Regulatory Capture and the Public Interest: The FDA

The head of the Food and Drug Administration, Marty Makary, “resigned” in May, 2026 even though the decision had been made by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy “and then the White House signed off on it.”[1] Although Makary had been annoyance to drug-company executives, and to that extent his removal was due to pressure on President Trump by the CEOs, his “resignation” supports the theory of regulatory capture, wherein the regulated companies control the very regulatory agencies (and regulators therein) that regulate those companies, this case shows that it is possible for an industry’s interests to be aligned with the public (health) interest. Does the alignment regarding getting rid of a particular regulator lessen the unethical quality of the broader conflict of interest between business and government?

The full essay is at "Regulatory Capture and the Public Interest."

---

1.  Matthew Perrone and Seung Min Kim, “Trump FDA Chief Is Leaving After Angering Pharma CEOs, Vaping Lobbyists and Anti-Abortion Groups,” APnews.com, May 12, 2026.

UCLA Police: Targeting Black and Hispanic Local Residents?

The importance of demarcating a university’s campus from a municipality became more important once universities created their own police departments, which are distinct from a city’s police department both in terms of mission and democratic legitimacy. From the standpoint of a police department, being subject to a university’s administration is qualitatively different than being a department under a democratically-elected mayor and city council. I contend that in terms of how university-police employees treat Black and Hispanic local residents, this fundamental distinction is crucial even though it is seldom made. UCLA, located in the Westwood area of Los Angeles in California, is a case in point. So too—and even more so, is the private Yale University, located in New Haven in Connecticut.

The full essay is at "UCLA Police."

Wall Street Snuffed Out President Clinton's Goal of Homeownership for the Poor

It is one thing for the head of a government (or a government’s executive arm) to set a praiseworthy goal that is in the public interest, and quite another thing to rely on the financial sector to implement it. Finance has its own means tied to its own goals, with plenty of greed in the mix. Governmental officials may tend to minimize the potential damage from ego-laden greed to the goals of public policy. Such policy ideally strives for the good of the whole, whereas the goals of a private sector of a part. This could account, at least in part, for the financial crisis of 2008 and the continuing bear market in housing in much of the U.S.

The full essay is at "How Wall Street Snuffed Out Clinton's Goal."

Oligarchic Social Media Companies: Willowing the Internet Unethically

Too much power in a few hands is inherently dangerous. That goes for private as well as public, or governmental, power. In the world of social media, the companies that own and control the platforms are essentially governmental in nature in that the executives promulgate rules and, ideally, see that they are enforced. The downsides to too few platforms—each with an extraordinary amount of power—involve a constricting of ideas, or content, on the internet, and potentially unanswered violations of the rights of the social-networks’ respective users. The public policy repercussions, I submit, include applying anti-trust law to social media companies such that none gets to become as massively dominating as Facebook had been allowed to become.

The full essay is at "Applying Anti-Trust Theory to Facebook"

For more on this topic, 

See the essay, "Facebook: A Distrustful Company."

See also the booklet, Taking the Face off Facebook

Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs in the White House: A Hidden Agenda?

Rex Tillerson, the U.S. Secretary of State fired by U.S. President Donald Trump and former CEO of Exxon, an international oil company based in the U.S., did not allow his difference with the president of tariffs on steel and aluminum to be a deal breaker. In this respect, the ex-CEO was not doing his company’s bidding. That is to say, he was not primarily in public service to serve the private interests of a multinational corporation. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of Gary Cohn, the ex-president of Goldman Sachs who quit as Trump’s chief economic advisor just after the tariffs were announced. Tariffs in general and especially to protect goods in another sector are not in the interests of a major American banks with substantial international business. If the former president of Goldman Sachs had taken the post in government to further Goldman’s interests, the question is whether public service is mere window-dressing at the highest levels of government—plutocracy being the real name of the game.

The full essay is at "Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs."

Decoupling Responsibility from Power: The Case of Transocean in the BP Disaster

With much power comes implicit responsibility. Hence, on February 21, 2011, the world recoiled when Gaddafi violently turned on his own people--using his power sans responsibility in a selfish attempt to stay in power. So too, the world had been shocked in April, 2010 when BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and that the Gulf itself was at risk. That a company could ruin something as big as the Gulf of Mexico came as a surprise to many. That a company, or three in this case, could have minimized such a risk by, for example, sending the U.S. Government contingency plans on Gulf clean up that included rescuing sea animals that actually live in the Artic, shocked the public just as much. How could people holding such power treat its use with such carelessness concerning any downside?  The defense of having followed company policy or having excuted business procedures pales in comparison with the societal demand that power, whether public or private, be handled responsibly.  In other words, people take it for granted that power is given to adults rather than to children.  I think we would be surprised how often this has not been the case.  The case of Transocean demonstrates this thesis.

The full essay is at "Power without Responsibility: BP and Transocean."

Russia's Putin Embraced BP

The Russian state-owned company, Rosneft, reached separate agreements in October 2012 to buy TNK-BP from BP and a group of Russian billionaires. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal represents “an acquisition that promises to reshape the Russian oil industry in favor of the state-owned company.” The Russian federal government was set to own or control nearly 50% of the Russian oil industry. Lest it be supposed that the legacy of inefficient state enterprise might compromise that industry in Russia, the state would have the benefit of literally sitting on the same board with representatives of the experienced oil producer from the private sector. By implication, the traditional dichotomy between public and private could be further blurred, such that the easy labels of “socialism” and “capitalism” may become less and less relevant or useful (except in the rhetoric of American presidential contests). Rosneft itself is a case in point of privateness and publicness coming together with a shared vocabulary or at least financial aim. Before addressing this point, I present the basics of the deal itself.

Robert Dudley, CEO of BP, talking with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin.   Source: Telegraph

The full essay is at "Russia's Putin Embraced BP."

U.S. Postal Service: Home Delivery Up Next?

After years of billion-dollar losses, the U.S. Postal Service announced in February 2013 that the “long-held tradition of Saturday delivery” would come to an end. Only packages would still be delivered on Saturdays. The Postal Service expected the change to save $2 billion a year. That even such a minor “tradition” would have had such staying power amid billions of dollars of losses supports the old adage, old habits die hard. It is as if even a minor change from a long-standing practice would throw us into chaos. Our tolerance for ending things that have been around seemingly forever is far too limited.

Moreover, the human aversion to changing long-standing customs or practices adversely narrows perception itself. For example, the much costlier, labor-intensive practice of delivering mail to homes was as though above critique. Particularly with many Americans paying their bills online, the “need” for mail delivery even five days a week to one’s house can alternatively be viewed as antiquated.  It is as if that practice had gone on as though without any thought on it itself.

                                               Is this highly labor-intensive custom really necessary?    source: zimbio

The door-to-door salesmen selling vacuums or Bibles had surely become a relic long after the film Paper Moon popularized the lifestyle. Why then have we held on to the notion that mail should be delivered to one’s apartment building or house? We go to stores to get food and medicine. Particularly with so many people paying bills online, is mail so much more vital than food or medicine that we couldn’t just as well stop by our local post office to pick up our mail a few times a week? At the very least, we would not be bothered by the anxiety of whether a threatening notice is waiting for us at home. Just as computer technology has enabled the automation of stored-book retrieval in a few academic libraries (e.g., the University of Chicago), the Postal Service could automate mail retrieval so millions of P.O. Boxes would not be necessary.

In short, we humans are not very good at “thinking outside the box” of current custom. Put another way, habits that have gone on seemingly forever have a habit of going on mindlessly. The U.S. Postal Service has suffered greatly from this particular human proclivity. Perhaps with a wider perspective other institutions can be found that are similarly suffering assumed demands to perpetuate practices that are no longer justified.

Source:

“U.S. Postal Service Right to End Era of Saturday Delivery: Poll,” The Huffington Post, February 9, 2013.

Fixing the Foreclosing Banks: A Hidden Conflict of Interest in Regulatory Compliance

After the financial crisis of 2008, regulators in the U.S. ordered banks to hire consultants to implement more than 130 “enforcement actions,” which represent 15% of the cases. In 2011 alone, regulators mandated that eleven banks hire consultants to determine whether mortgage borrowers had been wrongfully evicted. The consultants collected about $2 billion in fees, which amount to more than half of what homeowners were to receive under the $8.5 billion settlement that ended the consultants’ work. According to regulators, the consultants’ work was plagued with inefficiencies. This is probably the least of it, for virtually any expectations for “an industry that is paid billions of dollars by the same banks it is expected to police” are bound to be chimerical in nature.

The full essay is at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon.

Justice as Fairness: Writing Down Greek Debt

In 2012, 80% of Greece’s private creditors agreed to “voluntarily” convert their Greek debt into debt of a bit less than half the face-value (plus a lower interest rate). With such a proportion having agreed to the swap without triggering credit default swap insurance payouts, Greece could get the E.U. to agree to force the remaining 20% to involuntary write-downs. That would trigger the credit default swaps, at least in theory.

The full essay is at "Justice as Fairness: Greek Debt."

A Yale College Dean Functioning as a Government Official

A fraternity at Yale had its new members chat “no means yes”…meaning that if a woman says no, she means yes…in pledging during the Fall of 2010.  The dean of Yale College asked the college’s executive committee to look into the matter.  This seems to me to evince a penchant for bureaucracy for its own sake. 

The full essay is at "A Yale College Dean."

U.S. Senator Rand Paul on Civil Rights and the BP Explosion

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), was the Tea Party candidate who challenged the Republican establishment to win the party’s Senate nomination in Kentucky on May 18, 2010. A day later, he publicly criticized a plank of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, he said in an interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC television that he supported the sections of the Civil Rights Act that applied to public accommodations but had concerns when it came to its applicability to private business. He had raised similar concerns earlier in the day about the Americans with Disabilities Act in an interview on National Public Radio. Asked by Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.” In so answering, the new senator failed or refused to distinguish private property that is open to the public from private property, such as a person's home, that is not. 

The full essay is at "Civil Rights and the BP Explosion."