don't get out much do you When the Savings N Loans were deregulated . . .alot of crap happened Energy deregulated. . the California Energy Crisis Happened Airlines Deregulated . .. I recall that strike issues According to Most the only thing that needs 'regulating' are unions but regulate a company and people want to act all offended QUESTION: Why is it ok to regulate workers [ie unions] but wrong to regulate companies? Rocket River
That's probably one of the most unsubstantiated and hyperbolic statements I've ever read. Seriously, if you're going to make a random criticism, at least offer evidence or an anecdote or something. A witticism, anything.
it wasn't my intent to simplify the issue... it's that i'm not totally familiar with it in all aspects yet. it does make sense that since we don't share or borrow from other state grids that it could impact the pricing...
That wasn't what I meant to communicate; poor wording on my part. But, it is more complicated than just looking at prices here and Minnesota and saying deregulation is costing us. It might be, but it is hard to isolate.
Regulation has to be improved if for no other reason than the remaining financial institutions will be much larger than before. If overnight borrowing rates continue to soar, there will not be a single independent investment bank left standing... and the super-mega-insurance/investment/thrift banks will ALL be too large to fail. They can't be allowed to make stupid decisions that again put the entire economy of the nation at risk.
total deregulation is probably what you'd find in somalia. that is, pretty much anarchy where the mightest just take and do whatever they want. Corporations could do anything and would. total regulation would probably what you would find in China...or even more extreme - watch the movie "Brazil". You have to find that sweet spot where you maximize growth while limiting risks. One thing is for sure - there's nothing wrong with oversight.
regulation is usually not a good thing, but after spending 100's of billions of dollars someone better pay. I mean these CEOs got a boatload of money the last few years. You can't have free markets one way and not the other.
I agree that it was probably the one of the only feasible options left on the table. The comment was also for Fannie shareholders that still get to keep the 20% of the company. I think if the company doesn't manage its risk enough then the shareholders need to get wiped out. REGARDING CEO Pay etc: I think there has been a lack of long-term accountability and an emphasis on short-term measures for years. I think fund managers and institutional holders of equities need to push the board of directors to negotiate better and allow long-term accountability for former exec. in the form of post-vesting periods etc. I've been involved in activist shareholders trying to clean up companies and quit wasting shareholder money. I think the market needs to recognize this and not regulation on this front.
I believe in government regulation when it is within the constitution and appropriate. I wouldn't be for widespread Fed regulation in anything that infringes on our rights under that document, like telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, as an obvious example, or the use of Federal blackmail to ride roughshod over state's rights, which occurs far too often. (want your highway money, which came from your own state coffers, which never comes back in the amount your state paid in taxes? Like Texas? Lower you speed limits or we won't give "your" money back to you to rebuild your roads, bridges, and infrastructure) In the economic sphere, I think regulation is vital, but should only be used to insure the American people aren't defrauded, raped, and pillaged by companies that deliberately misled their investors, or outright lied to them. That's where the Bush Administration and "pro-deregulation at any cost and damn the torpedos" (or bringing the national economy to its knees out of pure greed, if you don't see a submarine) was a mistake. Through most of his disastrous presidency, George W. Bush pushed deregulation. The GOP Congress in power during most of that time were hand in glove doing the dirty deed. Members like Phil Gramm (a key McCain advisor) and John McCain, before and during Bush's time in office, promoted the deregulation that has brought us to the edge of ruin and it remains to be seen whether we can survive this financial storm without becoming a basket case, worthy of our peices being picked up in a fire sale by the Europeans, the Indians, and the Chinese. Deregulation is similar to the other GOP fraud upon America. The Republican Party runs on cutting taxes and deregulation. The wealthy get the vast majority of the tax cuts, leading to massive, record budget deficits, and deregulation benefits big corporations and the wealthy... for a time. Just as with massive deficits, the GOP doesn't give a damn, as long as the price paid for the madness comes somewhere in the future. If they (their wealthy individual and corporate supporters that drive GOP party policy) can profit in the short-term, who cares about the future? Must be a bummer for the Republican establishment that the future arrived early. Just a real bummer. And the American people are finally beginning to catch on.
Just found this via Afraid To Trade. It's a good read. Written by an author from a liberal think-tank, and although he sounds a little bit too socialist-minded for my liking, he does make some good points about how we got here. We have dealt our capitalistic ideals a deadly blow by allowing markets to go unchecked, and failed to realize that "financial innovation" is a deadly two-edged sword. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles...s_of_deregulation_and_three_necessary_reforms
