Post by inevitec on Jun 18, 2011 7:02:25 GMT -8
Jun 18, 2011 6:16:51 GMT -8 @inevitec said:
That is a thought provoking post. I would say that the test of regulation is the effect (or lack of) it has in mitigating the excesses of business. To say that certain segments of the economy, and our lives, have been severely and negatively affected over the last four years by regulatory gaps is to acknowledge the truth.
The problem you have is that we now live such interconnected lives that we impact or are impacted others in complicated ways. There is , for a lack of a better way to say it, less elbow room for unfettered behavior. For example, the freedom to pour waste into the Mississippi River in 1840 is a far different thing than doing it in 2011.
The regulatory freedom conservatives want is necessarily offset by some negative impact of unfettered behavior. What kind of balance do you want? As the oil commercial says, you pay me now or you pay me later, but you will pay.
I cannot escape the notion that business is in business to increase owner's equity. Business does not act on my behalf, nor yours, unless you are an owner. Business is not created for the common good. Business is created to increase owner's equity. Business is not patriotic. Business is not altruistic. Letting the market place work as you say, sounds good, but in those places where it is allowed to do so with less structure, you get a great deal of collateral damage.
I believe that the current four year downturn was caused by the pendulum of regulation swinging too far towards trusting what by nature does not deserve trust (see Caveat Emptor). There are tens of millions of people who will no longer live the same lives because common sense regulation was thrown away over the last thirty years.
Finding a balance, to be sure, is difficult, but it is made necessary by the damage unfettered business activity has on the rest of us. Where private industry provides goods that impact our well being which also do not involve purely free market negotiations, such as health and finance you see large expenses with little or no corresponding utility for the economy.
Some entity with an interest in all of us must oversee business or any other entity with the ability to impact the lives of others. I do not trust business. And, there is no reason I should. If you want to live a live without some kind of regulation, you were born too late. Our systems are too complicated to be left to narrow interests. It is too dangerous for us to leave decisions to the market, when the market has only one purpose-increasing equity. Your faith in unregulated markets, in my opinion, is naive. It is naive and it is turning this country from widely prosperous to increasingly bifurcated.
Interesting and well written post. Can't help but see your slant and how you could be persuaded to think that way. In many ways it is just a matter of degree or method of regulation. The major part of my assets are tied up in investments and most of my income is from investment income from business. I therefore have a different interest than one who relies on wages or salary. I also have modest income from government pensions, so I can see all points of view.
Of course my post is slanted. I have a point of view. As you do. I have a good deal of money invested and private industry still engenders great mistrust. I think regulatory failure has reduced the size of my portfolio.
