EU ombudsman: regulator should have stopped director from joining lobby group
politico.eu
politico.eu
Their entire workforce comes from the financial industry.
You try to imply that EU is kinda root of all evil.
>> A top official has been poached by Facebook from the UK’s media watchdog, the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/uk-media-watch...
>> Warren Singles Out U.S. Officials for Moving to C-Suite Jobs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-29/warren-pr...
They have a unique experience that can’t be gained elsewhere, you can’t regulate an industry you don’t understand and you can’t understand the financial industry without working in it.
So people move back and forth between legislators/regulators and compliance/lobbying.
The only solution is to pay them more but not only it’s not possible it’s also not going to solve anything sometimes people just get bored and want to switch roles. Cooldown periods might help but only a bit as you can’t generally prevent people from gaining employment and if you refuse to hire anyone who has had recent job experience in the financial industry your regulation would be ineffective.
Industry experts will be in the pool of potential regulators - but that regulatory position used to be stable and lucrative enough to be the final destination as opposed to a stepping stone where scratching a few backs by relaxing some regulations could land you a future cushy job.
Cooldown periods might have helped if it were not for the simple fact that many of the position offered to past officials are in fact very well compensated board:committee seats that require very little activity. The implicit assumption by both parties is this is for services rendered during office.
Alternative: if you are a banking government boss type of position and go work in the private sector, don't work for your 'opposition', instead use your skillset in an unrelated area. It's pretty silly that we have to spell this stuff out for those people or even make laws about it since it's to blatantly obviously unethical that you'd think that even they can see that.
I work in the biotech industry and you see lots of people who move from the FDA to companies and back.
But if you're a company trying to get a drug approved, who else are you going to hire? Same with the FDA. If they're trying to regulate manufacturers, hiring someone from a manufacturer is an ideal way to get that talent.
I'd be satisfied with some strict rules around lobbying and gov't influence. But banning people from moving around? That seems excessive and likely detrimental.
For the rest of us it can fascinating to watch the accelerated growth of that supernational government and its institutions be taken over so quickly and finds it ground.
I think that's an unfair leap. Criticizing the EU does not imply the EU the "root of all evil".
Whataboutism is not a defense. This appears to be a valid criticism of the EU.
I'm not sure how legally enforceable that would be. I wonder if the Bosman ruling would make that move unlawful.
his take is that public servants actually don't make enough money, when compared to their peers in the public sector, and that an important step to preventing regulatory capture is to pay them better. that way, people don't spend their careers in public service trying to avoid pissing off lobbyists they're hoping to work for later.
not sure if it'd work or not, or if making moves like this illegal is better, but it's definitely an interesting idea.
The real problem is far too much authority was vested (taken?) by the federal congress. Smaller government is the key to keeping the government in check.
That feels like a bit of a non sequitor. Can you elaborate? Genuinely curious.
I don't think you'd want this to be linear either. My feeling is you'd want the pay to stay pretty low anywhere below a 50% support level and climb pretty steeply above that, which discourages the split people down the middle mess the US is in. You'd probably accept that a small portion of people are nutcases so the salary would approach the max at around 85-90% support.
There are some potential exploits that you'd have to try to address but it's a thought.
And at that point it's easily gamed, and leads to ineffective short termist planning by the public servant.
This is a terrible idea that would be hugely damaging to the public.
What we need is checks and balances, not an even more volatile method.
> Watchdog
Who? European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly.
> slams EU agency
Which? The European Banking Authority.
> for letting boss
Who? Adam Farkas.
> join lobby group
Which? Association for Financial Markets in Europe.
It's also pretty widely used in politics coverage across many news sites. I did a quick search of WaPo, NYT, BBC, etc. and they all had a few headlines that used it like this.
See also the the old Variety headline about rural movie-goers avoiding films set in rural communities: 'Hicks Nix Sticks Flicks'
It's a throwback to when subs had to get punchy compact headlines on paper and didn't have to worry about SEO
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/26/books.guardian...
... just so thy could write:
Foot Heads Arms Body
Sadly, it never came to pass.
(Original is "Watchdog slams EU agency for letting boss join lobby group".)
If there were a way to squeeze banks in there, that'd be good too, but the 80 char limit stymied me.
Generally we take individuals' names out of titles rather than add them in, and adding "AFME" would be adding noise since few readers will have heard of it. In any case, it doesn't seem to matter as much which lobby group the director joined or which director it was who joined a lobby group.