This quote is particularly telling of a billionaire's mindset when the fines are too small to matter.
> Workers have complained of chemical burns from the waste material generated by the tunneling process, and firefighters must decontaminate their equipment after conducting rescues from the project sites. The company was fined more than $112,000 by Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late 2023 after workers complained of “ankle-deep” water in the tunnels, muck spills and burns.
In another part, the company is accused of dumping this water directly into streets (presumably without decontamination).
What is an example of a regulation that was a "huge" hinderance to innovation?
Looking at the past 40 years of the US technological progress and the only thing I seen hindering innovation are the tech companies themselves through monopoly, monopsony, patents, and regulatory capture. (Unless the last one is what you meant, but that's a regulation put in place by a monopoly to maintain its monopoloy and not to protect the air we breathe).
EDIT: I am referring to "innovation" not "execution".
Not one (token) example, but "many". But I'm as curious as you are and thirsty for some well-researched and replicated numbers. ;)
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh...
What? The Pyramids, Roman aqueducts, domes, et cetera weren’t innovations?
https://www.pbssocal.org/redefine/group-sues-to-block-new-de...
Your work history will impact the way you view this issue IMO.
I for one have seen mid-5 figures spent on a dumpster enclosure, because of building codes.
Do you intend that isn't stifling, that a regulatory environment that requires spending 5 figured to house 2 dumpsters isn't stifling?
Complete de-regulation of a sector, say banking or medicine, would certainly encourage a lot of innovation. A lot of people would also be hurt in the process.
- State by state money transmission licensing: Fintechs like PayPal and Stripe had to get 50+ separate state licenses, creating huge compliance costs and delaying product launches.
- FDIC De Novo Bank Rules: caused a collapse in new bank formation for nearly a decade (only a handful of new banks were approved between 2010–2016).
– Over 20 state laws restricted cities from building their own broadband networks, protecting incumbents and stalling fiber deployment.
- Slow spectrum auctions and rigid allocation by FCC delayed rollout of 5G infrastructure compared to countries with faster processes.
- State-based regulation patchwork for insurance: each US state has its own insurance regulator requiring 50+ separate filings for new products, slowing national rollout of innovations
- ACA: while expanding coverage, created heavy administrative burdens for smaller insurers and startups trying to innovate in plan design or digital enrollment
- Conflicting state laws and lack of federal standards created uncertainty for companies like Waymo and Cruise, delaying scaling of self-driving technology.
- Drone FAA rules: heavily limited commercial drone use, slowing the rise of delivery and mapping applications until modernized rules came into effect.
- California's recent, very nuanced "Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act" targeting frontier models and "safety" and "risk reporting" like "critical safety incidents"
Because "Innovation" isn't the be-all-end-all of a regulation or shouldn't be one of its aims or concerns. As a hyperbole, I don't care about "innovation" if you need to throw 4000 people into an industrial shredder in order to do it.
Another day, another invocation of the golden mean fallacy.
If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. That's a pretty bad (and ironic) fallacy to commit, unless you think everything in this world (or at least all regulations) are binary (either perfect or completely worthless)
In one dimension. If both sides are fundamentally wrong, the middle is probably also mischaracterised.
Pro-and anti-phlogiston theorists [1] weren’t validated by a little phlogiston. They were superseded by oxygen theory.
Not even in one dimension. But that is obviously also a categorization/composition issue and therefore subject to other, potentially fallacious and accordingly named, pitfalls.
Just because accurate results aren't to be found "somewhere (unspecific!) in the middle" doesn't mean that one a) finds them precisely in the (extreme) edges, or fringes, and b) that the middle is completely excluded, especially in the analysis and comparison of dynamic systems (e. g. macroeconomic analysis).
Not to mention a fine won't do much for people who get sick and die.
You see this from time to time with headlines like "$CORP fined fifty MILLION dollars for ..." And then when you look into the details the fine turns out to be about one week of revenue and the offense resulted in early death for thousands of people over the past five years.
Ever worked in a company where you need approval from 7 separate teams to land a simple change? Just can't get anything done, no matter how useful. This is a huge problem. People generally do not understand what serialized blocking does to performance.
On the other hand the fines cited in the article seem laughably low. I don't know how much ground water was discharged, and how big of a deal it is, but at certain pricetag even billionaires will say: well, it's cheaper to get a cistern and take that water to a water treatment facility or something.
But all he's saying is he wants to run his company the way tech entrepreneurs have been for a while - "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" which they like because it's favored toward them, and, by the time a regulator has caught up, they have made a pile of money, or lost it all and gone.
https://fee.org/articles/how-the-faa-is-keeping-flying-cars-...
1. For some reason it only talks in terms of the USA, there's a whole world of manufacturers that could have stepped up to create flying cars if the market was interested.
2. There was, for a very long time, a thing called a "microlight" which allowed people to own their own snap private air craft (although not generally VTOL)
It’s telling that billionaires are human?
Fines being too small to matter are a phenomenon across the income spectrum. From delivery drivers dancing with New York meter maids to American tourists ignoring overseas traffic rules, the notion that inadequate fines stop deterring and become merely a nuisance is well know.
Would be useful to remember that if Musk or Bezos say something, it may have the same chance of being right as what a delivery driver would say.
IMO his statement is disingenuous at that higher level. It's telling that billionaires propose things that wouldn't personally cut into their liquid assets, but instead would come out of a company that shields them from personal responsibility.