I suggest we elect tech literate people so that way they are qualified.
Tech literacy is one very small aspect of what any reasonable person would want in the person who represents them in their government. There is no reason we would want that to be their first qualifier, and without that as their first qualification there is no reason we would want them deciding each and every regulation. That should be left up to people who know what they're doing.
Yes we have and no we shouldn't be slaves to technocrats there needs to be a democratic process and oversights.
That's why we have a Congress and an entire executive branch overseeing them.
Prior to the 1920s regulatory agencies didn't even exist and things were fine.
Actually it began in 1887, but setting that aside... Do you seriously think 1920's America is comparable to 2020's America?
And even if you somehow do, regulatory bodies were formed for a reason. You might think the 1920's were great but I promise you anyone who lived through them would come to undetstand the price we paid for it.
Tightening screws created that sort of corruption but yes go ahead and keep doing the same thing over and over again and see if you get different results.
This is like arguing that stores should stop selling merchandise because sometimes items get stolen.
Exactly and so your solution is to give the government more power?
No, solutions are what we come up with to solve a problem. I'm talking about the processes by which we do so.
Why not put the power in the hands of the people instead of the technocrats elite and billionaires?
The power is in the hands of the people, that's what democratic government is.
But if by "people" you mean why not leave it to businesses to regulate themselves then the answer is really simple; because they won't. Individuals and businesses will do and are only responsible for whatever is in their best personal interests. Regulations exist because what is in the best interest for one can be detrimental to the rest of society, like a factory dumping it's waste in the local river everyone gets their drinking water from.
The entire point of regulations is to protect consumers from harmful or predatory business practices.
Well I showed you the corruption involved and how it achieves the opposite.
No, you didn't. I acknowledge there is corruption because that is true anywhere there are humans. The fact that corruption exists is not a reason to deregulate every industry. It's a pro vs con debate, so if you want to argue that the benefits of corruption outweigh the benefits of regulation you've got a really steep hill to climb, and that debate only comes after accepting that the level of corruption we're talking about is not avoidable with oversight and law enforcement.
Also check out these facts that disprove you
1. Prior to the FDA Americans got most of their food supply from local businesses. Now most can be traced back to a handful of corporations
2. Prior to heavy banking regulations, 80% of banking was done with small mom and pop banks. Now nearly all banking is done with billion dollar corporations.
3. Local regulators were used to help form regional monopolies of utility companies
Classic correlation = causation fallacy.
Regulations came about as the world became more complicated and businesses were finding new ways to make money at the expense of the rest of society.
During this same period capitalism continued to mature, so because those with more money have an edge over those who don't, large corporations began to crush smaller businesses who didn't have the Capitol to compete.
These are two entirely seperate things which both would have followed their paths regardless of the other. If anything you could actually make the argument in reverse which would be far more compelling; that the formation of large businesses and corporations is what lead to the need for more regulations. The lessons we learned after the great depression would be a great example of that.
