The Problem With Regulations

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Ezra Klein on regulations:

Michael Mandel is waging a one-man war against the government’s tendency to pile on regulations during economic downturns. I worry his approach is a little indiscriminate: Genetically modified crops can still contaminate non-genetically-modified crops even if the economy is weak. So there either need to be standards for how to handle that problem or GMO producers will be laden with legal threats and uncertainty over regulations they they know will come eventually, but whose content they can’t yet predict. That’s a much worse position for a young industry.

I’d put this a little differently. To a fair approximation, regulations on corporate behavior can only be enacted when a Democrat is president, so if you want any new regulations at all, they can only occur when a Democrat happens to be in office. Sometimes that’s during an economic downturn, but them’s the breaks. Besides, rulemaking is a very, very long process, so any rules started up, say, in Barack Obama’s first year, are only likely to win final approval around 2014 or so. If then. So trying to time these things to the economic cycle is a mug’s game anyway.

It would be nice if both parties supported moderate and effective levels of business regulation, and could therefore agree to things like temporary halts during recessions or neutral reviews of possibly outdated rules. But they don’t. The Republican Party these days is basically a ward of its corporate base, and this makes them dedicated to mindlessly declaring all regulations “job killers” and getting rid of everything they can, regardless of whether they’re effective or not. That makes it pretty hard to come up with some kind of efficient, bipartisan approach to streamlining the regulatory state.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest