|
[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2914948]Good point, I hope people are more vigilant about actually checking the truth of certain assertions (especially ones that seem to good to be true) before believing uncritically. That will make a better world.
Do you not believe that weakening regulation has made it easier over the last thirty years to get a way with being a crooked con-artist for a longer period of time?[/QUOTE]
The whole concept of "regulations=good; or regulations=bad" becomes trivial when you start to realize that in some places we needed more regulation or needed the regulations we had to stay in place whereas in others regulations and protectionist barriers did stifle growth and hinder the ability of our companies to compete internationally. The whole debate, as is the case with every other issue, has been hijacked into being a black and white issue with Republicans screaming about "anti-growth" regulations and with Democrats whining about creating a more fair economy with "more regulations". If you listen to them long enough it becomes clear that they don't even listen to themselves when they talk or know anything about economics, because most politicians are lawyers rather than economists or businessmen before they become elected. That's not me hating on lawyers, it's just a deficiency in the system, our politicians know the laws of our country and how to twist them, but they don't know how the market works.
As for Maddoff and what de-regulation had to do with his scheme's viability I'm not sure either, but I'm sure some hack writer at [I]The Nation[/I] or [I]The Weekly Standard[/I] is working on a paper that will blame the whole thing on one political party or another. I know the guy basically made up fake companies and financial statements for his clients to invest in, so I'm not sure how much that has to do with any policy rather than people trusting an experienced Wall Street investor with their money without so much as a second guess.
|