At 01:28 PM Monday 9/14/2009, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM, John Williams
<<mailto:jwilliams4...@gmail.com>jwilliams4...@gmail.com> 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.
Not that that hasn't been tried, too. :(
. . . ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
