Speaking as a retired regulator, amen on "public participation." When a regulator wants a genuine dialogue with the "public", it works in private.
There are several advantages to this. With public exposure, representatives will play to their membership, rather than provide credible information and persuasive advocacy. A few people around a table are a damn sight more effective than a series of three-minute speeches. And these invited people are likely to have the technical expertise the regulator needs, and the long-term relations that lubricate effective communication. The problem with this approach is that industry reps are invariably strong, and consumer/employee/environmental reps are more spotty in quality and quantity.
There is still a point to "public participation." Not only does it measure the political temperature, as Max says. It is also measures the regulator's temperature. If the regulator sends a staffer to the public event, it signals weak commitment to the problem. Political appointees are scarce resources, signaling that the regulator views the problem as significant.
I fully agree with Ziggy's previous comment, but I just want to add that when public participation allows admission to the multitude all semblance of reason vanishes. Why? Because there is a difference between 'the public' & 'the multitude' and it seems that we confuse one with the other in order to make a mockery of the democratic process - which ought to have only one purpose, to free individuals from the passions that rob the multitude from any sense of reason. Which is why Spinoza, the father of liberal democracy wrote about his distaste of 'the multitude' in the Preface of his 'Theologico-Political Treatise' which sadly is not one of the two entries found in the https://www.marxists.org/ catalog.
In 1670, Spinoza's TTP is the first ever written document that calls for the separation of church and state, free speech, and makes the claim that happiness (not property) is a right and that democracy applied to these ends is the best and most stable form of government - its publication also got Spinoza banned, censured, and nearly killed. A link to this work is found here:
Speaking as a retired regulator, amen on "public participation." When a regulator wants a genuine dialogue with the "public", it works in private.
There are several advantages to this. With public exposure, representatives will play to their membership, rather than provide credible information and persuasive advocacy. A few people around a table are a damn sight more effective than a series of three-minute speeches. And these invited people are likely to have the technical expertise the regulator needs, and the long-term relations that lubricate effective communication. The problem with this approach is that industry reps are invariably strong, and consumer/employee/environmental reps are more spotty in quality and quantity.
There is still a point to "public participation." Not only does it measure the political temperature, as Max says. It is also measures the regulator's temperature. If the regulator sends a staffer to the public event, it signals weak commitment to the problem. Political appointees are scarce resources, signaling that the regulator views the problem as significant.
The best regulators are privateer capitalists now
Consider credit pods funded by the central bank
And rationed based on performance *
* take this black box on faith so we can outline the proposal
The pods fund enterprises
Like VCs but with CB money
Ie cost zero
The only cost to note is the opportunity of productive resources to be applied elsewhere
Firms funded have a charter
With specs
Charters are here black box
Charters just dive into
the market place
Growth in market revenue
is the metric
Thru a ratio of resources
Cost price
to revenue
Too often market feed back
Ie realized revenue
Is not matched simply
To cost price
Note no surplus all surplus flushed to customers
Firms or households
Love your cynicism, Max. "Death by outreach" is a phrase I will use.
I fully agree with Ziggy's previous comment, but I just want to add that when public participation allows admission to the multitude all semblance of reason vanishes. Why? Because there is a difference between 'the public' & 'the multitude' and it seems that we confuse one with the other in order to make a mockery of the democratic process - which ought to have only one purpose, to free individuals from the passions that rob the multitude from any sense of reason. Which is why Spinoza, the father of liberal democracy wrote about his distaste of 'the multitude' in the Preface of his 'Theologico-Political Treatise' which sadly is not one of the two entries found in the https://www.marxists.org/ catalog.
In 1670, Spinoza's TTP is the first ever written document that calls for the separation of church and state, free speech, and makes the claim that happiness (not property) is a right and that democracy applied to these ends is the best and most stable form of government - its publication also got Spinoza banned, censured, and nearly killed. A link to this work is found here:
https://sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/treat/index.htm
Perhaps someone can add this work to the Marxist website?
Transparent operations are contrary to firm choice under corporate capital rules
Why not charter firms that
Operate in the open
all cards up
The firm that operates this way
Is immortalized
Key aspect
management teams
Can lose their operating license
Yes the Spin man has a harvest waiting for any reader
Btw jury system here
Jury duty is wildly under utilized on the market place. Now its each side hires a gun and the guns agree on a third gun
Arbitration should be a civic function
Privacy as Franklin asserts
is personal belongings
And a residence
Not shared ownership
of open AI
Public option firms
A chart system
Founders sign
founders are management teams
not owners
Organize a team
sign a charter
You're underway
Charter rules
Plus permanent credit sourcing
From the state ie
potential immortality
These charter outfits
Are like non profits
They are non profits
The earnings get flushed forward
to customers
Break even is bottom line every cycle
Employees other then management team part of an independent union
Expansion by performance
Ie output demand
There's much more. Its called build a luputa to float over your market system
Public firms earn market share
Buy and sell to whoever they choose
Wage earners want to do a job get paid well and forget about