
>That's the easiest imaginable fix: make the standard whether or not you get it right, not just the degree you have. If you have data to back up that engineers consistently fuck this part up, it'll be very hard to argue against this. Go make it happen you lazy faggot.
You much like the lawmakers don't know the industry.
Shit won't change until liberals are swept out of the EPA which will likely never happen. I'm fairly well known in my industry so there isn't a "You don't say shit" excuse.
What industry are you in?
>marketing exists precisely to obfuscate these things
Proof?
>false "seal of approval" groups exist
Examples?
>consumer information is often low
Proof?
>and private independent consumer safety groups are just as (if not more) susceptible to corrupting influence than public democratic governments where the public actually has a vote in the matter.
Proof?
You are talking out of your ass. Meanwhile I provided concrete examples of successful platform businesses that effectively self-regulate without your criminal monopoly.
Years ago if you told me a stranger's car rolled up and told you to get in, I'd assume you were about to be raped or kidnapped. Now, I'd say you were just getting an Uber. The reason for the change is because I know Uber has an extensive vetting and monitoring process (i.e. regulations) that led to both cheaper and better results than government taxi regulations.
You are a typical retarded government drone who couldn't tell me 1+1 is 2.