Hi David,

On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:43 PM, David R. Block <[email protected]> wrote:

> That does it. One 2 X 4 too many, this camel's back is broken. 
> 
> Why is EVERY comment I make with ANY criticism of regulation reacted to as 
> though I want to ABOLISH all regulation? What's with the all or nothing crap? 
> I'm insulted. Seriously. 

I apologize if i read something inappropriate into your post.   Can you tell me 
where I went wrong?  The article said:

> Romney’s response was to concede that capitalism requires regulation to 
> work, but to insist that the regulation cannot be excessive and burdensome, 
> or ultimately the consumer will be hurt.
> 
> This is an entirely unsatisfactory response.
> 
> 
and specifically:

> Regulations do not make markets safer, more efficient, or work better for 
> consumers in anything but a superficial sense. Regulation only provides 
> “confidence† and assurancethat only leads to crisis. Regulation does not 
> produce harmonization of markets or insurance for consumers.
> 
That sure sounds to me like the author of the article wants to eliminate all 
regulation.  Did I misunderstand the author? Or are you just saying you 
disagree with the article?

I agree regulatory failure is a *HUGE* problem.  But that's not what the 
article seems to be arguing -- it seems to be claiming regulation will 
*necessarily* fail..

-- Ernie P.


> 
> This has gone far beyond ridiculous and I'm sick of it. I'm glad that you 
> think the government is perfect and that the plethora of regulators and 
> regulations suits you just fine. Did you know that a farmer cannot sell milk 
> to his neighbors? He can only sell pasteurized and homogenized milk. However, 
> should he sell 20 % interest in the cow, he can give 20 % of the milk to the 
> neighbor without all of that. Does that make any sense to you? If it does, 
> then explain it to me. 
> 
> And the war on coal and, therefore, coal fired power generation plants. 
> Remember the EPA in the blackouts and brownouts as you sit in the dark. But 
> no, that's perfectly fine, no matter how many miners are put out of work in 
> one of the poorest regions in the country: Appalachia. 
> 
> The regulators are not saints, and the regulations are not Holy Writ. 
> 
> David
>   
> "When a thing defies physical law, there's usually politics involved."--P. J. 
> O’Rourke
> 
> On 12/13/2012 4:04 PM, Dr. Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:08 PM, David R. Block <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In this administration, it appears that the regulators are helping to put 
>>> the "crony" into "crony Capitalism." 
>> 
>> That's probably true, but what's the alternative?  No regulations 
>> whatsoever?  Eliminate the FDA and the public health department?
>> 
>> Regularly failure is as much of a problem as market failure, but neither is 
>> good argument for eliminating either regulations or markets.  Just for not 
>> putting too much faith in them (either in general or specifics).
>> 
>> Everything has tradeoffs; we just need to make them with our eyes wide open.
>> 
>> -- Ernie P.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
>> <[email protected]>
>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
>> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
> 
> 
> -- 
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
> <[email protected]>
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to