Here’s the list of 10 things wrong with the economy. Read the article for details on each.
What’s the line from Battlestar Galactica (and Peter Pan, oddly enough): “All of this has happened before and will happen again.”
1. We are learning the wrong lessons from the last one.
2. No one has been punished.
3. The incentives remain crooked.
4. The referees are corrupt.
5. Stocks are skyrocketing again.
6. The derivatives time bomb is bigger than ever — and ticking away.
7. The ancient regime is in the saddle.
8. Ben Bernanke doesn’t understand his job.
9. We are levering up like crazy.
10. The real economy remains in the tank.
At this point, I’d trust the capuchin monkeys who were taught how to use money over any politician or government official of any party. At least they made no pretense about really caring about anything other than getting what they could for themselves and to hell with everyone else.
Haha, you ask me about my word games and then you insist there is a wall of a difference between deregulation and having them simply changed? If the government removes a regulation that is causing an inefficient market outcome, then the regulations governing that market have been changed; and by removing an existing regulation, they have also deregulated the market.
See how that works champ? Or are you still going to perform semantic gymnastics to validate your “obviously and universally true” position?
Hey Sea Lawyer–you are quite right. There is a wall of difference between deregulate and changing the regulations:
Observe the simple definitions of words:
Deregulate: Remove regulations or restrictions from
Change regulations: from:
Change: The act or instance of making or becoming different
Regulations: A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority
So, yeah–the dictionary tells us that in essence deregulation is the OPPOSITE of changing regulations.
But surely you don’t want to discuss the pyscholinguistics of your epistemological religo-pukeville issue of the day?
Let’s see if I can guess what has your motor running?…………you jumped on my use of the word at post #16: “Puke = defunding services to the people and deregulating societal oversight allowing for the greatest wealth inequality ever seen outside of Imperial Rome.” //// Hmmm—the repeal of Glas-Stegal was an act of deregulation ===regulations were removed. They weren’t changed as you misanthropically imply.
Its telling the amount of confusion you want to throw up in the air. Mislabeling the clear impact you wish to impose by calling it the opposite of what it is. Very puke of you to do. OH!!!! Truly, thats not fair. Very political of you to do.
Sorry.
Deregulation = Universally BAD.
Changing Regulation = Universally required as part and parcel of the always continuing process towards a better future.
Here’s a nice little example of deregulation for you bobbo:
Since the passage of Glass–Steagall, it has been unlawful for federal reserve member banks to pay interest on demand deposit (checking) accounts. This was done purely to eliminate a means of competition between banks. The eventual result was that the banks invented new types of accounts in the 70s (NOW and Money Market) to avoid the regulation.
Well, the Frank-Dodd act of 2010 finally repealed this great example of depression era regulation holdovers.
Oh crap. I meant to add/say:
“Hmmm—the repeal of Glas-Stegal was an act of deregulation ===regulations were removed, AND NOT REPLACED WITH ANYTHING CHANGED. A VACUUM WAS CREATED THAT GOT FILLED WITH AVARICE AND FRAUD. They weren’t changed as you misanthropically imply.”
Thereby emphasizing the importance of “eschewing” deregulation and always stressing the need for changed regulations.
Thank you Sea Lawyer for helping me to clarify my thoughts.
#23–Sea Lawyer==I don’t get your point at all.
What is your point?
If its that regulations must be constantly reviewed and improved as the situation develops and becomes known, then we agree.
If you think an area is RIPE and well known for fraudulent activities that regulations prohibiting same should be repealed—then we disagree.
What do you mean Sea Lawyer?
You are the one playing word games out of your own stubbornness bobbo. I’m simply pointing out that deregulation is an act of changing the set of regulations, which you keep wanting to ignore because it doesn’t suit your previous position.
Anytime the word deregulation is brought up, people like you scream and yell that it’s all just a bunch of robber barons wanting to rape America, especially when you know nothing of the particulars of why removing some poorly conceived, or no longer relevant regulations would be desirable.
Sea Lawyer. Ok. Totally serious mode: use of the term deregulation includes the concept of changing the regulations as well as removing regulations leaving a vacuum.
Review you own honest issues and you will see a sloppy use of the term deregulation when the more accurate term is really changing the regulations.
This word play has serious implications when nefarious interests want to take advantage of those ambiguities.
Language is also a continuous process. We can make both language and politics a more honest and more precise endeavor by choosing our words more carefully than we often do.
But it is all definitional. People should never argue about definitions. Merely state what definition they are using and then let the conversation proceed.
You mean to say: the gas industry made changes in the regulations that were needed. We both agree unless what they actually did was remove all the regulations. DAMN===its still definitional.
something about “lawyers” is niggling the back of my mind. Can’t quite put my finger on it.
Nonetheless–I think no honest person can cite many issue of regulation where they should all be removed with no replacements==that process more precisely being called changing the regulations, not deregulating the situation.
Glas Steagle remaining one of the very best examples of that. And the UNregulated debt swap industry being another. I guess some would aver the debt swap industry ticking away at the heart of the American Society is a form of free market regulation?
We think with words—the very stuff of reality perception.
Fair enough. Normally though, I think of de-regulation/re-regulation in terms of the significant net effect. If more was removed than was amended or added, then the market has been deregulated. In the opposite instance, (re)regulation has occurred. In all of these cases, the rules (regulations) have been changed, which is why I see no value on fixating on that word.
Psycholinguistics.
I dip into it as often as I can stand. Beyond a few introductory ideas, the language gets severely academically obtuse.
but understanding how words shape our perceptions is critical to understanding ourselves.
You may understand your use of the words as you say===but others are using the same words to different ends.
If an industry has 1000 regulations applied against it, and #767 is considered to be “very bad” and in a round of regulations changes #767 is replaced by regulations 1001 thru 1025, has that industry been deregulated?
Terms that are so ambiguous as to allow their opposite clear meaning should be avoided.
Your understanding above is completely a sliding scale based on individual values and assessments. Vague and ambiguous. My understanding and the clear dictionary meaning is more absolute based ((can’t think of the better word right now)) –meaning it starts at zero and counts up.
Words shape how we understand our universe.
Stay thirsty my friends.
Ha, ha. I almost hate to ask but as short version or link as you might have at hand==what was the gas issue and its resolution?
Well, to get back to your earlier mentioning of Glass-Steagall. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act is clearly something you are characterizing as deregulation, and yet that act wasn’t strictly a removing of regulations – it also added many as well. For example: the act introduced the requirement of financial institutions to provide privacy notices to their customers. So even your definition must be based on the relative net outcome, and not strictly that things were only removed. It has almost never been used to mean just that in any article or discussion I’ve ever read. Maybe by those who don’t know the details and are prone to hyperbole…
So even if the net outcome was that Gramm–Leach–Bliley deregulated the banking industry, which I’m perfectly fine with it being called that, at least it provides more information and a context that is absent from just saying things have changed.
We have a tendency to jump down ratholes, you and I.
Ha, ha. Seriously. Define rathole?
But I am thinking even while not posting.
Deregulate means to me to remove regulations that are needed to maintain safety/sanity all because someone got paid off to do it.
Of course, every instance stands/falls on its own merits…..and the solution among men of good will on finding a disagreement is to keep talking. Not to remove oneself into a protective shell of adamant dogma and political chanting repeated ad naseum. Eg–the current debt ceiling dispute.
If the Pukes think we are spending too much and that the rich keep the economy growing with jobs, jobs, jobs that on its own is a “position”===but all credibility (what little there was) has its pants dropped when the gutting of MediCare and Soc Security is used to fund the continued wealth transfer to the rich in the name of “saving it.”
A deregulation of common sense and what is clearly obvious if you will. Even while 70-80 per cent of voters clearly communicate they can tell shit from shinola. What does this indicate but pure Puke corruption: in the pocket of the Super rich.
The Dumbo’s and Pukes are not “exactly” the same. Silly to think/post as much==covers up/encourages all kinds of silliness and even: evil.
Yea, verily.
#30, Since you were interested:
Essentially the entire interstate ng pipeline and wholesale market had become vertically integrated and restricted from competition through the regulatory systems that developed over previous decades. Companies had to enter into long-term contracts at regulator fixed prices, which ended up being well above market prices. Consumers started finding alternative sources and many of the interstate pipelines (which had been protected but tightly controlled by federal regulators) nearly went bankrupt. The eventual restructuring involved gradually deregulating the heavily controlled, non-competitive system for a more market-driven one.
My summary is pretty lacking I’m sure, so here is a link to a paper discussing it:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19165619/WholesaleGas.pdf
Thanks SL. I’ll read the link later but your summary is sufficient for me to link back to what I said above: bad, lazy, inefficient, nanny state regulators certainly exist “BUT” in general they don’t have the active intent to defraud the public for their own personal fraudulent gain. The “free market/private competition” model may provide gains from time to time but they also open the enterprise up to massive society changing collapse.
Seems to me that lazy inefficient government regulation is “kind of” an insurance policy against rampant fraud. Like all insurance, its a waste of money until the insured against event occurs==and when dealing with regulatory schemes regarding pricing and distributions, those insured against events never arise making the insurance of inept regulatory schemes look even more inefficient/bad policy approach.
But are they?
I assume similar in approach is to look at the privatization of the water supply in South America? Yes, the government was so inefficient. But private market “efficiencies” have driven the cost of public water up beyond the ability of 25% of the poor public to even quench their thirst. Good overall policy – or not.
Case by case.
The outrage in Illinois (?–Ohio?) re selling the turnpikes to private enterprise with a guarantee of profit to be made for the next 100 years. Result: tolls going up by double digit increases and additional roads to ease the load not allowed.
Everything has its place. Short term vs Long Term. The purpose of Government is to provide a service. The purpose of business is to make money. Lots of cross purposes.
Thanks for the link. I’ll read it with interest.
“bad, lazy, inefficient, nanny state regulators certainly exist “BUT” in general they don’t have the active intent to defraud the public for their own personal fraudulent gain.”
Funny you mention that. There is actually an entire area within economics called Public Choice that analyses how public officials demonstrate self-interested behavior in how they respond to economic incentives.
I’d have to read the link more than 2-3 times to get its full import. My quick read reveals that the regulations were allowing the tyranny of a state/regulatory imposed monopoly and allowing price competition thru changing the regulations has proven to be a good thing.
Fair enough. The article uses the term changes to regulation more than it does deregulation but the industry was not deregulated in the board sense, only certain narrow regulations were removed/changed/deregulated.
Words.
#35–there is also the interesting case in California of some local government district passing rules that gave them millions in salary and retirement==all fraudulent and self dealing. They are being looked at for criminal prosecution as they should be but that government protection is a tough nut to crack.
It is interesting how they avoided the current regulatory scheme such as “No employee can be paid more than $10K per pay period.” so these scumbags made a rule that their pay period was every 4 days instead of every two weeks. Good stuff like that==all in closed session and depending on how it was reported–everything looking like it was on the up and up consistent with existing rules.
I wonder how many Pukes today would still not allow tax increases “if they knew” it would bankrupt America? You know: some values are just worth the pain. Do you think they are that dedicated to their mission? Saving America? How do you save America when you sacrifice 99% for the benefit of 1%.
Some things are just plain obvious.
And still we leave Sarbanes-Oxley in place. Aren’t we tracking the wrong crooks?
Talking about monkeys and #8 appeared. Here, monkey monkey.
#11 Gosh, I admire you. Spending all that time trying to put some sense on the biggest sheep of the blog. If you’re ever up for sainthood, you got my vote.
#17 Did you see the lastest rating for the Portuguese debt papers? Trash.
#38 We’re trying to get rid of the good people and the snitches.
This article is absolutely right.