[ak4g]

Uh, this makes no sesne to me. He's speaking specifically about the numbers reported for the Georgia Dock, which, from the reporting in this article, could very easily be completely legitimate. You seem to be interpreting his statement as applying to everything under his job description as director of regulatory compliance.

I did not read his statement as a blanket statement; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would until I saw your comment. As a matter of fact, the 2nd sentence seems to explicitly preclude that interpretation.

[bjterry]

The entire article provides reasons why the companies are incentivized to inflate the prices, because those prices are used in contracts which affect them. Asbridge is either not aware of this aspect of the incentives in his industry, which would imply incompetence (whether this is a minor incompetence or a gross incompetence, I don't have the knowledge to say), or he's not speaking carefully. He might actually think that the companies don't have a GOOD reason to provide false figures, but not that they don't have ANY reason. If he's not speaking carefully, then he may be specifically minimizing concerns about the figures to the benefit of the industry he's regulating.

Since he's a political actor, and we know that regulatory capture exists, this could call into question whether it's appropriate for him to continue being a regulator. That's the argument.

[ethbro]

To give him the benefit of the doubt (not saying it's warranted), Georgia government interactions do seem to have a tendency towards "yelled at and fixed in a back room, face saving comments at the press conference."

See the history of our JQB (before voters questionably decided to give control to the legislature this election).

[smileysteve]

> before voters questionably decided to give control to the legislature this election

I think you mean:

Before the legislatures questionably took control after putting favorable wording on a ballot that the average uninformed voter read as a no brainer.

[ethbro]

I feel like <20% of ballot measures are clearly worded, so that wasn't any surprise to me.

More fun was that State Rep. Johnnie Caldwell of Griffin, GA (formerly Judge Caldwell before being approached by the JQB and resigning due to allegations of sexually harassing a female attorney) was one of the co-sponsors of the amendment.

[manarth]

  We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful

This statement seems excessively naive for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.

It's one thing to suggest that in general, the companies are believed to be honest. That's a fairly reasonable statement.

It's another thing to be blind to the benefits of giving untruthful information. If all companies were honest and compliant, there would be no need for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.

[brazzledazzle]

Some people think that there is no need and they take political and regulatory positions specifically to undermine regulations. Something to think about when someone in a position to impact regulatory effectiveness does something that seems incomprehensible.

But it's not always the case, sometimes people are just thick or we lack a complete picture.

[jobu]

It sounds like they're only talking to chicken producers, and the producers have a pretty obvious incentive to lie to regulators if it increases the price they get for chicken.

An easy fix would be to contact retailers like Walmart or Kroger to see what they're paying for chicken. Hopefully the liars would offset and end up closer to the truth.

[ethbro]

The article notes one of the reasons this is a big deal is that major retailers use the measure, at least in part, to set their buy contracts.

[deeth_starr]

Exactly. This is an excellent idea.

[cgvgffyv]

> I did not read his statement as a blanket statement; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would until I saw your comment.

You haven't been on the internet much have you?

Get out before it sucks all the optimism out of you and replaces it with cynicism.

I feel it's a non-reversible process.

[coldtea]

>Get out before it sucks all the optimism out of you and replaces it with cynicism.

So, get out before you actually get informed about how the world runs?

[cgvgffyv]

Does it make you feel any better though? Do you prefer to be continuously disappointed over things you have no control on?

Others don't give a damn, and they're happier because of it.

Bad things will happen to you personally eventually (assuming they haven't yet). I have enough of that to deal with already, why would I want more?

[coldtea]

>Does it make you feel any better though? Do you prefer to be continuously disappointed over things you have no control on?

Who said we have no control on the world? Do you think one has to be The President or some mogul to have a say in the world? Was Rosa Parks anybody important when she did what she did?

And even if it's not about changing the world, being aware of the pitfalls instead of blindly optimistic can let people avoid lots of dangers of the "it can't happen here" or "it can't happen to me" type...

[cgvgffyv]

> Was Rosa Parks anybody important when she did what she did?

These are social issues. There are no monetary interests at work.

In the (very, very) long run nobody really cares who you marry.

These are just the little things given to us to fight over so we don't notice what's really going on (i.e 3 wars, but still no healthcare? Come on.)

[coldtea]

>These are social issues. There are no monetary interests at work.

From slavery and Jim Crow laws, to seggregation and redlining, there were tons of monetary interests at keeping the blacks down.