Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on The Big Show, we attempt to return to some sense of normalcy (while of course maintaining social distancing by at least 1,000 miles). Yes, we talk about that thing we’re all doing and what our new lives are like now. But then, we shift gears to visit with our good friend Ross Douthat, NYT columnist and podcaster (The Argument, which Ross co-hosts is one of our favorites) on the occasion of his new book., The Decadent Society. It’s a meditation on what happens when a rich and powerful society stops advancing and how the combination of wealth, technology, economic stagnation, political stalemates, and demographic decline (among other things) creates a “sustainable decadence” that could stick around for a long time. Needless to say, it’s a provocative conversation that we’d like to get your take on in the comments. Finally, we do round of What Are You Watching, and do a deep dive on toilet paper, courtesy of the Lileks Post of The Week.
Music from this week’s show: I.G.Y by Donald Fagen
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Social media also allows for easy FALSE claims, for a variety of reasons.
Did you know that restaurant workers often have to be certified too? It’s not just health inspectors taking care of everything, even if they could be there all the time, which they can’t. Kitchen workers get trained and tested about things like safe food storage and preparation practices, safe temperatures, etc. Kitchen/restaurant MANAGERS have higher levels of training and testing beyond that.
The solution would seem to be different levels of certification. People who just braid hair, should still know about safe practices involving any equipment they use, and even their hands. And they could be checked occasionally by health inspectors, as you say, plus subject to re-testing to check if they remember what they’re supposed to be doing, etc. You know, like happens with drivers too?
I just don’t think what people do in “the public square” must necessarily be as open as what people do on their own time, to themselves and to others in their own family, otherwise it’s “oppression.”
What is your argument, that anyone should be able to call themselves an electrician, and if houses burn down, well, that’s what Yelp is for?
I only did this once, but it wasn’t a big deal. I am all for it too, because I’ve been severely harmed by food poisoning. You read a booklet and pass a test. It’s a good policy. Food poisoning kills 5000 people every single year in this country. Supposedly, it’s the most under-publicized risk we have.
(Cut due to word limit on MY posts)
So, you’re doing a Rush Limbaugh, illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
Everyone has limits they resent.
Homes and other structures built in tornado or earthquake areas are often required to meet higher standards than homes built in other areas. Is that balderdash too? Last I heard, homes in areas “unusually” subject to sinkholes also have different standards. More balderdash?
I think if I were in that situation I wouldn’t try very hard to get something built – whether a structure or a berm – that just barely satisfies the requirement. If only because the margin of error makes it too expensive to be just a little bit off. And the cost of starting out intending to make the berm 1/4″ taller than it has to be, is much less than the fines and possibly having to do it all over again.
And if they come back and say the berm isn’t high enough, or doesn’t encompass a large enough area, what about excavating a bit within the berm? That would also increase the total storage capacity.
That said, maybe it is extreme to require a holding capacity equal to all tanks when they’re full. But that’s not the same as saying there should be no capture capacity at all, because it’s a hassle and oppresses supposedly-free business.
Put the produce in a bag, toss in a little tub of salad dressing, call it a salad-to-go with dressing on the side. Boom. Done.
Perhaps we would understand each other better if we began by stating where we fall on the opinion spectrum regarding the extent to which we are currently adequately regulated. In general, do you feel that we are:
1 – way overregulated
2 – somewhat overregulated
3 – living the dream in the regulatory sweet spot
4 – somewhat underregulated
5 – way underregulated
I’m at one: I think we are way overregulated.
Common sense says that there will be a natural upward ratcheting of regulation, simply because regulatory agencies created in response to a perceived pressing need have an obvious interest in maintaining and expanding their regulatory authority. Increasing bureaucracy is an expression of human nature. Never bet against human nature.
No, there’s all kinds of licensing and inspection of parts that go into cars and trucks, and additional requirements of the completed vehicles too. There’s also a lot of regulation of parts that go into airplanes, including Lileks-annoying details about how strong the bolts have to be in various places.. I don’t think turning that kind of thing over to Consumer Reports and Yelp makes sense.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that we all agree that a compromise might be reached somewhere between regulating commercial aircraft engine repair practices and requiring government-approved certification for the young women who paint nails in nail salons. That’s a pretty broad range, after all.
The discussion probably shouldn’t be about whether the former is clearly necessary and the latter clearly excessive, but rather about where America is overall on the spectrum that includes those two examples.
Some compromise, yes. But I don’t think there should be NO standards for the young women who paint nails in nail salons. At least not in shopping malls etc. Maybe there should be no regulation for people who do it at home, except perhaps for a requirement to have some kind of sign “THIS IS AN UNREGULATED ENTERPRISE. IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO YOU AS A RESULT, TOUGH TITTY.” Because if they get some kind of serious injury somehow, or even something non-serious, they should know in advance that there’s no “malpractice insurance” or anything else they can make a claim on. Unfortunately, those signs probably need to be in English, and Spanish, and ghod knows what else…
I’d be perfectly happy to let the young woman paint nails with exactly no regulation tailored to the business of painting nails. When a minor nail mishap occurs, the customer can have exactly the same recourse as does the purchaser of a poorly prepared meal: complain to management, complain to your friends, leave no tip, don’t go back, etc.
As an aside: Regarding your proposed sign, doesn’t it kind of imply that if one patronizes a regulated enterprise, one might reasonably turn to the government for compensation in the event of a problem? Because otherwise the recourse in the event that “anything happens to you” for the patron of the regulated and unregulated establishment alike would appear to be the same.
“You read a booklet and pass a test”.
I’ve done those too. That’s the worst kind of “certification”. It’s pure theater.
You read the book. Five minutes later you take a test. Congratulations, you’re certified. Ten minutes later you’ve forgotten the whole thing.
Just for that situation, I don’t agree. The place I was out was really serious about food safety and I’ve never forgotten any of it. It’s not that hard to understand, but you just need it presented you in a systematic way. It’s damn serious business, too.
I don’t think anybody here is suggesting that there should be no capture capacity at all.
And it’s not just the regulations, it’s also the fines:
I believe James Lileks blogged about just such a case some years ago. Regulators like fines, so even the most well-meaning business can get hit with painful costs in situations where any reasonable person can see that no violation was intended.
Yeah, @jameslileks. I’m angry, too. And I’m getting angrier and angrier and angrier every day. Like the last podcast that featured Peter thinking about the actual economic devastation that is very real and getting worse every second, I feel grateful to hear someone else who is feeling like I am, when I’m told by my many friends who have savings and jobs and Zoom that we’re supposed to all be hanging out of windows and clapping or something…. (Not to take away from anyone because I am glad that we are allowed to have groceries.)
Plus they just closed the dog park tonight even though people did not stand near each other in the dog park. My dog needs to go to the bathroom and run around. This is easier when he’s not leashed. The people were not standing by each other, so there’s no point for this restriction, and now I don’t have a safe place for the dog to get out energy before returning to a very small, downtown apartment.
Regardless, when Rob talks about loving government, I’m totally with James. Totally. Please cut the big stuff. The main reason I never liked Trump and could not vote for Trump in 2016 is because he likes tariffs and “the big stuff”. I voted for someone else, which did nothing though I hate the things Rob says I supposedly love. I did not enjoy being coddled or swaddled when I was an infant. No, no, no. This is not my idea of protection. And I didn’t have a choice for what I actually want.
Maybe it’s because I’m a history teacher–not an aluminum foil hat wearer, but I hear this, and I freak out: People have to have papers now giving them permission to move around their own cities. Papers!!!!!!!
No one else finds that insane???? In the United States?
No, my IQ is not below 100 either, Mr. Progressive. I knew how to let my dog poop in a park while staying away from other people, and I am smart enough to say I’m going to buy milk if I don’t have a note that says it’s okay for me to go for a drive because I’m going crazy.
I haven’t seen my parents in over a month.
I am not afraid of the stupid virus whenever I go outside.
I am afraid of losing my civil liberties.
Well if you go to a licensed place, there is the licensing authority to complain to, who can do inspections, etc. Also those places might carry insurance, especially in the event that they make a SERIOUS boo-boo. (If you’ve never read them, the Click And Clack/Tappet Brothers/Car Talk shows/columns occasionally mention how every garage has at minimum something like “idiot insurance” in case they forget to tighten the drain plug after an oil change, resulting in a ruined engine Stuff like that.) And if nothing else, having a “not licensed, no insurance” sign in other places, means those people shouldn’t bother calling the licensing department if they have a problem. That helps keep the phone lines open, and if they call anyway, they can be told “go back and read the ‘tough titty’ sign again.”
Look, I have over 2 months’ hair growth because the haircut places are all closed. I don’t gripe that I think they should be open because it’s an inconvenience to ME, even aside from how close people get in that situation. I also have a 3-bedroom townhome with a private, enclosed patio. And you know what? I wouldn’t have a dog here even with that, because it just isn’t enough space. I wouldn’t be thinking something like “it doesn’t matter how small my place is, because there are dog parks.”
How does that fit with dog parks?
My parents live 3 states away, lately I see them once a year, previously it had been several years. What’s your point?
Neither were the Spring Breakers on the beaches in Florida. Last I heard, some of them have it now.
I’m not sure why anyone thinks this could be permanent, other than tinfoil-hat-wearers.
So you would be an example, it seems, of a person who really likes a lot of regulation. Fair enough. I don’t doubt that they’re out there. I just think most conservatives aren’t such people.
Lawyers, mainly. Big companies also prefer heavy regulation: it keeps their smaller competitors from becoming bigger.
I won’t speculate as to the motives. I can think of several, not all of which are pecuniary.
But I’d much prefer too little than too much regulation, and I think we have the latter by a wide margin.
You seem to think I’m arguing for an abolition of regulations. I’m not. I’m arguing against the regulation of everything, the permanent regulatory bureaucracy whose power never contracts, and the useless, resource-consuming process that results from ensuring Compliance. you’re arguing for the state to have the right to come into someone’s home to inspect whether they are braiding hair safely.
Sweet smoking Judas, my friend, really? Dig up the asphalt, remove some dirt – a lot of dirt, because you have to fill the excavated area with enough material to take the weight of a fullly-loaded double-tank truck with 18,000 gallons on board – and then seal it up again?
Saying there should be no capture capacity falls squarely into the category of things I have not said. “Maybe it is extreme, but” waves away all the costs of compliance with blithe disregard.
Yes! Exactly! My dislike for needless regulation extends to airplane safety.
<bidenf> Come on, man </biden>
Not in homes, no. I’ve already said that. I’ve already explained my attitude on that. If someone wants to (I would say “is stupid enough to”) pay someone for whatever in the privacy of their home, have at it. Just know that if something goes wrong, Uncle Sam says “Boo hoo. Now go away.”
There are also other areas that I’m quite open about less regulation, as long as it’s… “consistent.” For example, I wouldn’t be opposed to legalizing most or even all drugs, AS LONG AS the consequences are not blocked by the nanny state, or safety net, or whatever you want to call it. If someone wants to smoke pot, for example, fine. But I would make it so that they can’t fry their brain and then get disability payments for the rest of their life. Or if some company is stupid enough to hire them, and they perhaps cause a death while driving a company vehicle, the company should be sued out of existence. If not on behalf of the person injured or killed as a result, then maybe by the Social Security Administration which might be tasked with supporting the victim for the rest of their life. To do otherwise sounds like what many complain about in terms of privatizing profit, but socializing loss or risk.
Ultimately, though, that’s little more than wishful thinking, because it’s not likely to ever happen. Which is fine with me, because I wouldn’t want to be the person maimed or killed by the DUI driver.
[continued due to word limit]
Even if you know exactly what level of regulation is acceptable, it seems unlikely to remain constant. So how do you codify something like that? And it does need to be codified. The last thing you want is inspectors etc deciding on their own what it all means.
Nice graphic.
Peter gets a halo as George Jetson?
I was referring to the area within the berm, which seems like it wouldn’t have trucks going into and out of because in that case it wouldn’t be “closed” and able to hold a spill/leak. If that’s not the case, if trucks are going in and out through gaps in the berm, then how is the berm supposed to contain a spill/leak to begin with?
It’s easy to say that there should be… a lighter hand?… on these things. And in an ideal world I could agree. But this isn’t an ideal world. Giving lower-level functionaries too much discretion easily leads to other – perhaps worse – problems. Ultimately the goal is supposed to be to make sure the containment is adequate for the specified requirement, whether you agree with it or not. I could see that having a “violation notice” and “time allowed to correct” before a fine, would be good; but ultimately the fine should be high enough to ensure compliance, not just taken as a cost of doing business.
And presumably people in the business know by now that the regulators aren’t allowing any flexibility. So if I was expected to meet that requirement, as mentioned before, I wouldn’t try to just BARELY meet it. Especially if the fine is significant.
If you get “flexibility” in the regulation, and you say “well, this setup will contain 95% of a spill, isn’t that good enough?” and they say “okay” and then word gets out that 95% is good enough, then you get places planning to build 95% containment because the regulators will say it’s good enough and it saves them X dollars… And if they try for 95% but only achieve 94%, and the regulators say it’s not good enough, then you get complaints about “inflexibility” because “really, isn’t 94% good enough?”
Regarding the inflexibility of it, maybe Trump can help with the regulators? Unless that’s a state issue.
Regarding the flexibility of regulation etc, I do think that ends up being a big problem, and in other areas too. One of the big problems I see with “education” these days is the amount of “experimentation” going on, essentially using generations of children as guinea pigs. Every school administrator, principal, and even most teachers have their own pet theories of the best way to do things. But the evidence suggests – if not screams loudly – that they’re all WRONG. As I’ve said in other contexts, the social purpose of marriage is not for any two (or more) people (or barnyard animals) of whatever “gender” to be “happy.” And the social purpose of education is not for teachers and administrators to feel like they had a satisfying/fulfilling/rewarding career and a comfortable retirement. To that end, the evidence suggests – again, if not screams loudly – that we would get far better results from schools by a return to older, more “rote” methods where every teacher, school counselor, etc, wasn’t trying to be… Dr Spock, or something. Especially in some schools where the teachers aren’t particularly bright to start with.