Some regulars are corrupt. Some are not. Some government officials are corrupt. Some are not. Some business people are corrupt. Some are not.

Any position of power has the potential to fall to corruption, if proper checks and balances aren't put in place to prevent it. GP simply seems to believe that regulators are insufficiently held accountable to avoid corruption from taking root.

Are you sure you yourself don't believe something without evidence ("regulators are not corrupt") because it's part of your political ideology?

I would also add that most businesses of a certain size ARE corrupt.

A great deal, possibly even most, people can be corrupted if placed in a position that enables it. Any regulatory mechanism implemented has to bear in mind that the underlying problem is that _people_ are corrupt. Putting people in a position where there is no check (such as voting, or customers choosing whether to buy) on that corruption makes everything more dangerous.

My position all along has been that businesses are greedy, oft corrupt, enterprise. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that individuals in the revolving door between industry and regulator are still corruptible people -- whether they are in the role of regulator or business director. These revolving door individuals didn't suddenly become corrupt when entering business or become pure when entering regulatory agencies.

Likewise, regulators are not beyond reproach and one's political ideology influences that perception.

Hours ago you called the court of the land "corrupt hyper-partisan" and now you believe there's no evidence of corruption in the vastness of the regulatory agencies?

Spare me the hypocrisy.

> The regulators are not corrupt.

And what would you say the basis for you believing that is?