> you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest
I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that.
> you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them
Yes.
> you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation
Again, I didn't say that. I used that as an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I expect you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to misinterpret me so you can dunk on the strawman.
My overall point being, if you're upset with deregulation, you should direct your ire at the regulators who took the word of lobbyists at face value instead of doing their jobs.
Eh, I was being a touch snarky using your mobster analogy back at you somewhat out of context, but other than that, I wasn't really straw-manning much at all.
I guess the root of where we seem to disagree is the extent to which it's reasonable for companies to lobby, and the extent to which we believe it's reasonable to expect government employees to be the last bastion of reason and good conduct, despite everything that might be brought to bear against them.
Part of the case with Boeing and the 737 Max is actually more extreme than this, and also really interesting, as Boeing's financial interest is set clearly and diametrically against the interests of the public who might fly on their planes. Here's a precis (as I understand it): following the two earlier actual crashes of the Max (each killing hundreds of people) the FAA requested changes to those planes, to make them safer. Boeing lobbied against these changes, successfully, resulting in Congress effectively overruling the FAA, via a provision in the recent spending bill. [0]
Sadly, in reality, such "holding to account" almost certainly won't happen.
1) Congresspeople's voting can often be related to local selfish incentives - they support local industries because that's what their voters care about, irrespective of the bigger picture. There are myriad examples of this - Joe Manchin being in the pocket of the coal industry is an obvious one. In this particular case, Boeing claimed that the safety work requested by the FAA would place the 737 Max program itself (and therefore the jobs that depend on it) at risk. You could see this as democracy at work... but it's really democracy tainted by the influence of money and lobbying.
2) The 'adjustment' to the FAA's safety work was placed inside a much bigger bill, therefore obfuscating responsibility and even awareness.
3) In a highly-partisan, two-party system, it would have to be a highly emotionally-charged topic to push voters into voting tactically against their previous choice. Roe vs. Wade might be big enough for some people, but I doubt that something as small as this would do so.
--
That aside, the idea that the current system is protected by the ability of voters to 'hold their representative to account' every two or so years is surely crazy:
a) such accountability (if it ever happens) has up to a two-year lag - far from acceptable given the current example related to aircraft safety (which should be noted and reversed as a matter of urgency)
b) even if such accountability transpired, is it realistic to expect that a newly-elected replacement Congressperson could reverse the previous wrong? Highly unlikely.
I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that.
> you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them
Yes.
> you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation
Again, I didn't say that. I used that as an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I expect you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to misinterpret me so you can dunk on the strawman.
My overall point being, if you're upset with deregulation, you should direct your ire at the regulators who took the word of lobbyists at face value instead of doing their jobs.