News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by mruniverse on Thursday April 21, 2016 @04:51PM (#11545254)
Would it work if we made the revolving door less attractive?

For instance, could we pay the regulators enough for it to become attractive? Over time, maybe being a regulator will become the end goal of new grads.

Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by wldcordeiro on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:32PM (#11545491)
Combining higher pay with putting various legal limitations on people who move between the two sides to combat the conflict of interest would certainly help.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by hugh4 on Thursday April 21, 2016 @10:43PM (#11546750)
Judges typically get paid less than many of the lawyers who argue in front of them, but there's still plenty of lawyers who want to take a paycut to be judges, and not much action in the other direction. Why? Because judges have really high status.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by mruniverse on Friday April 22, 2016 @12:13AM (#11547022)
I was thinking that if the regulators are paid more, get a little more power (not sure if they already have enough power) and start to bust some bankers, get some publicity, then that might eventually lead to more status.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by ArkyBeagle on Friday April 22, 2016 @03:30AM (#11547576)
Excellent idea, but you run into the "ticket scalping is Bad" mentality.