←back to thread

573 points gausswho | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.424s | source
Show context
fwlr ◴[] No.44505910[source]
The FTC was warned at the time that they were flouting required procedures and that their rule would therefore not survive legal scrutiny. Lo and behold it did not.
replies(3): >>44506022 #>>44507869 #>>44508126 #
guelo ◴[] No.44507869[source]
who warned them?
replies(1): >>44508504 #
Hnrobert42 ◴[] No.44508504[source]
A then-commissioner who is now the head of the FTC.
replies(2): >>44508565 #>>44510005 #
guelo ◴[] No.44508565[source]
That commissioner also hated the fact that consumers were going to stop being robbed by big corps.
replies(1): >>44510080 #
1. VonTum ◴[] No.44510080[source]
I find it unproductive to assign emotion to such blatant corruption. I'd rather frame it as "That comissioner sees it to be in his personal best interest to not stop consumers being robbed by big corps."
replies(2): >>44510307 #>>44520260 #
2. ◴[] No.44510307[source]
3. db48x ◴[] No.44520260[source]
“The commissioner sees it as important that his government department actually follows the rules as written down by Congress” seems like a fairer interpretation.

Congress literally wrote “You must do X when Y”, and the FTC said “Well, probably Y isn’t true anyway, so we can skip doing X”. It’s true that Y involves an estimate, since there’s no way to calculate the exact number, but their estimate was clearly cooked with the specific purpose of letting them rush.

The new rules seem like good rules, too, so it’s really a shame that they decided that it was more important to rush than to do it right. That makes the old commissioner a bungler at best.