major change

In the last post I mentioned massive sweeping change is better than constant little fixes. Ill put this into terms of something else that im interested in. Rules in racing. Every race series has rules to keep the cars fairly even and to keep the costs from spiralling out of control, also there are rules to slow the cars down when people feel that the cars are getting to fast for their own safety. Ill focus mostly on the slowing the cars rules because I think they'll fit my analogy the best. If you do the typical campaign reforms then this slows down the money momentarily. This is like the rule changes they do every year to keep the cars from being much faster than the previous year. These are minor changes they dont make the car slower so much as they limit how much quicker they'll be than the year before. Then everynow and then the cars just start getting rediculous and these minor changes just arent enough to keep things from getting out of control. This is when you change a major rule on them. A good example would be in the mid 80s when F1 cars were making 900 hp with 1.5 liter turbo motors, well they wanted to slow them so rather than some minor change they made them go to 3 liter NA V10's. this was a whole new ball game and so it took a long time before the NA motors became the 19,000 rpm 950hp beasts that they are today, at which time they are talking of going to 2.6L V8's to slow them again.
So my point is you need to make major changes from time to time to knock them back a bit, the companies will find another way to start funneling money into politicians and then we will do a series of band-aid fixes to slow the escalation of money and then we'll make big changes again. it could also be compared to an arms race but I like race cars not military so I chose mine. Its a battle between the will of those in the companies/at the race teams vs the rules. change the rules and the companies/teams will find away around them to get their results but it takes some time.