On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
> Going to court to dispute the particular authority under which the FCC has proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that
> you are going to find far more onerous is a strategy that is more to the interests of the lawyers and lobbyists than their clients.
> Their new 'product' they are offering being to help relieve their client of a few more tens of millions for litigation, lobbying and
> spurious 'research' fighting the title II regulations.
Precisely. New source of revenue, each side gets a piece of the pie.
Not necessarily. My advice to the participants is to stop paying their current lobbyists after this fiasco and replace them. They will spend just as much money as before but at least they are not creating a moral hazard problem where it is better for their advisers to give bad advice that creates more demand for the services they provide.
But yes, when I saw the document, I thought to myself 'retirement fund'.
> Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers would be a good start.
What makes you think their replacements would be better ?
It is the moral hazard issue. If the reward for failure is a new contract then you are creating an incentive to fail.
When you acquire a new company it is not uncommon to find that they have some IT project in the works that they have sunk several million dollars into at the behest of some clever consulting companies hiring out comp-sci grads with 5 years experience to produce 'specifications' in the hope that when they are finished these will be turned into code. And then you have to have that meeting where first you tell the consulting company that their services are no longer required and after they leave the manager who hired them turns to you and asks 'well what am I going to do without them' to which the answer is 'work with our outplacement agency'.
Why is it that folk who preach the virtues of capitalism never seem to understand that the logical consequences should fall on them when they mess up and not just the blue collar worker?