Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "FISH INDUSTRY Burdened By Overregulation, Upcoming SCOTUS Case Could Change That: Analysis" video.

  1. I hate pointless regulation, or even neutral regulation. It's supposed to have a GOOD reason. Do these regs help keep fish safe and plentiful to eat? Do they protect the safety of fishermen? If so, leave them alone. BUT if they are just a money-grab, NO.
    7
  2.  @norman_5623  Ridiculous. You must not know how agricultural subsidies operate, or why they are essential. I don't eat birds or mammals at all, or fish very often -- I may be vegan for months on end, in fact -- but it never crossed my mind to withdraw subsidies from ranchers, or not pay for meat inspections just because I don't eat meat. It's a matter of global health. There are young children whose parents feed them beef. I want them to stay healthy. Sheesh.
    4
  3. 2033 headline? Be sure of it.
    3
  4. To make it impossible for non-millionaires to eat a healthful meal.
    2
  5.  @tamaraspencer4024  This has gotten scary, hasn't it?
    2
  6. ​ @astronautical1082 Everyone. We all benefit from plentiful food. Or no? You don't eat?
    2
  7. She EXPRESSLY said she has NO disagreement about the regulation. It's about who foots the bill. It's about 💰. This is too tough for you? Still? 😂😂😂
    2
  8. So . . . The fisherfolk have to pay for an ineffective regulation AND make it so that only billionaires can afford fresh fish. Nice. That's a plan.
    2
  9. @AtticusEmerson  Actually, there is a GOOD reason why we should pay: regulatory capture. The regulated SHOULD NOT pay the regulator. The regulator must be independent. He is there representing the public. His very day-to-day presence on the boats is motivation enough to be sympathetic to the fisherman and overlook infractions. If they also pay him, he WILL look to placate them. There is a second good reason: a sudden and complete withdrawal of subsidy will be a shock to the industry, and smaller fisheries will go out of business. Big ones will grow bigger, then lobby to get the regulations they want. They will invariably have greater power to make the rules and bend them when it suits them, whereas the small fry can't. Pun intended.
    1
  10.  @mschwage  It was about who pays.
    1
  11. @mschwage  Actually, there is a GOOD reason why we should pay: regulatory capture. The regulated SHOULD NOT pay the regulator. The regulator must be independent. He is there representing the public. His very day-to-day presence on the boats is motivation enough to be sympathetic to the fisherman and overlook infractions. If the fisheries also pay him, he WILL look to placate them. There is a second good reason: a sudden and complete withdrawal of subsidy will be a shock to the industry, and smaller fisheries will go out of business. Big ones will grow bigger, then lobby to get the regulations they want. They will invariably have greater power to make the rules and bend them when it suits them, whereas the small fry can't. Pun intended.
    1
  12. @Lj-ok9ok  Look, if you are not going to engage with the debate, or even listen to the video to see what it's about, then why bother? The woman just explained to you how this regulation operates like a massive tax on fishermen, which they will have to pass along. The issue isn't the regulation itself, it's the fact that the fishermen themselves have to pay for it because Congress refused to appropriate the funds.
    1
  13. @Lj-ok9ok  It's irrelevant that a lot of industries pay for regulation --- in fact, in pharmaceuticals, that has led to regulatory capture. The issue is the cost. You can't just wave your hands and accept any and every cost. Is this one reasonable or unreasonable? Eat less fish, eat less good food in general, and . . . take more pills. Keep it up. I support the people who do real work. You can't eat pixels.
    1
  14.  @norman_5623  Actually, there is an answer: regulatory capture. The regulated SHOULD NOT pay the regulator. The regulator must be independent. He is there representing the public. His very day-to-day presence on the boats is motivation enough to be sympathetic to the fisherman and overlook infractions. If they also pay him, he WILL look to placate them. There is a second good reason: a sudden and complete withdrawal of subsidy will be a shock to the industry, and smaller fisheries will go out of business. Big ones will grow bigger, then lobby to get the regulations they want. They will invariably have greater power to make the rules and bend rules, whereas the small fry can't. Pun intended.
    1