On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM, John Williams <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > I think my view of regulation is less theoretical and idealized than > yours. I do not see regulation as behaving at all as the designers > expect. The systems involved are far too complex to be understood and > predicted. In most cases, regulation causes more problems than it > prevents. Here is an example of what I am talking about: This is the same old baloney about government policy causing these problems, which has been thoroughly debunked -- notice that even Forbes magazine takes it as a given that it was the lack of regulation, not bad regulation, that enabled the problems we're talking about. You haven't explained the astonishing coincidence that all this started after Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Are you going to claim that that bill instituted regulations? If so, you're crazy. It was *deregulation* that allowed derivatives trading to lose all touch with reality by erasing laws that had been in place for half a century to prevent this kind of gambling and theft. Your views are almost totally ideological - you take it as a given that government regulation is bad, as you've said right here. That's as ideological as it gets, especially since the only way you have ever managed to refute the mainstream thinking is by repeating the same ideology over and over and citing sources that are as biased as you are. And that doesn't make it true, so maybe it's time to stick a sock in it. The fact is that all this was enabled when Congress passed that bill, which was heavily supported by the financial industry. Arguing that Congress's mistake proves government is bad at regulation is like asking a court for mercy because you're an orphan after you murdered your parents. Nick
_______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
