There is a chance I learned something about control theory aboard the SS Bradford Island, the WWII vintage T2 tanker on which I had a summer job while in college. And, there’s a chance I didn’t. But I’ll go with the former.
It was an interesting summer, to say the least, and during my 3 month tour, I wore several uniforms. One was when I earned unheard of wages (for a college kid in the 1960’s) doing turns with the tank-cleaning squad; the other was for my primary role as waiter in the officers’ mess. You can sort out for yourselves how to match the photos with the jobs.
The Gulf of Mexico was a quite a tranquil place in the summer of 1968 and that made for smooth sailing – not a bad thing for someone who had to carry trays full of food and drink from the galley to the officers' dining room three times a day. But there was this one day. When the swells rose to the level of the bridge and the ship actually bobbed and rolled. My first trip of the morning demonstrated I was neither in control of the tray nor the water in the glasses I was carrying. I was dreading the next trip when I’d have orange juice and coffee. But one of the veterans stepped in and gave me this advice: “Do not look at the tray as you are carrying it.” It worked!
Being the curious sort, I wondered how that could be. Several years later, and with some more education and work experience under my belt, what came to me was that looking at the tray allowed me to see the water sloshing around, first to the left of the glass, then to the right. My mind would step in to give instructions: "Quick! Tilt the tray to the RIGHT! Now to the LEFT! STOP moving it!" But the control system was not good enough. It took too long to see the issue, process it, come up with a plan, and send the instructions. And the response system wasn’t so good either, tilting too far, or too fast, or not fast enough. All in all, trying to react to the sight of the impending disaster actually hastened it.
All of this leads to, as I am sure you have anticipated, two editorials in the October 27 edition of Wall Street Journal. Each with its own story of good intentions and unintended consequences. One about dishwashers [1] and the other about "protecting Congolese citizens from warlords ..." [2].
In the first case, the authors report, "Regulations on energy and water usage—tightened in 2013 ... mean that dishwashers now take at least two hours to complete a full wash cycle. Dishes may still emerge with pieces of last night’s lasagna baked on.” The regulation was intended to reduce water and energy consumption. But, "People responded to poor dishwasher performance by pre-rinsing each dish before putting it through their washers, wasting more water, or running their dishwashers twice, wasting water and energy."
In the case of the Congolese miners, the issue started when, according to the editorial’s authors, a "last-minute provision (was) inserted into the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul in 2010. That law's Section 1502 forces manufacturers to disclose if any of their products contain 'conflict minerals' mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and nine adjoining countries in Africa." They go on to explain that "Under the law, companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges must audit their supply chains and disclose if their products contain even traces of the designated minerals—gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten—that might have been mined in areas controlled by warlords."
How did the citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo benefit? The authors explain, "... the effects of the conflict-minerals mandate proved to be devastating for those it aimed to help ... manufacturers spent about $709 million and more than six million man-hours attempting to trace their supply chains for conflict minerals in 2014. And 90% of those companies still couldn't confirm their products were conflict-free. Many decided to avoid the Congo region altogether and source materials from other countries and continents. When mining dropped off ... villages were hit by reductions in education, health care and food supply. In 2014, 70 activists, academics, and government officials signed a letter blasting initiatives like the Dodd-Frank provision for ‘contributing to, rather than alleviating, the very conflicts they set out to address.' Any lasting effects? The article points out that "... targeting 'conflict materials' has shrunk the medical supply chain for components of everything from ventilators to vaccine needles and syringes." Imagine why that's an issue now.
Regulators are going to regulate. But once the important, high level issues are addressed, maybe it would be best if they stopped. A law, perhaps, like the First Law of Holes: When you are in in one, stop digging.
When the regulation becomes a mandated, step-by-step, process covering actions from the supplier, manufacturer, and end user with the implied assumption that each incremental action will seamlessly mesh with all of the others to produce the intended results, you might, instead, find yourself carrying a tray of empty glasses across a wet floor.
[1] A Rule for Cleaner Dishes, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board; WSJ Opinion Section, October 27, 2020.
[2] Dodd-Frank Undermines the Fight Against Covid, John Berlau and Seth Carter; WSJ Opinion Section, October 27, 2020.
